AFMSSectionMTC29Sep.docx

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

This is a best value (tradeoff) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of four (4) evaluation factors: Technical Capability, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Price. The Technical Capability factor is Significantly More Important than the Past Performance factor. Within Factor 1 (Technical Capability) Sub-factor a – (Technical Approach), Sub-factor b – (Sample Task), and Sub-factor c – (Key Personnel) are Approximately Equal. The Past Performance factor is Significantly More Important than the Small Business Participation Factor. The Small Business Participation factor is Significantly More Important than the Price factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all the Technical Capability factor (to include all sub-factors). All non-price factors combined are Significantly More Important than price.

As a basis for award, trade-offs between price and non-price factors are permitted. THEREFORE, THE GOVERNMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO AWARD TO OTHER THAN THE LOWEST PROPOSED PRICE. However, the degree of importance of price as a factor in determining award could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals evaluated in the non-price factors. The greater the equality of proposals within the non-cost factors, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value to the Government. The Government will evaluate proposed prices for reasonableness using cost and/or price analysis techniques. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: 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.

Factor 1: Technical Capability. The Technical Capability factor is further divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor a, Sub-factor b, and Sub-factor c are approximately equal.

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

Factor 2: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and a confidence assessment will be made.

Factor 3. Small Business Participation: The Government will consider the extent of participation of the small business concerns for this acquisition.

Factor 4: Price: The techniques and procedures described under FAR Part 15.404-1 will be used to evaluate price reasonableness.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

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.

2. The Technical Capability factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor a: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Technical Approach for the basic contract period and all option years. Marginal levels of overall understanding of the requirement indicates a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s:

1. Understanding of the work to be performed for the following Performance Work Statement (PWS) functional areas: Academic Support; Non-Core Course Support; Administrative, Logistics, Facility Management, Publication, OPSEC, and Safety and Environmental support; Educational Technology and Blackboard Administration support; Course Development support; Exportable Training support; Army Senior Executive Education Program support and Army Logistics Planning support.

Sub-factor b: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Sample Task response. The sample task is as follows: Develop a five-day Force Management Instructor / Facilitator Certification Course that has the capability of deploying to larger groups. This course will provide non-Force Management professionals who are appointed to instruct Force Management topics/subjects within their institutions the required information for delivery to Soldiers and/or Civilians attending Department of Defense institutions. Your audience will consist of instructors from the U.S Sergeants Major Academy, the Command and General Staff College and their satellite campuses, and the Western Hemisphere Institution for Security Cooperation.

Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has proposed a lesson plan that meets TRADOC accreditation standards.

1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed lesson plan and assessment demonstrates a complete understanding of the requirement.Program of Instruction (POI), the POI narrative, story boards, and lesson plans. The POI should reflect the lessons necessary to effectively train students selected to attend the course.

1. The Government will evaluate the submitted sample documents to determine how well the Offeror can execute the required tasks.

1.

1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror has proposed a course that meets TRADOC accreditation standards.

Sub-factor c: This sub-factor evaluates the offeror’s Key Personnel. The evaluation will focus on the offeror’s:

The Offeror shall submit a Commitment letter with resume for key personnel as identified in paragraph 1.5.15 of the PWS. Resumes must be clearly written and specifically state qualifications as related to this solicitation. These candidates must meet posted education and experience levels as outlined within the PWS. The proposal shall include a matrix of the company’s proposed personnel mapped to the appropriate PWS tasking that supports the proposed labor category and level. Offeror must provide a narrative describing the qualifications/experience of their key personnel in addition to submitted resumes. The Offeror shall submit a project staffing plan, which includes recruitment, retention, placement and exchangeable skill-sets, estimated hours, labor rates and qualifications of the proposed personnel and the ability of the overall project team to adequately minimize risk and successfully complete the requirements of the PWS.

The following key personnel willth be evaluated under this factor: Dean of Academics, Dean of Administration and Technological Support, Department Chairs, ASEE & PDP Program Manager, Director of Training Development, Instructional Systems Designer and Registrar. The Government will evaluate the resumes of key personnel to determine the extent they demonstrate experience with the PWS tasks, and meet or exceed the minimum qualifications stated in the solicitation. The Government will also evaluate an Offeror’s narrative describing the education and experience of its key personnel in addition to the submitted resumes.the offerors’ Key Personnel project staffing plan to determine the extent to which it minimizes risk to the Government.

In order to provide the Offeror with an understanding of the value assigned by the Government, the criteria are being included below. The evaluation methodology to be used is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating. A single rating for each Technical Capability Sub-Factor will be assigned. From those single ratings, an overall Technical Capability Factor rating will be determined.

The Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements. This rating scale will be used to evaluate Factor 1 – Technical Capability (and its sub-Factors), and Factor 4 – Small Business Participation.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

2. Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 611430. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

b. Offerors shall submit three (3) Government contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

c. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

1. RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

1. QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The evaluation team will assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

1. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

Performance Confidence Assessments

3. Small Business Participation Factor. All offerors (both large and small businesses) will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of small businesses in the performance of acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and goals established herein. The government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, (small business, small disadvantaged business, woman-owned small business, HUBZone small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business) are specifically identified.

b.The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments, such as teaming agreements are to be considered more heavily than non-enforceable ones).

c. The complexity and variety of the work small business firms are proposed to perform in completion of this contract.

d. The extent past performance is in compliance with FAR 52.219-8 “Utilization of Small Business” and maximizing opportunities for U.S. Small Business Subcontractors.

e. The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the goals: Goals for this procurement are -- Small Business: {20%} of the total contract value; Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB): {4%} of the total contract value; Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB): {4%} of the total contract value; Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business: {4%} of the total contract value; Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB): {4%} of the total contract value; Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB): {4%} of the total contract value. (Note, for example, that a participation plan that reflects {1%} of the contract value for WOSB would also count towards the overall Small Business Goal; and percentages for SDVOSB also count towards VOSB).

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

4. Price Factor. The contract will be a single award Indefinite Delivery / Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.

Offerors shall not submit a price for the potential six month extension of services period. The Government may choose to exercise the Extension of Services at the end of any performance period (base or option periods), utilizing the rates of that performance period. Price will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness using the techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b) (2). No adjectival ratings will be used to evaluate Price. Price will not be scored or rated. Evaluation of price will be performed using one or more of the price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1(b). In as much as the best value offer will be determined through tradeoff analysis, the Government is not bound to award to the lowest evaluated price. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1 will be the primary means of assessing Price reasonableness. Reasonableness is defined as follows: The Government will evaluate the price reasonableness of the Offeror's proposed price in accordance with the definition in FAR 31.201-3. A Price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total evaluated price, which is the price of all CLINS, including Options, as well as adding 1/2 of the Last Option Period price (to evaluate the potential -8 extension period). As part of the price evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under FAR clause 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services” by adding one-half of the Offeror’s final option period price to the Offeror’s total price. Thus, the Offeror’s total price for the purpose of evaluation will include the base period and all option periods. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).