**PART IV**

**SECTION M**

**EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD**

**Part IV**

**Section M**

**Evaluation Factors for Award**

**Table of Contents**

M.1 Background M-1

# M.2 RELEVANT EXPERIENCE CRITERION M-3

# M.3 LONG-TERM SCIENCE STRATEGY FOR PPPL CRITERION M-3

M.4 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND APPROACH CRITERION M-4

## 

M.5 KEY PERSONNEL CRITERION M-5

M.6 TRANSITION CRITERION M-6

M.7 PAST PERFORMANCE CRITERION M-6

M.8 OFFEROR'S INVOLVEMENT/RESOURCES CRITERION M-6

# M.9 Cost and Fee Criteria M-7

# M.10 Selection M-7

##### Section M

**Evaluation Factors for Award**

# M.1 [Background]{.underline}

#  {#section-1 .TOC-1}

\(a\) **Conduct of Acquisition**. This acquisition shall be conducted
using the policies and procedures in the Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) and Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR). A Source
Evaluation Board (SEB) shall evaluate proposals using the criteria in
this Section M. A Source Selection Official (SSO) shall select an
Offeror for contract award using the best value analysis described in
this Section M.

\(b\) **Content of Proposal.** A proposal shall be eliminated from
further consideration before the initial ratings if the proposal is so
grossly and obviously deficient as to be unacceptable on its face. For
example, a proposal shall be deemed unacceptable if it does not
represent a reasonable initial effort to address the essential
requirements of the RFP, or if it clearly demonstrates that the Offeror
does not understand the requirements of the RFP. In the event that a
proposal is rejected, a notice will be sent to the Offeror stating the
reason(s) that the proposal will not be considered for further
evaluation under this solicitation. Any exceptions or deviations to the
terms and conditions of the contract may make the offer unacceptable for
award without discussions. If an Offeror proposes exceptions to the
terms and conditions of the contract, the Government may make an award
without discussions to another Offeror that did not take exceptions to
the terms and conditions of the contract.

\(c\) **Evaluation and Eligibility for Award.** Evaluation and selection
shall involve a process of evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of
each proposal using the evaluation and selection criteria described in
this Section M. An Offeror is eligible for award if it submits an
acceptable offer and it is a responsible Offeror. Refer to Provision
L.27 -- Responsible Prospective Contractors.

\(d\) **Number of Awards.** The Government intends to award a single
contract.

# (e) Significance of Evaluation Criteria. The Capabilities and Approach Criteria combined are significantly more important than Cost and Fee Criteria. 

# (f) Evaluation Methodology

#  {#section-2 .TOC-1}

> \(1\) **Capabilities and Approach**. The Capabilities and Approach
> Proposal shall be point scored using the criteria in Sections M.2
> through M.8. Total available points for each criterion are as follows:

+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| **  |                                                      |         |
| CAP |                                                      |         |
| ABI |                                                      |         |
| LIT |                                                      |         |
| IES |                                                      |         |
| and |                                                      |         |
| AP  |                                                      |         |
| PRO |                                                      |         |
| ACH |                                                      |         |
| P   |                                                      |         |
| ROP |                                                      |         |
| OSA |                                                      |         |
| L** |                                                      |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| M   | Relevant Experience                                  | 150     |
| .2. |                                                      |         |
|     | > a\. National and international recognition/        | 75      |
|     | > accomplishments                                    |         |
|     | >                                                    | 75      |
|     | > b\. Relevant experience and success in operations  |         |
|     | > and business management                            |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| M   | Long-Term Science Strategy for PPPL                  | 200     |
| .3. |                                                      |         |
|     | a.  Long term Science Strategy.                      | 100     |
|     |                                                      |         |
|     | b.  Managing Research Program and Science Strategy   | 100     |
|     |     in a hypothetical changed program.               |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| M   | Management Strategy and Approach                     | 250     |
| .4. |                                                      |         |
|     | > a\. Approach to implementing long term Science     | 125     |
|     | > Strategy.                                          |         |
|     | >                                                    | 100     |
|     | > b\. Strategy and approach toward stewardship in    |         |
|     | > achieving excellence in operations and business    | 25      |
|     | > management.                                        |         |
|     | >                                                    |         |
|     | > c\. Laboratory organizational elements and staff   |         |
|     | > are organized effectively and efficiently.         |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| M   | Key Personnel                                        | 225     |
| .5. |                                                      |         |
|     | a\. Laboratory Director                              | 125     |
|     |                                                      |         |
|     | b\. Other Key Personnel                              | 100     |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| M   | Transition                                           | 50      |
| .6. |                                                      |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| M   | Past Performance                                     | 50      |
| .7. |                                                      |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| M   | Offeror's Involvement/Resources                      | 75      |
| .8. |                                                      |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+
| To  |                                                      | 1,000   |
| tal |                                                      |         |
| Ava |                                                      |         |
| ila |                                                      |         |
| ble |                                                      |         |
| Poi |                                                      |         |
| nts |                                                      |         |
+-----+------------------------------------------------------+---------+

