Section M - Evaluation Factors For Award

FAR Source Title and Date

52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (Jul 1990)

M.1 Evaluatio n of Option s

(a) The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options
to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the
Government to exercise the options. Offers containing any charges for failure to exercise any
option will be rejected.

(b) Selection of an offer will be made on the basis of the most advantageous alternative to the
Government provided that the contract prices reasonably represent the value of bona fide
requirements for each fiscal year. This determination with respect to contract prices will be made
after evaluation of such factors as commercial or catalog prices for short-term leases, system
startup exp enses, m ultiyear pric e protectio n, assured system life a vailability of equipm ent,
software and v endor supp ort. If a determination is m ade that an offero r does not m eet these
criteria, that off er canno t be accep ted for aw ard.

M.2 Evalu ation of P roposa ls

This sectio n is intende d to exp lain the ration ale and p recise criteria b y which propos als resulting fr om this
solicitation w ill be evalua ted. Offero rs are adv ised that they are not restric ted as to w hat is presen ted in
their prop osals, as long as sufficient m aterial is prov ided to allo w evalu ation of sp ecific prop osal elem ents
defined in Section M.3 wh ich follows.

M.3 Propo sal Eva luation C riteria

Proposals will be evaluated on the following bases. The criteria identified in the following paragraphs are
keyed to the proposal preparation instructions contained in Section L.

A prop osal that ha s no we aknesses and no particular stre ngths ab ove and beyon d meetin g the basic
requirem ents define d in the R FP for a p articular ev aluation cr iteria eleme nt, will receiv e less than th e full
credit ava ilable on th at elemen t. To achie ve the full cr edit for an e lement, th e propo sal must g o well
beyond the requirement by offering exceptionally innovative or particularly well thought out or insightful
metho ds, proce dures, solu tions or ne w opp ortunities fo r major im provem ents.

Part I - Technical Proposal Evaluation

Criterion 1 - Understanding of Work

This criterion will be scored on the degree to which the offeror demonstrates an
understanding of CDC’s mission/programmatic needs for information technology
solutions.

Criterion 2 - Proposed Resources and Approach

This criterion will be scored on the strength of the proposed resources and approach that
the offero r will com mit to the c ontract to a ddress the requirem ents.
Criterion 3 - Past Performance and Performance Metrics

This criterion will be scored on the degree of relevancy and success in past performance
efforts of a similar scope, size, complexity, and subject matter in accordance with the
RFP. Perform ance mea sures will be evaluated on the degree of quality, success, and risk
found in these m easures.

Criterion 4 - FAR Part 19 Adherence

This criterion will be scored on the strength of any subcontracting relationships, the
presence of a strong overall management structure, and the attainment of subcontracting
goals. Specifically:

1. Offerors who have restrictive subcontract agreements as evidenced in the

subcontract documents received with the technical proposal so that
subcontractors are restricted in any way from pursuing other opportunities at
CDC , will receive lower ev aluations th an those o fferors w ho do n ot.

2. Offerors who condu ct competitive procurements and w ho do not require

exclusive subcontract agreements, pre-award, will receive a higher evaluation
than those offerors who require pre-award exclusive agreements, as evidenced
by the su bcontra ct docum ents receiv ed with th e technica l proposa l.

3. Offeror s who p ropose S DB firm s in com pliance w ith FAR Part 19 fo r the Sm all
Disadvantag ed Business Pa rticipation Plan will receive m ore credit than those
offerors who do not. The quality and cost effectiveness of the plan will be
evaluated and be a determining factor as to what credit is given. In addition,
offerors who include HU BZone subco ntracting opportunities will receive more
credit than offerors who do not. The quality and cost effectiveness of the
HUB Zone p articipation plan will b e a determ ining facto r as to how much credit
is given. Offerors who propose firms in compliance with FAR Part 19 who
bring recognized expertise in specific advanced technologies or hard to find
skills will result in a higher score than those who propose subcontractors not
having recogn ized infor mation technolo gy exp ertise in the sk ills required in this
RFP.

4. Strategic alliance information will be evaluated on the quality of the alliance,

i.e., the strength of the relationship, how long the alliance has existed, and how
closely the strategic allianc e aligns itself w ith the scop e of wo rk articulated in
this RFP .

5. The management of subcontracts will be evaluated as to how strong and

effective the processes are which offerors put into place to insure quality,
timely, and cost effective subcontractor performance.

6. This sub-factor w ill be evaluated and e ffectiveness determ ined by the co st

efficiencies proposed for using Temporary Help firms to fill vancancies and
how well and to wh at degree offerors have integrated the use of Temporary
Help firms into the ir recruiting strategies.

Criterion 5 - Key Personnel Resumes

This criterio n will be sco red on th e strength o f the key p ersonne l propose d both
individually and collectively.
 Criterion 6 - Oral Presentations

Point assignm ent for evaluation o f the above criteria is as follow s:

Criterion Points

Understanding of W ork 150

Proposed Resources and Approach 150
Past Performance and Performance Metrics 300
FAR Part19 Adherence 200
Key Personnel Resumes 100
Oral Presentations 100

TOTAL 1000

Part II - Cost Proposal Evaluation

The offeror’s cost data will be evaluated to analyze and assess the accuracy and reasonableness of the
proposed cost, the realism of the proposed cost, and probable cost to the Government. The cost proposal
will also be u sed to dev elop an a ssessmen t of risk to the g overnm ent in ma king the a ward; i.e., as a n aid to
CDC in determining the offeror’s understanding of the work requirements, assess the validity of the
offeror’s approach to performing the work, and assess the offeror’s professional employee compensation
plan and ability to provide high quality uninterrupted work. Risk will be assessed as low, moderate and
high. The government will not make an award to a low estimated cost offeror with a high risk assessment
nor will the government make an award to a high estimated cost offeror with a low risk assessment without
substantial technical benefit as identified through a cost-technical trade off as defined in M.4 below.

M . 4Relationship Between C ost or Price and Technical Streng th

Offerors are advised that in the evaluation process technical proposals and cost or price will be of
approximatly equal importance.

This RF P will result in a “best valu e” source selection. B est value m eans that th e Gove rnmen t will
perform a cost/technical trade-off analysis such that business judgement will be exercised in selecting the
most advantageous alternative to the Government, considering both the technical merit and costs of
proposals. The determination of best value will be made by comparing the differences in the value of
performance capability factors with the differences in the costs proposed. The Government will not make
an award at a significantly higher overall cost to the Government to achieve only slightly superior
performance capability features. The Government will make this assessment through the development of
trade-off analyses and other analytic studies that involve the assessment of benefits of superior
performance capability features - for example, economic benefits clearly attributable to increased
productivity; probability of successful contract performance; unique and innovative approaches or
capabilities - versus added costs. Overall cost to the Government may become the ultimate determining
factor for award of the contract as proposals become more equal based on the other factors. The degree of
equality between offerors’ proposals will be measured by the quantity, significance, and applicability of the
superior features proposed and not by the total scores achieved.

Cost/price realism and cost risk/probable cost to the Government are of significant importance in the
overall contract award decision. Therefore, offerors are reminded that award will be made to that offeror
whose proposal provides the combination of features that offers the greatest overall value to the
Gove rnmen t.

The cost and business portion of offerors’ proposals will not be assigned quantitative scores. The
information contained in the Cost/Price Proposals will be analyzed and evaluated to determine validity,
realism and reaso nableness of eac h cost propose d, and to assist in determ ining the cost risk and most
probab le cost to the G overnm ent, includ ing optio ns to exten d the perio d of perfo rmanc e of the co ntract.
The evaluation will include an assessment of the cost of doing business with each offeror and predicted
growth in the p roposed co sts during the course of the contracted effo rt. The purpose of this cost realism
analysis will be to determine if:

(a) The offeror’s proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed;
(b) The proposed costs demonstrate that the offeror understands the Government’s requirements; and
(c) The proposed costs are consistent with the various elements contained in the technical proposal
and oth er portion s of offero r’s busines s propo sal.

Based upon this cost realism analysis, an assessment will be made of the most probable cost to the
Governme nt when awarding the con tract to a particular Offeror.