SECTION M — EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 The Government intends to make multiple awards under this solicitation. The Government intends to award the contracts to those offerors receiving an overall rating of Outstanding; however, the Government may award contracts to offerors receiving an overall rating of Good if it is in the best interest of the government.

1.1 MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED: The government intends to award approximately 10 to 15 contracts based on the Government’s requirements and funding available for the minimum orders. The Government reserves the right to award more than 15 contracts or fewer than 10 contracts if it determines that an alternative number of awards is in the best interest of the government.

1.2 SMALL BUSINESS RESERVED AWARDS - The Government intends award at least the first two contracts to small businesses under the applicable NAIC code 541330. If one or more Small Disadvantaged Business within the 8(a) program has an equal rating with other small businesses, the highest ranked 8(a) small business within the rating will receive the first award. The Government intends to award the small business reserved awards to small businesses receiving an overall score of Outstanding; however, the government reserves the right to award to small businesses receiving an overall rating of Good, if it is in the best interest of the government. If there are no small businesses eligible for award, the Government shall award all of the contracts to other than small businesses.

2.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Attention is directed to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1, which provides that contracts shall be awarded to that responsible offeror(s) whose proposal(s), represents the best value after evaluation in accordance with the factors and sub-factors in the solicitation. "Factors" and "Sub-factors" shall include all of those evaluation factors and sub-factors that are described in this Section M.

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulations. Award shall be made to contractors who are deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is judged to represent best value to the Government. The best value is represented by the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered. Such offers may not necessarily be the proposals offering the lowest price or receiving the highest technical rating. A finding of unacceptable in any single evaluation factor renders the entire proposal unacceptable and therefore not available for award.

The Government intends to award without discussions. Prospective offerors are advised that a proposal meeting solicitation requirements with the lowest evaluated price may not be selected if award to a higher evaluated price offeror is determined to be most advantageous to the Government. Each contractor shall be evaluated relative to the following:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

a. Depth and Breadth (including Tables A & B)

b. Management Approach

c. Subcontracting

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

a. Guaranteed Savings and Cost Approach

b. Ceiling Unit price for Item 0001

c. Management Compensation Plan

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2. Factor 2 is more important than Factor 3. Although the technical capability and past performance factors are more important than price, price is a substantial factor. All subfactors are of equal weight within the factor.

3.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1 GENERAL Each of the three evaluation factors shall be rated as a whole based upon the information requested/discussed in Section L. In other words, although we request each offeror to provide various types of information for the three factors, this information does not constitute separately rated and weighted sub-factors. This means that if one portion or element of an evaluation factor is considered unacceptable, this shall result in a rating of unacceptable for that evaluation factor. Based on the ratings for each factor, and overall adjectival rating will be assigned for the offeror's entire proposal. Offerors will then be ranked within each adjectival rating.

(a) Technical Capability Each offeror shall be evaluated on its capability to perform the entire statement of work. This shall include the offeror’s depth and breadth of experience performing type of work covered by the statement of work, the offeror’s ability to manage the team and produce quality services, and the ability of large businesses to achieve subcontracting requirements with small businesses. The information provided in tables A and B, the narrative on the management approach, and subcontracting information will be used to assess the offeror's technical capability. Information from the points of contact provided in Table B may be used in addition to the information provided by the offeror.

(b) Past Performance. Each offeror shall be evaluated on its past performance. Information utilized shall be obtained from the references listed in the proposal in Table B, other customers known to the Government, CPARS (if available), and others who may have useful and relevant information. The first fifteen contracts listed for each PEO/directorate/other organizations may be used for past performance information. The Government shall focus on past performance on similar professional support services procurements. More recent work may be considered more relevant and more important. Evaluation of past performance shall be based on consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances. The evaluation shall include demonstrated past performance in quality of product or service, schedule and business relationships. In the case of an Offeror that does not have past contract performance information, or with respect to which information on past contract performance is not available, the offeror shall receive a neutral rating on the factor of past performance.

(c) Price The offerors' proposed saving percentages (guaranteed savings for repetitive work and volume discounts) from clause H-11 will be evaluated for reasonable price savings over the life of the contract. The offeror's ceiling unit price for Item 0001 will be evaluated. The management compensation plan will be evaluated for its reasonableness and likelihood to promote a stable and productive workforce.

3.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

(a) The Government shall evaluate the offeror’s Technical Capability, Past Performance and Price proposals using four adjective rating definitions (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, and Unacceptable).

(b) The Government shall assign a rating (as defined) below, based on the offeror’s ability to support the Government’s requirements.

(c) Once the ratings are assigned for each factor, an overall rating will be assigned for the offeror's proposal.

(d) Offeror's proposals will be ranked within each adjectival rating comparing the overall merits of each proposal with the other proposals received.