> \(2\) **Cost and Fee Criteria.** The Cost and Fee Proposal shall not
> be point scored, but shall be evaluated as described in Sections M.9
> and M.10.
>
> \(3\) **Proposal Consistency.** Offerors are cautioned to make sure
> there is consistency in proposal content both within individual
> criteria and across multiple criteria. Proposals that are not
> internally consistent may be downgraded.

# 

# M.2 [rELEVANT EXPERIENCE Criterion]{.underline}

The Government shall evaluate the extent and strength of --

\(a\) The Offeror's national and international
recognition/accomplishments for its relevance, leadership, impact, and
innovation in fusion science and technology.

\(b\) The Offeror's relevant experience in the areas of Laboratory
operations and business management set forth in Sections C.4(c)(1)
through C.4(c)(12) of the Statement of Work with particular emphasis on:
implementing Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) and Quality Assurance
(QA) programs, including management initiatives for improving an
operation/facility's ES&H performance statistics; demonstrated project
management systems which have lead to completion of highly complex
science projects on time and within budget; implementation of sound
cyber security programs and protection of information systems;
maintenance and operation of government owned research facilities and
infrastructure.

> The experience shall be on recent "relevant contracts" similar in
> complexity and scope to activities in Section C. For purposes of this
> RFP, the term "relevant contract" means in excess of \$30 million in
> average annual research and development (R&D) revenues/costs whether
> under a contract or internally generated \[e.g., IR&D\] over the last
> three completed fiscal years. R&D includes basic and applied research,
> and exploratory, advanced, and engineering development.

M.3 [LONG-TERM SCIENCE STRATEGY FOR PPPL CRITERION]{.underline}

The Government shall evaluate --

\(a\) The comprehensiveness, innovativeness, and feasibility of the
Offeror's long term science strategy for PPPL.

\(b\) The comprehensiveness, innovativeness, and feasibility of the
Offeror's strategies, approaches or directions to the hypothetical
changed program scenario presented in Section L.3(b).

M.4 [MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND APPROACH CRITERION]{.underline}

\(a\) The Government shall evaluate the comprehensiveness,
innovativeness, and feasibility of the Offeror's approach to
implementing its long term Science Strategy with particular emphasis on
--

> \(1\) The Offeror's approach for attracting, developing, and retaining
> world-class and diverse Key Personnel, scientific personnel, a
> nationally and internationally deployed scientific work force, joint
> appointments (if applicable), and developing and educating the next
> generation of scientists and engineers.
>
> \(2\) The Offeror's approach for leveraging PPPL's current major
> programs (see Section C.4(b)) to foster scientific advances in
> national and international fusion science and technology research
> efforts.
>
> \(3\) The Offeror's description of any partnerships, collaborations,
> and/or other relationships that would further enhance PPPL's
> capabilities to address the evolving national and international fusion
> program.

\(b\) The Government shall evaluate the comprehensiveness,
innovativeness, and feasibility of the Offeror's strategy and approach
towards stewardship in achieving excellence in the areas of Laboratory
operations and business management set forth in Sections C.4(c)(1)
through C.4(c)(12) of the Statement of Work, with particular emphasis
on:

(1) Implementing a performance-based integrated management system and
    internal controls for all aspects of PPPL operations, including
    promotion of a culture of continuous improvement;

(2) Conducting an effective internal oversight program;

> \(3\) Using existing PPPL management systems or, if applicable, your
> approach for their replacement or integration with new or alternative
> management systems;
>
> \(4\) Determining which, if any, national/international standards to
> pursue for certification, and how to achieve the certification(s);
>
> \(5\) Establishing and maintaining core ES&H, QA, and security
> competencies (e.g. occupational medicine, radiation protection,
> industrial safety, industrial hygiene, fire protection, construction
> safety, environmental compliance and stewardship, pollution prevention
> and waste minimization, waste management, emergency management,
> quality assurance, physical security, personnel security, cyber and
> information security, etc.) and how the Subject Matter Experts in
> these disciplines will provide feedback on the adequacy of controls in
> planning and executing work, how appropriate funding levels will be
> determined for the core ES&H, QA, and security functions, the
> mechanisms that will ensure that necessary funding and resources are
> allocated, the methodology that will be used to improve PPPL's ES&H
> performance statistics for Total Recordable Case Rate (TRCR) and for
> Days Away Restricted or on the Job Transfer (DART) from SC's FY07 goal
> of the top 10% to the top 5% by the end of FY10, and what
> corresponding improvements can be achieved in other ES&H performance
> statistics, and the methodology that would be used to attain the
> improvement;
>
> \(6\) Involving small business, particularly small disadvantaged
> businesses, in meaningful Contract performance, including the extent,
> variety, and complexity of the work to be performed; and,
>
> \(7\) Developing and maintaining positive community relations and
> communications with DOE.

