Section_M_6_Feb_2018.docx

Section M. Evaluation Factors for Award All proposals shall be evaluated by a team of Government employees. Any participating members will be required to sign and submit a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA).

Factor I – Past Performance: Offerors shall submit a list of three Government contracts (prime and/or major sub-contracts) which are currently in performance or were awarded during the past five (5) years, and are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation. Previous CPARS ratings and questionnaires will also be used in the proposal evaluations. In order to be eligible for consideration for an award, a rating of no less than “RELEVANT” and an assessment of “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor. Offerors with no past performance available, Offerors will be given a “NEUTRAL” confidence rating and are still eligible for an award.

This volume shall be organized into the following sections:

· Section I - Contract Descriptions: This section shall provide basic details (e.g., contract number, point of contact information, awarded price, delivery schedule, etc.) about each contract being submitted for past performance evaluation.

· Section II - Performance: This section shall provide a narrative explanation of each contract being submitted for past performance evaluation, describing the objectives achieved and detailing how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. A brief explanation of the reason(s) for shortcomings and any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence is required for any contracts that did not meet original schedule and/or technical performance requirements or received a Cure Notice or Show Cause Letter. Also, if the contracts were terminated, an explanation must be provided describing the type and reason(s) for termination.

· Section III - Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire: For all contracts identified in Section I, Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires must be completed and submitted.

Factor I - Past Performance Ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Factor II – Technical/Management: A Performance Work Statement (PWS) will be provided that outlines the JPEO-CBD Enterprise’s organizational structure and mission, as well as the general definitions and overarching responsibilities for each labor category under the contract’s construct. Offerors will provide a narrative proposal response to the PWS. Within the Technical/Management, a rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for the Technical/ Management Factor.

Factor II - Technical/Management Ratings:

Factor III - Price: At the MA IDIQ contract level, a Microsoft Excel template will be provided for offerors to populate with the direct hourly labor rate and the fully-burdened (FFP) labor rate for each labor category applicable to the contract being proposed. To be found responsive, an offeror must complete the spreadsheet for each labor category.

Offerors’ rates will be compared with IGCE rates, as well as market rates and other historical information. Proposed prices are ceiling prices, not basement prices, for future Task Order price proposals.

B. Basis for Award The Government intends to award contracts to the Offeror(s) whose proposal represents the Best Value to the Government. Best Value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. For JE-OPETS, the Best Value with Tradeoffs approach will be used. Award will be made to other than the lowest priced proposal(s) if the Government determines that paying a price premium for the higher rated proposal is warranted. The Government may also award to other than the highest rated technical proposal, if the Government determines that paying a price premium is not warranted.

A rating of no less than “RELEVANT” and an assessment of “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor in order to be considered eligible for award. A rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for the Technical/Management Factor in order to be considered eligible for award. Although the Price factor will be evaluated, it will not be rated. Offerors’ proposed price must be found to be fair and reasonable.

C. Planned Number of Awards The intended award methodology is to award at least three contracts in response to this solicitation. However, award to more than three, less than three, or none is reserved.

D. Order of Importance The evaluation factors for this effort are 1- PAST PERFORMANCE; 2-TECHNICAL/MANAGEMENT; 3 – PRICE, and; 4- SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPTION PLAN. Past Performance is more important than Technical/Management. Technical/Management is more important than Price and Price is more important than Small Business Participation Plan. Non-price factors of Past Performance and Technical/Management, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. The Small Business Participation Plan Factor (Factor IV) will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

E. Evaluation Approach The Government will evaluate proposals to determine compliance with all requirements of the solicitation, including any attachments. The Government will evaluate each proposal response strictly IAW its contents.

The Government will evaluate all proposals in accordance with FAR 15.305(a), and if discussions are to be conducted, will then establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, based upon the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors. The decision to establish a competitive range will be made at the sole discretion of the KO, with concurrence by the Source Selection Authority.

After evaluating all proposals in accordance with FAR 15.305(a), the KO may also determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which efficient competition can be conducted. Offerors are therefore advised that the KO, for purposes of efficiency, may also limit the number of competitive range offerors, at his/her sole discretion.

1. Volume A - Administrative will not be evaluated. The clarification of any data provided within the Administrative volume shall not be considered as reopening of negotiations closed by a Final Proposal Revision.

2. Volume I - Factor I Past Performance will be evaluated as to whether the Offerors proposal meets/does not meet requirements for submittal as specified in Section “L” Volume B. STANDARD: The Offeror describes an approach for achieving its proposed SB participation and subcontracting goals. The approach describes the commitment and nature of the work relative to the PWS that SB firms are anticipated to perform.

3. The Past Performance Factor evaluation will assess an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by its record of past performance. The Government will conduct a past performance assessment based on the quality, relevancy, and recency of the Offeror’s past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractor(s), as it relates to the probability of successful accomplishment of the required effort. When assessing past performance relevancy and a confidence level, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the Offeror and its proposed major subcontractor(s) as it relates to all solicitation requirements.

Offerors are cautioned that in conducting the Past Performance assessment, the Government may use data provided in the Offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources. Previous Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) ratings and questionnaires may be used in the proposal evaluations. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the Offerors, it is incumbent upon the Offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving relevancy and a high confidence level in the Past Performance factor rests with the Offeror.

In order to be eligible for consideration for an award, a rating of no less than “RELEVANT” and an assessment of “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” must be achieved for the Past Performance Factor. However, IAW FAR 15.305(2) (iv), without a record of relevant past performance, or for Offerors with no past performance available, Offerors will be given a “NEUTRAL” confidence rating and are still eligible for an award.

