SECTION_M_MNS_NCAS_COL_HELM.docx

SECTION M

VALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 BASIS FOR FIRM FIXED PRICE AWARD

(a) The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the four (4) evaluation factors. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below. The Government intends to determine best value by conducting a trade-off analysis of Price and Non-Price factors with respect to the relative order of importance described in paragraph M.3.

(b) The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor I – MISSION CAPABILITY Factor II - PAST PERFORMANCE

(c) To receive consideration for award, an offer must receive no less than an “Acceptable” rating for the Mission Capability Factor.

(d) Offerors are cautioned that an award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offeror; or, if non-price factors are evaluated as comparatively equal between two or more offerors, price may become a determinative factor.

(e) Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each factor as it applies to the Statement Of Objectives (SOO). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph M.4. of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

M.2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

(a) The Source Selection Team (SST) will conduct an evaluation of all proposals.

(b) A price analysis will be conducted comparing the prices proposed by the offerrors only after other Factors are evaluated.

(c) The Government intends to award the contract to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the following factors:

Factor I – MISSION CAPABILITY Factor II – PAST PERFORMANCE Factor III – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION Factor IV - PRICE

(d) The contracting officer will conduct a separate tradeoff analysis using the ratings established by the process at M.2(a) and the price analysis at M.2(b) in order to determine contract awardee.

M.3 FACTORS AND THEIR RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

(a) RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE TERMINOLOGY. An evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria set forth below. Evaluation criteria consist of factors. In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the significance assigned by the Government, the factors are assigned a relative order of importance. The following terminology is used:

(1) Significantly More Important. The factor is substantially more important than another factor. The factor is given far more consideration than another factor.

(2) More Important. The factor is greater in value than another factor, but not as much as a significantly more important factor. The factor is given more consideration than another factor.

(3) Equal. The factor is the same in value as another factor.

(b) RELATIVE ORDER OF IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS.

(1) Factor Order of Importance

a) The Mission Capability Factor is More Important than the Past Performance Factor.

b) The Mission Capability Factor is Significantly More Important than the Small Business Participation Factor.

c) The Past Performance Factor is More Important than the Small Business Participation Factor.

d) The Past Performance Factor and Small Business Participation Factor are each More Important than the Price Factor.

e) All non-Price evaluation factors, when combined, are More Important than the Price Factor.

M.4 EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

1) Mission Capability The Government will evaluate the proposed review of the technical approach within the proposal, including, but not limited to the following elements: overall capability of proposed team, risk assessment of the Representative tasks – ANG Support Tasks proposed for the Technical solution, overall business approach, and compliance with DoD IA standards.

In order to provide the offeror with an understanding of the value assigned by the Government, the criteria is being included below. The evaluation methodology to be used is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating. A single rating for the Mission Capability Factor will be assigned which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. From the single ratings, an overall Mission Capability Factor rating will be determined.

The following adjectival rating scale will be used to evaluate Factor I – Mission Capability and Factor III – Small Business Participation.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

M.5.2 FACTOR II - PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the SOO.

The Government will provide a past performance confidence assessment based on the recency and relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance, as well as that of its major subcontractors, if applicable. The source of information regarding past performance, the context of the data, and general trends in performance may also be considered. The Government will focus its inquiry on the quality of the Offeror’s past performance for any recent and relevant efforts by determining how well the contractor performed on those contracts.

The Government will use the adjectival ratings below to assess the relevancy of each contract reference:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

After reviewing all recent and relevant past performance references, assessing the Offeror’s quality of performance under those references, and considering all other sources of past performance data, the Government will use the adjectival ratings below to provide an overall past performance confidence assessment rating:

Performance Confidence Assessments

M.5.3 FACTOR III - SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

All offerors will be evaluated on the level of small business commitment demonstrated for the proposed acquisition, and their level of commitment to utilizing small businesses in performance of prior contracts. The following shall demonstrate evidence of small business participation:

a) The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals;

b) The extent of commitment to use such firms (signed commitments will be weighted more heavily);

c) The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform;

d) The realism of the proposal;

e) Past performance of the offeror in complying with the requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns;

f) The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition to include SDB dollars by NAICS code deemed applicable by the offeror;

g) The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed participation percentages, or lack thereof. The minimum goals for this procurement (Prime + subcontractor) are a percentage of the total contract value listed.

Small Disadvantaged Business: 10.5%, Hub-Zone: 3.5%, Women Owned Small Business: 5%, Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3.25%, Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions 0% Veteran Owned Small Business: 5 % (NOTE: Because SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, and VOSB are sub-categories of small business, a firm can be counted in more than one category. For example, if a participation plan reflects 5% of the contract value for a Woman-Owned Small Business, the WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal).

M.5.5 FACTOR IV - PRICE

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s Total Contract Life Price (TCLP) to include the price for the base period, each option period, if applicable, and the 52.217-8 period if used after all 52.217-9 options have been exercised (1/2 of the total of the final year), if applicable. The Total Contract Life Price will be evaluated for completeness, accuracy, reasonableness and realism, using the techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). A determination will be made as to whether the Offerors have completed all aspects of the price proposal properly and whether the amounts listed in the price proposal are calculated accurately. No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Price.

1) The RFP requires firm-fixed-prices contract line items. A price reasonableness approach will be utilized by the Government to determine that the proposed prices offered are fair and reasonable and that a “buy-in” or unbalanced pricing between CLINs or Option Periods is not occurring. In evaluating price reasonableness, other than cost and pricing data, may be requested and utilized if the Contracting Officer cannot determine reasonableness through initially submitted pricing information. Indications of potential underbidding or unbalanced pricing will be reflected in the cost/pricing report and may impact the ratings for non-price factors as such indications may be determined to indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement.

2) The Government will examine price proposals for artificially low unit prices. Offers found to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low (an indication of “buy –in”), or unbalanced, may be considered unacceptable and may be rejected on that basis.

3) Evaluation of Options. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced.

M.6 AWARD

Until a formal notice of award is issued, no communication by the Government, either written or oral, shall be interpreted as a promise that an award will be made. No cost chargeable to the prospective contract can be incurred before receipt of a fully executed contract or other specific written authorization from the Contracting Officer.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE