Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 1 of 14

PROPOSAL EVALUATION ­ PHASE THREE: STEP 2 EVALUATION BOARD/PANEL CONSENSUS Template version 04/08
Evaluation based on: Tradeoff Date (mmddyyyy): 3 July 2008 CMID #: 11734 Solicitation/Contract #: GS-10F-0049J Title: TRICARE Policy and Operations Directorate (TPOD),

Period of Performance: Purpose:

Program Office: Requisition No.: Contracting Officer: Contracting Specialist: Contracting Office: TPS AM/CM:

TRICARE Operations Division (TOD)/Office of the General Counsel - Program Management/T-3 Support DOA through 1/14/09 with Two 3 month Option periods New "TEAMS" order to provide TRICARE Policy and Operations Directorate (TPOD), TRICARE Operations Division (TOD)/Office of the General Counsel - Program Management/T-3 Support TAO HT0003-8169-4111 and HT0003-8169-4112 Dan Signore Kelly Green USAMRAA RoDonda Thompson/Tracy Davenport

The resultant award provides for program management support services to the TRICARE Policy and Operations Division to operationalize the TRICARE Program. The Request for Proposals (RFP) (CMID Number: 11734 ) was issued as a Limited Competition against TEAMS contract (supported by a Justification and Approval, log no. 08-061 approved on 6/18/2008) . The RFP closed on 30 June 2008 and the Government received two proposals in response to the RFP. The results of the evaluation process are detailed below. The Government advised all prospective offeror's that the Government would be employing the "Trade-Off" evaluation approach in deciding which offer represented best value to the Government. The non-price/cost evaluation factors are prioritized in descending order of importance: (1) Technical, (2) Experience, (3) Past Performance, (4) Quality Control. The evaluation criteria along with the rating standards and standard definitions that were utilized to evaluate the Offers are attached as Appendix A to this Consensus Recommendation Report.

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 1

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 2 of 14

During the evaluation, the team identified proposal strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies. A summary of each offerors' final proposal evaluation is provided below: OVERALL NON-PRICE/COST FACTORS AXIOM Non-Price/Cost Factors 1. Technical Approach 2. Experience 4. Quality Control Approach Overall Consensus Rating (Non-Past Performance) 3. Past Performance OVERALL EVALUATED PRICE/COST IGCE
Price/Cost Rating

LM
Rating

E E G E LR

E E G E LR

AXIOM
Price/Cost
$215,947 $2,617,744 $1,312,847 $1,359,273 $223,628 $5,729,439 $5,289,864

LM
Price/Cost
$0 $2,468,271 $1,263,400 $1,262,900 $0 $4,994,571 $4,994,571

Transition In* Base Period Option Period 1 Option Period 2 Transition Out* Total Base Plus All Options *Total Base Plus All Options (Evaluated)

$146,321 $2,609,339 $1,305,476 $1,305,476 $213,254 $5,579,866 $5,220,291

OVERALL EVALUATED PRICE/COST VARIANCE Price/Cost Variance From the IGCE Transition In* Base Period Option Period 1 Option Period 2 Transition Out* Total Base Plus All Options *Total Base Plus All Options (Evaluated)

AXIOM
$69,626 $8,405 $7,371 $53,797 $10,374 $149,573 $69,573

LM
$(146,321) $(141,068) $(42,076) $(42,576) $(213,254) $(585,295) $(225,720)

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 2

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 3 of 14

TECHNICAL PROPOSALS RATED
The evaluation panel has conducted a comprehensive assessment of all offerors' proposals against the evaluation factors as stated in the request for proposals. The panel reviewed two proposals and rated the overall technical portion of both proposals as "Acceptable" or higher with "Moderate" performance risk or better. The technical proposals with an overall rating of "Acceptable" or higher with "Moderate" performance risk or better were AXIOM Resource Management, Inc. and Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.