STANDARD: The Offeror provided all requested information listed in Section L applicable to the Past Performance Factor. For each contract provided, the Offeror demonstrates past performance which:

a. Quality:

· Conformed to contract specifications

· Maintained program execution for cost (if other than an FP type contract), schedule, and performance

· Demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively

· Demonstrates the Offeror’s professional concern for the interest of the customer

· Demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to establish and maintain adequate management of subcontractors For any contract(s) that did not/do not satisfy the Quality requirements above, the Offeror adequately explained the reason(s) for the shortcomings, any corrective action(s) taken to avoid recurrence, and whether or not the contract(s) were terminated.

b. Relevancy: Is relevant to this solicitation. Relevancy includes, but is not limited to, the contract’s similarity in Contract Type, Price, Delivery Schedule/Period of Performance, Requiring Office/Program, Support Location, and Objectives Achieved to the support required by this solicitation.

c. Recency: Took place within the last five (5) years.

3. Technical/Management Factor The Technical/Management Factor evaluation will assess an Offeror’s likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by its proposed response to this solicitation. The Government will conduct a technical assessment based on the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposal to satisfy the Sub-factor requirements listed below.

A rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for the Technical/Management Factor and its Sub-factors in order to be considered eligible for award. Within the Technical/Management Factor, all Sub-factors are equally important. The ratings for the Sub-factors will be rolled up into a single rating for the overall Factor rating.

a. Section 1: Organizational Plan The Government will evaluate the proposed organizational plan to assess the roles, relationships, responsibilities, and communication strategies at each level of the Offeror’s management structure.

STANDARD: The Offeror identifies an organizational plan that clearly:

· Outlines and explains its management organization.

· Defines the intended management dynamics, to include the Site Supervisor’s level of authority.

· Identifies Key Corporate Personnel.

· Explains the planned procedures for communicating and exchanging information.

· Describes how major subcontractors fit into the overall corporate structure.

b. Section 2: Recruitment Competency The Government will evaluate the proposed recruitment approach to assess the effectiveness of the Offeror's plan to identify and select a qualified workforce.

STANDARD: The Offeror provides an approach for recruitment which:

· Describes new hire selection and approach to maintain incumbent support, as well as a plan to retain contingent hires until the start of work.

· Highlights the resources and/or capabilities to be used to meet requirements on or before the start of work date.

· Includes an approach to ensure that employee qualifications are at an acceptable level to achieve requirements.

c. Section 3: Transition Approach The Government will evaluate the proposed transition approach to assess the Offeror’s capability to effectively prepare for and execute start of work (to include from existing contracts) and then turnover resources at the conclusion of the period of performance.

STANDARD: The Offeror describes a transition approach which:

· Demonstrates a functional, comprehensive plan to transition and exit personnel and resources at both the start of work and at contract completion.

· Includes detailed master schedules for transition in and out of work.

d. Section 4: Management of Resources The Government will evaluate the effectiveness of the Offeror’s proposed approach to manage and retain the required level of support, accomplishing an acceptable level of quality, and resolving any disruptions in support or performance issues in order to retain an adequate level of support.

STANDARD: The Offeror explains an approach for Task Order management which:

· Addresses management of both on- and off-site personnel.

· Describes the quality management intended throughout Task Order performance, including the metrics planned to ensure compliance.

· Includes an approach to retain support throughout the period of performance, as well as mitigation plans to achieve continued support in cases where additional support is required, support is disrupted, or performance is lacking. The Government will evaluate the level of small business commitments proposed by the Offeror.

4. Price Factor In evaluating offers, the Government will perform a price analysis based on adequate price competition, the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE), GSA schedules, audit information, and other data available. The Government will evaluate both the proposed hourly labor rates and fully-burdened rates submitted by each Offeror. Submission of incomplete Pricing Worksheets will constitute the Offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and will render the proposal ineligible for award. The Government will perform a price analysis based upon an evaluation of the proposed separate price elements.

The Government may use various price analysis techniques to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more fully burdened labor rate(s) is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

STANDARD: The Offeror provides a Pricing Worksheet, completed in accordance with the solicitation, providing direct labor rates and fully-burdened rates for each labor category applicable to the contract at all levels. The Offeror proposes a fair and reasonable price proposal

5. Small Business Participation Factor In evaluating offers, the Government will evaluate the Offerors approach and commitment to achieving small business participation. The SBPP shall indicate the Offeror’s approach to provide “realistic small business participation goals,” while maximizing opportunities for Small Business (SB). To facilitate consistent evaluation across all proposals, Offerors shall assume a Task Order award of the contract dollar value as the Offeror proposes as Price for the Sample Task Order (see Factor III- Price).

Offeror’s SB participation plan (i.e., the socio-economic categories anticipated to be utilized) will summarize the Offeror’s SBPP percentage and dollar values (i.e., goals). Socio-economic categories to be utilized are:

· Small Disadvantaged Business;

· Women-Owned Small Business;

· HUBZone Small Business, and;

· Veteran Owned Small Business, and;

· Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business.

The SBPP dollar and percentage goals are calculated based on the total dollars allocated to each socioeconomic category divided by total evaluated price of the sample task order (Factor III Price).

For each selected SB firm, the SBPP shall specifically provide:

· An explanation of the firm’s commitment, including the extent of the commitment and whether or not the commitment is enforceable (i.e., teaming agreement(s) etc.).

· Clear identification and description of the complexity and variety of work that each SB firm is anticipated to perform.

· Provide Small Business Past Performance information substantiating the offeror’s track record of utilizing Small Businesses on past contracts, including copies of Cumulative Contractor Fiscal Year Summary Subcontracting Reports (SSR), if applicable.

· Provide any information concerning past or present (ongoing) long‐term relationships with Small Business subcontractors, such as signed, mentor‐protégé relationships, may be provided.

STANDARD: The Small Business Participation Plan Factor (Factor IV) will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.