4.0 FACTOR RATING SCALE

Technical Capability:

OUTSTANDING: The offeror must demonstrate a strong likelihood of successful performance. This will include the following:

·         &Mac183; The offeror demonstrated experience in all of the "shall statements" by having at least one entry per shall statement in Table A.

·         &Mac183; The offeror provided substantially all of the applicable professional support services to at least three (3) Program Executive Offices or NAVSEA Directorates, (Table A).

·         &Mac183; The offeror optimally balanced the depth of capability to perform the tasks in the Statement of Work and the breadth of support for NAVSEA directorates, PEOs and field activities.

·         &Mac183; The offeror demonstrated the ability to mold, manage and maintain high performing teams performing a wide variety of services under multiple task orders for multiple customers.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has a low risk management plan that ensures high quality performance throughout the life of the contract.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has a low risk plan to subcontract more than 35% of the total dollars obligated to small, small disadvantaged, women owned, HUBZone and veteran owned firms.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has all teaming/subcontracting agreements in place at the time of proposal submission.

GOOD: The offeror must demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of successful performance. This will include the following:

·         &Mac183; The offeror demonstrated experience in all of the "shall statements" by having at least one entry per shall statement in Table A.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has provided substantially all of the applicable professional support services to two (2) Program Executive Offices or NAVSEA Directorates, or other organizations (Table A).

·         &Mac183; The offeror balanced (but not optimally) the depth of capability to perform the tasks in the Statement of Work and the breadth of support for NAVSEA directorates, PEOs and field activities.

·         &Mac183; The offeror demonstrated the ability to mold, manage and maintain high performing teams performing a wide variety of services under multiple task orders for multiple customers.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has a low risk management plan that ensures high quality performance throughout the life of the contract.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has a low risk plan to subcontract from 25% to 35% of the total dollars obligated to small, small disadvantaged, women owned, HUBZone and veteran owned firms.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has all teaming/subcontracting agreements in place at the time of proposal submission.

ACCEPTABLE: The offeror must demonstrate a possibility of successful performance. This will include the following:

·         &Mac183; The offeror demonstrated experience in all of the "shall statements" by having at least one entry per shall statement in Table A.

·         &Mac183; The offeror provided substantially all of the applicable professional support services to (1) Program Executive Office or NAVSEA Directorate or other organization (Table A).

·         &Mac183; The offeror balanced (but not optimally) the depth of capability to perform the tasks in the Statement of Work and the breadth of support for NAVSEA directorates, PEOs and field activities.

·         &Mac183; The offeror demonstrated the ability to mold, manage and maintain high performing teams performing a wide variety of services under multiple task orders for multiple customers.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has a medium risk management plan that ensures high quality performance throughout the life of the contract.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has a medium risk of not meeting the subcontract plan of 20% of the total dollars obligated to small, small disadvantaged, women owned, HUBZone and veteran owned firms.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has most of the teaming/subcontracting agreements in place at the time of proposal submission.

UNACCEPTABLE: The offeror did not demonstrate a possibility of successful performance. This will include any of the following:

·         &Mac183; The offeror did not include at least one entry for each "shall statement" in Table A.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has not provided substantially all the professional support services applicable to at least (1) Program Executive Office or NAVSEA Directorate or (Table A).

·         &Mac183; The offeror does not have a balance between the depth of capability to perform the tasks in the Statement of Work and the capability to support the NAVSEA directorates, PEOs and field activities.

·         &Mac183; The offeror did not demonstrate the ability to mold, manage and maintain high performing teams performing a wide variety of services under multiple task orders for multiple customers.

·         &Mac183; The offeror has a high-risk management plan that may not ensures high quality performance throughout the life of the contract.

·         &Mac183; The offeror is likely not to meet the minimum subcontracting requirement of 20% of the total dollars obligated to small, small disadvantaged, women owned, HUBZone and veteran owned firms.

·         &Mac183; The offeror does not have most of teaming/subcontracting agreements in place at the time of proposal submission.

Past Performance

OUTSTANDING: The offeror has received the highest possible ratings in the areas of quality, schedule, and business relations from substantially all of the references or past performance sources available. Substantially all of the past performance references contacted would hire the offeror again for similar work.

GOOD: The offeror has received the highest possible ratings in the areas of quality, schedule, and business relations from the clear majority of references or past performance sources available. The vast majority of the past performance references contacted would hire the offeror again for similar work.

ACCEPTABLE: The offeror has received the highest possible ratings in the areas of quality, schedule, and business relations from a majority the references or past performance sources available. A majority of the past performance references contacted would hire the offeror again for similar work.

UNACCEPTABLE: The offeror has received the highest possible ratings in the areas of quality, schedule, and business relations from less than a majority the references or past performance sources available. Less than a majority of the past performance references contacted would hire the offeror again for similar work.

NEUTRAL: The offeror has no relevant or recent past performance.