SUMMARY OF PANEL'S CONCLUSIONS FOR TECHNICAL PROPOSALS OFFEROR 1 AXIOM FACTOR 1 ­ TECHNICAL APPROACH

E

Offeror's technical approach reflects a clear understanding of their capability to provide administrative program management support. Specific strengths related to specific tasks from their proposal are identified below: Page 8, paragraph 2.2.1. The proposed executive team brought DoD 5000-guided program management support to TMA in 1998 and continues its leadership in program management support expertise throughout TMA. Page 10, paragraph 2.2.2. AXIOM has first-hand experience in TRICARE Managed Care Support Contract transitions. Page 12, paragraph 2.2.3. Proposal demonstrates first hand knowledge of tasks required for support of OGC. Page 13, paragraph 2.2.4. AXIOM has a thorough understanding of the TMA organization and commits to raising the level of professionalism, improve customer service, and continuously train on the importance of the attention to detail necessary to properly and effectively serve at the highest level. Page 15, paragraph 2.2.6. The proposed team approach for providing SME support is an effective means for achieving this requirement. Their approach, management structure and staffing will provide support necessary to develop T3 RFPS, transition the contracts, and defend any procurement protests while providing support to current contracts. No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified.

AXIOM
Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 3

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 4 of 14

FACTOR 2 ­ EXPERIENCE

E

Offeror's proposal identifies corporate and staff experience identical to the requirement and reflects the ability of the Offeror to provide program management support services to TMA. Specific references related to their experience are identified below: Page 16, paragraph 3.1. Corporate staff includes former senior government officials with responsibilities for acquisition and contract management. Page 8, paragraph 2.2.1. The proposed executive team has a combined core experience level of more than 75 years working within the MHS. Page 15, paragraph 2.2.5. Proposed staff for special studies has more than 50 years of combined experience in all aspects of healthcare management, including nearly 30 combined years with the TRICARE program. Resumes of key personnel were provided as requested. No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified.

AXIOM FACTOR 3 ­ PAST PERFORMANCE

LR

Four of five references were contacted telephonically. No contractual issues were identified. All references rated the contractor as Exceptional.

AXIOM FACTOR 4 ­ QUALITY CONTROL

G

The Offeror's approach to quality control clearly identified their processes, procedures, and metric management which will provide a successful outcome within cost and on schedule. Following are references to specific strengths in the quality approach: Page 3, paragraph 2.1.6. AXIOM's Quality Control Plan follows a clear 5-step program based on the Plan-Do-Check-Act quality model, adding an additional step, Adjust the Work. The QCP guarantees that all defined project processes are reviewed and validated as responsive, timely, productive, and compliant. Page 5, paragraph 2.1.6. Axiom will utilize their Performance Surveillance Plan to track the work and monitor success. They will complete a Performance Checklist on each task to track each functional area's compliance with their PSP. The metrics provided in their quality plan were identical to the Government QASP in the PWS. Additional details identifying methods for evaluation was not provided. No discrepancies were identified.

AXIOM FACTOR 5 ­ PRICE/COST

Evaluated as $5,289,864

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 4

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 5 of 14

Costs matched CLIN structure provided. Cost variance is due to increased Travel costs and Transition costs. Travel costs and optional SME requirement were priced separately as instructed. However, travel costs appear to be overstated by $15,904. The PWS calls for 4 trips total, but Axiom's proposal costs included 4 trips per period of performance, a total of 12 trips. In comparison to the IGCE, Transition In costs were 47.58% higher and Transition Out costs were 4.86% higher. However, none of the transition costs were considered as part of the overall price/cost evaluation. The cost proposal and proposed personnel skill sets matched labor categories and the anticipated level of effort stated in the PWS. The overall total evaluated price (including T-3 labor) was reasonable in comparison with the IGCE; total evaluated cost is only 1.33% greater than the IGCE. Overall total proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed and reflect an understanding of the requirements with the exception of required travel as described in the PWS.

