A07_-_Attach_8_Addendum_to_FAR_52_212-2_EVALUATION_FACTORS_FOR_AWARD_Amend_0001.docx

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government anticipates awarding one contract as a result of this Request for Proposal (RFP), based on the results of a Government evaluation of proposals in accordance with this section. However, the Government reserves the right to not award any contracts in the event that no proposals are considered to be in the best interest of the Government. Contract award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors (listed in order of Importance): Qualifying Criteria (Go-No-Go Factor), Transition Plan, Key Personnel, Management Plan, Past Performance, Price. To receive consideration for award, overall evaluations of not less than "Acceptable" must be achieved in all Factors. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost/price offered. ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS WHEN COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

NOTE: THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD A CONTRACT BASED ON INITIAL SUBMISSIONS, WITHOUT EXCHANGES AND/OR DISCUSSIONS.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation Factors are as follows:

Factor 1 - Qualifying Criteria Factor 2 – Transition Plan Factor 3 – Key Personnel Factor 4 – Management Plan Factor 5 – Past Performance Factor 6 - Price

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror adequately understands the requirement which is expected to meet all requirements of the PWS.

2.1. Factor 1. Qualifying Criteria. Go-No-Go

Qualifying Criteria – Go-No Go Information submitted for the Qualification Criteria will be evaluated to determine if the offeror meets the definitions below in order to be considered.

If the Offeror fails Facility clearance verification of the Qualifying Criteria, they will “Fail” To Qualify (i.e., be determined ineligible for award as a Deficiency), and its proposal will not be evaluated further.

Qualifying Criteria:

Facility Clearance at the Top Secret Level

2.2 Factor 2. Transition Plan

The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s plan to execute a realistic, organized, seamless and timely contract phase-in to transition the contract while minimizing impacts. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the required timelines for transition, while minimizing degradation in services. The Government will evaluate the plan to ensure that it demonstrates a strong understanding of the unique work culture of PMSP and the types of employees required to fulfill their mission.

STANDARD: The transition plan is reasonable considering time, security considerations, and operational requirements. The Offeror has developed feasible plans to address contingency situations to include a reasonable backfill plan. The standard is met when the Offeror can meet the transition schedule; to include the required FTEs, Attachment 7, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 7.2.1, Transition Plan table 1 and 2, at contract award with minimal risk after award and within the required timeframe. The extent to which the Offeror's plan provides a detailed approach that accomplishes the Government’s transition schedule by describing its plan to recruit, manage and transition the requirement from the incumbent vendor to the successful Offeror. The Offeror has submitted a graphical timeline depicting the proposed transition schedule. The schedule is consistent with the narrative describing a complete transition as required by Attachment 7, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors, paragraph 7.2.1, Transition Plan. The Offeror has provided resumes and Contingency Hiring letters for all of the personnel depicted in Table 1 and 2 of paragraph 7.2.1 of Attachment 7.

2.3 Factor 3. Key Personnel

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Key Personnel to include resumes demonstrate the appropriate qualifications, certifications, education, years of experience, and support within SOF Intelligence Communities, Government Intelligence Agencies, Conventional Forces.

STANDARD: Majority of Key Personnel meet all of the required and some of the desired qualifications, the required education within the stated fields of study as stated in the PWS, some of the certifications required, and some experience is in support to SOF communities and/or Government Intelligence Agencies.

2.4 Factor 4. Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s outlined plans describe recruitment, development, training, and retention of qualified personnel to include current infrastructure/procedures in place to support continuous employee subject matter expertise, a training pipeline for personnel, team building activities, and processes for continuous education, accreditation & certification plans for personnel.

STANDARD:

The management plan addresses standards and practices required of the support services to be provided. The proposal adequately addresses training, recruitment and retention to include maintaining staffing at continuous 90% fill.

2.5 Factor 5. Past Performance

The Past Performance Factor will first evaluate the Offeror's past performance information to determine the relevancy of recent efforts (defined as within 3 years) accomplished by the Offeror. Then, the Government will determine how well the Offeror performed on the contracts. Based on the relevancy of the contracts reviewed and the evaluation of the Offeror's performance on those contracts, the Government will assign each Offeror one overall past performance confidence assessment rating. The Government will use Offeror’s Past Performance Questionnaire(s) submitted to the Government by the Offeror’s Reference(s), as well as other information that is available to the Government, such as Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Offeror is responsible for ensuring Reference Questionnaires are received within the stated timeline. Failure to receive this data from References will neither impact past performance evaluation positively nor negatively – it will be deemed neutral. This Factor has a quantifiable basis for any trade-off consideration by the Government as there is a willingness to pay up to a 15% premium in evaluated price for an Offeror that, with all other Factors being rated equally to another Offeror, has demonstrated the highest rated proposal with respect to their ability to provide or fill positions with appropriately qualified personnel pursuant to Attachment B, PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE FORM, Part II, Questions G, H and I combined, each of which is equal in importance.

2.6 Factor 6. Price

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. All elements of the price proposal will be evaluated. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of Offerors’ total overall evaluated prices. The total overall evaluated price consists of the Offeror’s loaded hourly labor rates proposed in Tab B of Attachment A to Section L (PMSP Labor Rate Pricing Model) and a Government estimated Travel and ODC amount, to include all years for the entire task order performance/ordering period. The total overall evaluated price is a calculation of the full time equivalent work year (defined as 1920 hours) for each labor category to determine price reasonableness (to include the Governments estimate of Travel and ODC costs), and has no relation to the $47.5M contract ceiling.

Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include, but not limited to the following: comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items; comparison with competitive market prices of similar indexes; GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes; or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government estimate.

There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The Offeror’s price proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly greater than the proposed rates for other labor categories. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between pricing periods or the proposed price increases from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Offers that are determined unbalanced may be rejected without evaluation of the non-price factors.

3. RATING METHOD

3.1 Factor 1. Qualifying Criteria Ratings

3.2 Factors 2 through 4. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings.

Description

3.3 Factor 5. Past Performance Ratings.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, that Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

3.4 Factor 6. Price Ratings

The Price will be evaluated but will not receive a color/adjectival rating.