Price

OUTSTANDING: The offeror must demonstrate a strong commitment to price reduction. This must include the following:

·         The percentages proposed in the Guaranteed savings clause must exceed 5% per year, which is convincingly substantiated in the price proposal.

·         A volume discount must be proposed.

·         The maximum pass through rate proposed is less than 8%

·         The unit ceiling rate for Item 0001 is:

·         less than the highest actual average labor rate for the highest labor category experienced in the completed accounting year of any team member proposed

·         with all of the applicable DCAA recommended rates (if applicable),

·         using less than 4% annual escalation and

·         a profit rate below 6%.

·         The cost savings approach must have a high probability of resulting in savings.

The offeror must submit a current accurate and complete compensation plan for the management team. The cognizant DCAA office found that the plan is in accordance with the company disclosure statement if applicable.

GOOD: The offeror must demonstrate a reasonable commitment to price reduction. This must include the following:

The percentages proposed in the Guaranteed savings clause must exceed 3% per year, which is convincingly substantiated in the price proposal.

·         A volume discount must be proposed.

·         The maximum pass through rate proposed is less than 10%

·         The unit ceiling rate for Item 0001 is:

o   less than the highest actual average labor rate for the highest labor category experienced in the completed accounting year of any team member proposed

o   with all of the applicable DCAA recommended rates (if applicable),

o   using less than 5% annual escalation and

• a profit rate greater than or equal to 6% by less than or equal to 8%
• The cost savings approach must have a reasonable probability of resulting in savings.

·         The offeror must submit a current accurate and complete compensation plan for the management team. The cognizant DCAA office found that the plan is in accordance with the company disclosure statement if applicable.

ACCEPTABLE: The offeror must demonstrate a minimal commitment to price reduction. This must include the following:

• The percentages proposed in the Guaranteed savings clause must exceed 1% per year, which is convincingly substantiated in the price proposal.

·         A volume discount must be proposed.

• The maximum pass through rate proposed is less than 15%
• The maximum pass through rate proposed is less than 10%
• The unit ceiling rate for Item 0001 is:
• less than the highest actual average labor rate for the highest labor category experienced in the completed accounting year of any team member proposed
• with all of the applicable DCAA recommended rates (if applicable),
• using less than or equal to 6% annual escalation and
• a profit rate of greater than or equal to 8% but less than or equal to10%
• The cost savings approach must have a possibility of resulting in savings.
• The offeror must submit a current accurate and complete compensation plan for the management team. The cognizant DCAA office found that the plan is in accordance with the company disclosure statement if applicable.

UNACCEPTABLE: The offeror did not demonstrate a commitment to price reduction. This must include the following:

• The percentages proposed in the Guaranteed savings clause did not exceed 1% per year, which is not convincingly substantiated in the price proposal.
• A volume discount was not proposed.
• The maximum pass through rate proposed is was greater than 15%
• &Mac183; The unit ceiling rate for Item 0001 is:
• less than the highest actual average labor rate for the highest labor category experienced in the completed accounting year of any team member proposed
• with all of the applicable DCAA recommended rates (if applicable),
• using less than or greater than 6% annual escalation and
• a profit rate of above10%.
• The cost savings approach did not have a possibility of resulting in savings.
• The offeror did not submit a current accurate and complete compensation plan for the management team. The cognizant DCAA office did not find that the plan is in accordance with the company disclosure statement if applicable

5.0 OVERALL RATING SCALE

• OUTSTANDING The Offeror demonstrated the highest likelihood of meeting government expectations for the performance of the contract. The Offeror is highly likely to win task orders during the period of performance and has the capability to perform awarded task orders. The offeror has not received any "unacceptable" or "acceptable" factor ratings. The proposal overall is a high value to the Government considering the three evaluation factors.
• GOOD The Offeror demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of meeting government expectations for the performance of the contract. The Offeror is likely to win task orders during the period of performance and should have the capability to perform awarded task orders. The offeror has not received any "unacceptable" factor ratings. The proposal overall is a reasonable value to the Government considering the three evaluation factors.
• ACCEPTABLE The Offeror demonstrated that the offeror may have trouble meeting government expectations for the performance of the contract. The Offeror is not likely to win many task orders during the period of performance and may not have the capability to perform all of the awarded task orders. The offeror has not received any "unacceptable" factor ratings. The proposal overall has limited value to the Government considering the three evaluation factors.
• UNACCEPTABLE The Offeror demonstrated that the offeror may have significant risk in meeting government expectations for the performance of the contract. The Offeror is not likely to win many task orders during the period of performance and may not have the capability to perform all of the awarded task orders. The offeror has received at least one "unacceptable" factor rating. The proposal overall has almost no value to the Government considering the three evaluation factors.

6.0 NOTICE OF AWARD

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror(s) within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offeror’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer, whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.