OFFEROR 2 LM FACTOR 1 ­ TECHNICAL APPROACH

E

Offeror's technical approach reflects a clear understanding of their capability to provide administrative program management support. Specific strengths related to specific tasks from their proposal are identified below: Page 8, paragraph 2.3.1. Lockheed Martin's ability to provide program management support is clearly demonstrated through their current support of the T-3 Project Manager in the T-3 DEERS IPT and WIPTs for the suite of T-3 contracts. Page 10, paragraph 2.3.2. Lockheed Martin personnel have supported several TRICARE contract transitions over the last year. Their consulting staff includes SMEs who were instrumental in successful MCSC T-Nex transitions that occurred in the 2003-2004 timeframe. Page 12, paragraph 2.2.4. Lockheed Martin has realized a 97% success rate in response to Government taskers with the remaining 3% attributed to other factors, such as difficulty in retrieving information from MCSC contractors. Page 13, paragraph 2.3.5. Lockheed Martin has a wealth of experienced SMEs that understand and possess the crucial skill set required for successful completion of special studies. Page 14, paragraph 2.3.6. Lockheed Martin has actively recruited personnel with years of specialized healthcare experience that is directly applicable to the support requirements of TMA. Page 14, paragraph 2.4. Their OGC support capabilities were clearly demonstrated through 12 years of continuous support to DOJ that enabled litigators to control and manage a large volume of case materials and complex information. Their approach, management structure and staffing will provide support necessary to develop T3 RFPS, transition the contracts, and defend any procurement protests while providing support to current contracts. No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified.

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 5

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 6 of 14

LM FACTOR 2 ­ EXPERIENCE

E

Offeror's proposal identifies corporate and staff experience identical to the requirement and reflects the ability of the Offeror to provide program management support services to TMA. Specific references related to their experience are identified below: Page 1, paragraph 1.1. Corporate experience supporting the current contract is complemented by 18 years of experience supporting other similar contracts. Page 14, paragraph 2.3.6. Lockheed Martin's SMEs possess over 127 years of collective experience supporting a variety of healthcare related venues. Resumes of key personnel were provided as requested. No weaknesses or discrepancies were identified.

LM FACTOR 3 ­ PAST PERFORMANCE

LR

Two of five references were contacted telephonically. No contractual issues were identified. All references rated the contractor as Good or Exceptional.

LM FACTOR 4 ­ QUALITY CONTROL

G

The Offeror's approach to quality control clearly identified their processes, procedures, and metric management which will provide a successful outcome within cost and on schedule. Following are references to specific strengths in the quality approach: Page 18, paragraph 1.0. Lockheed Martin's Quality Control Plan is based on the Plan-DoCheck-Act quality model. A formal QCP will be submitted upon contract award. Page 19, paragraph 2.0. Their quality control approach identifies procedures and methods to sustain a high level of quality and is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. Page 19, paragraph 3.0. Part of the quality plan includes a self assessment program that is utilized to map processes against contract requirements. A Get to Excellence Plan will be developed for areas of non-compliance identified in the self assessment. Page 19, paragraph 4.0. A Performance Management and Metrics Plan will be used to document how Lockheed Martin will achieve the performance requirements identified in the PWS matrix. The metrics provided in their quality plan identified the reports which will document the results of performance. However, specific details of the process were not furnished with their proposal. No discrepancies were identified.

LM FACTOR 5 ­ PRICE/COST

Evaluated as $4,994,571

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 6

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 7 of 14

Costs matched the CLIN structure provided. Travel costs and optional SME requirement were priced separately as instructed. Cost proposal matched labor categories for anticipated level of effort. Costs were less than the IGCE, primarily due to no additional cost to the Government for transition. Other differences were due to a lower labor rate. The price/cost of all contract line items are not significantly over or understated. The proposed personnel skill sets match the anticipated level of effort stated in the PWS. Overall total costs are reasonable in comparison with the IGCE; total proposed cost is 10.49% less than the IGCE. Total proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed and reflect a clear understanding of the requirements in the PWS.

OVERALL TRADE-OFF COMMENTS
Due to both proposals being technically equal for evaluation of non-cost/price factors, the Government must select the Offeror with the lowest cost. Lockheed Martin was selected over the other Offeror for the reasons discussed below under RECOMMENDED OFFEROR, and JUSTIFICATION FOR CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION. With technical evaluation of non-cost/price factors being equal, AXIOM was not selected over the other Offeror because their overall price was higher than Lockheed Martin's.

RECOMMENDED OFFEROR
Based on the evaluation panel review, discussion, and comparative analysis conducted in the course of this evaluation process and through a consensus, the evaluation panel confidently recommends award to Lockheed Martin. Lockheed Martin's technical proposal was rated Exceptional and their past performance risk was Low Risk. Lockheed Martin's proposed price/cost was $4,994,571. AXIOM's tied with Lockheed Martin in the non-priced evaluation factors with an overall rating of Exceptional for technical approach, experience, and quality control; and a Low Risk in past performance. Lockheed Martin submitted an evaluated price lower than Axiom by $295,293 and 5.9%.

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 7

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 8 of 14

JUSTIFICATION FOR CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATION
With technical evaluation of non-cost/price factors being equal, Lockheed Martin was selected over Axiom because overall price was lower than Axiom. Based upon our review of the information in the Technical Proposal, OCI Mitigation/Avoidance Plan and any personal knowledge ­ we find, in accordance with FAR 9.5, that: OCI Evaluation Select (X) one below X There is no likelihood that a conflict of interest would exist if award were made to the recommended offeror. A possible conflict of interest would exist if award were made to the offeror. A possible conflict of interest would exist if award were made to the offeror, however the mitigation/avoidance plan provides sufficient protection of Government interests to allow award to this contractor, should this contractor's proposal be determined to be the best value alternative for the Government.

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 8

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 9 of 14

This Evaluation Recommendation has been developed in a fair and unbiased manner. We have personally reviewed each proposal received, have documented the results of our evaluation, and have completed this document in good faith and in the best interest of the Government.

EVALUATOR SIGNATURES:
By signing below the evaluators confirm that they have reviewed both the technical proposal and price/cost proposal discussed herein and that the assessment documented herein reflects consideration of both aspects of the proposal.

Printed Name

Signature

Date

Lynn D. Head Donald B. Trembly

7/3/2008 7/3/2008

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 9

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 10 of 14

APPENDIX A Evaluation Criteria, Rating Standards and Definitions

Evaluation Criteria
T.1.1.3 Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria will be used to evaluate the non-cost/price aspects of the proposal: T.1.1.3.1 Technical Approach

The degree to which the Offeror's technical approach reflects a clear understanding of the capabilities to successfully provide administrative program management support of TPOS's acquisition initiatives. The successful accomplishments of these duties will result in the development of a suite of T-3 RFP's, smooth transitions of the contracts and successful defense of any procurement protests, as well as continued support for the current TNEX contracts. T.1.1.3.2 Experience

The degree to which the Offeror's proposal reflects corporate or proposed staff experience identical to, similar to/or related to the requirement. The degree to which the Offeror's proposal reflects the ability to provide Program Management support services to the TMA as needed to operationalize the TRICARE program. Services provided by the contractor shall include supporting Integrated Project Teams and Working Integrated Project Teams, maintaining project milestone charts, and preparing documentation as necessary. The documentation may include Concept of Operations (CONOPS), Functional Requirements Document (FRD), risk assessments, implementation and compliance plans, cost estimates, and Change Management Fact Sheets. All work provided shall be performed in compliance with the DoD 5000 series and TMA directives. Activities supported shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, Claims Processing, HIPAA compliance, DEERS and TEDS support. The Program Manager and Task Manager (SME), Sr. Healthcare Professional and General Management Professional are considered "Key Personnel" please provide resumes and letters of intent for these positions, for these positions. T.1.1.3.3 Past Performance

The degree to which past performance evaluations either included in the proposal or identified by the evaluators in any other manner, reflect success in the ability to provide administrative program management support of acquisition initiatives. The offeror must provide a list of at least 3 but no more than 5, references of relevant past and present contracts for Federal, State and/or City agencies and commercial customers within the past 3 years. "Relevant" is defined as like service as stated in this solicitation's Statement of Work in terms of similar scope and complexity. It is the offeror's responsibility to provide valid, current and verifiable references. References must include: Name of the Organization that will be providing the reference, Name of the Point of Contact (POC), POC Telephone Number, POC Email address, Contract Number, Period of Performance, and Scope of Work.

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 10

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 11 of 14

The Government may also consider information obtained through other sources. Past performance information will be utilized to determine the quality of the contractor's past performance as it relates to the probability of success of the required effort. Ensure that contract information is accurate and up-to-date, as references will be checked. T.1.1.3.4 Quality Control Approach

The degree to which the Offeror's approach to quality control identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which, are likely to predict successful outcome within cost and on schedule. T.1.1.4 Price/Cost The degree to which the proposed cost/price is reasonable, realistic, and competitive.

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 11

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 12 of 14

Rating Standards for Other than Past Performance Rating Exceptional (E) Definition and Criteria The proposal has exceptional merit and reflects an excellent approach which should clearly result in the superior attainment of all requirements and objectives. The proposed approach includes numerous substantial advantages, and essentially no disadvantages, and can be expected to result in outstanding performance. The solutions proposed are considered very low risk in that they are exceptionally clear and precise, fully supported, and demonstrate a complete understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Very Low The proposal demonstrates a sound approach which is expected to meet all requirements and objectives. This approach includes substantial advantages, and few relatively minor disadvantages, which collectively can be expected to result in better than satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect low risk in that they are clear and precise, supported, and demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements. Risk Level: Low The proposal demonstrates an approach which is capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. The approach has both advantages and disadvantages, however the disadvantages do not outweigh the advantages and the approach can be expected to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect moderate risk in that they are for the most part clear, precise, and supported, and demonstrate a general understanding of all the requirements. Risk Level: Moderate The proposal demonstrates an approach which, while being capable of meeting all requirements and major objectives, may not meet some lesser objectives. Any advantages that exist in the approach are slightly outweighed by existing disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages pose an evident risk that the offeror might fail to perform satisfactorily without significant Government oversight or participation. The proposal either fails to address all risks or the proposed risk mitigation approach is not deemed to be sufficient to manage the risk. Risk Level: High The proposal demonstrates an approach which will very likely not be capable of meeting all requirements and objectives. This approach has one or more substantial disadvantages. Collectively, the advantages and disadvantages are not likely to result in satisfactory performance. The solutions proposed are considered to reflect very high risk in that they lack any clarity or precision, are unsupported, or indicate a lack of understanding of the requirement. Risk Level: Very High.

Good (G)

Acceptable (A)

Marginal (M)

Unacceptable (U)

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 12

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 13 of 14

Rating

Standard Definitions The evaluators' conclusions (supported by narrative write-ups) identifying the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of an evaluation factor or subfactor. The ratings for each Non-Cost/Price Factor and each of its Subfactors will be expressed as an adjective. Any aspect of a proposal that, when judged against a stated evaluation criterion, enhances the merit of the proposal or increases the probability of successful performance of the contract. A significant strength appreciably enhances the merit of a proposal or appreciably increases the probability of successful contract performance. (Precede comments with an (S) if identifying a significant strength.) A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (Precede comments with an (S) if identifying a significant weakness.) A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Proposal risks are those risks associated with the likelihood that an offeror's proposed approach will meet the requirements of the solicitation. Performance risks are those risks associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of current or past performance. Any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means especially favorable to successful contract performance or the Government's overall interest.

Strength

Significant Strength

Weakness

Significant Weakness

Deficiency

Proposal Risk

Performance Risk

Advantage

Disadvantage

Any state, circumstance, opportunity, or means especially unfavorable to successful contract performance or the Government's overall interest.

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 13

Case 1:08-cv-00487-SGB

Document 25-4

Filed 07/15/2008

Page 14 of 14

Rating Low Risk (LR)

Rating Standards for Past Performance Definition and Criteria Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is high confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort. Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is a reasonable level of confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort. Based on the Offeror's performance record, there is low confidence that the Offeror can perform the proposed effort. Little or no relevant performance record identifiable; equates to an unknown risk rating having no positive or negative evaluation significance. IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Moderate Risk (MR)

High Risk (HR)

Unknown Risk (UR)

Acquisition Sensitive ­ see FAR 3.104 14