\(c\) The Government shall evaluate the comprehensiveness,
innovativeness, and feasibility of the Offeror's strategy and approach
for instituting a Laboratory Oversight Board; and

\(d\) The Government shall evaluate the comprehensiveness,
innovativeness, and feasibility of how the Offeror's organizational
elements and staff are organized to achieve world-class excellence in
fusion science and technology research, and in operations and business
management.

M.5 [KEY PERSONNEL CRITERION]{.underline}

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror's Laboratory Director and
other Key Personnel, including:

\(1\) How their credentials, technical and leadership capabilities, and
relevant experience, including currency and depth and past performance,
bring value to managing the Laboratory and interacting with DOE;

\(2\) Their understanding of their roles, responsibilities, and
authorities in the Laboratory's overall management structure, and of the
need to collaborate internally;

\(3\) Their understanding and approach for resolving scientific and
business management barriers affecting accomplishment of the work,
including consistency of their understanding and approach with the
written materials submitted;

\(4\) Their ability to effectively communicate and cooperate with DOE
and each other in order to enhance the successful conduct of the
scientific mission and achieve excellence in operations and business
management;

\(5\) Their understanding of DOE.

The evaluation will include consistency of their understanding and their
approach with the written materials submitted.

M.6 [TRANSITION CRITERION]{.underline}

The Government shall evaluate the Offeror's Transition Plan for the work
and the workforce from the beginning of the transition period until
assumption of contract responsibility. The Transition Plan shall be
evaluated with respect to its feasibility, comprehensiveness,
efficiency, and effectiveness, including the extent that it provides a
smooth and orderly transition to the proposed approach, identifies key
issues and milestones, identifies potential barriers to a smooth
transition, proposes solutions to the barriers identified and minimizes
impacts on continuity of operations.

M.7 [PAST PERFORMANCE CRITERION]{.underline}

\(a\) The Government shall evaluate the Offeror's past performance on
recent relevant contracts (including financial assistance) during the
last three years, similar in complexity and scope to activities
identified in Section C. For purposes of this evaluation criterion, the
use of the term "relevant contract" shall mean in excess of \$30 million
in average annual research and development (R&D) revenues/costs (R&D
includes basic and applied research and exploratory, advanced, and
engineering development) over the last three completed fiscal years.

\(b\) In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance
under (a) above, the Offeror will be evaluated neither favorably nor
unfavorably on past performance, i.e., the Offeror will receive 50
percent of the available points for this criterion.

M.8 [OFFEROR'S INVOLVEMENT/RESOURCES CRITERION]{.underline}

The Government shall evaluate the comprehensiveness and feasibility of
the Offeror's approach for providing corporate oversight of PPPL,
including providing corporate assurance. The Government shall evaluate
the credibility and expected benefit of the value added by the parent
organization(s) in achieving world-class excellence in research, and
excellence in operations and business management. Also, the Government
shall evaluate the credibility and expected benefit of the Offeror's
proposed resource(s), if any, to PPPL. Offerors shall only receive
credit in the evaluation for resources representing commitments that
will be incorporated into PPPL during the term of the PPPL contract. No
credit in the evaluation will be given for resource(s) developed and
funded by the United States Government unless the Offeror has exclusive
rights and control of the resource(s).

# M.9 [Cost and Fee Criteria]{.underline}

Cost proposals will be evaluated for cost reasonableness and realism in
accordance with FAR 15.404. The evaluation will include consideration of
the Offeror's transition costs and the Key Personnel's annual total
compensation costs for the first year of performance. The Government
will determine the probable cost of both of the above.

The amount of the fee(s) proposed will be considered as part of the best
value determination.

For offers submitted by Offerors other than the incumbent Contractor,
The Trustees of Princeton University, a \$250,000 per year lease
adjustment for the base contract period of five years will be added to
the evaluated price. This adjustment is required in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the ground lease for the facility.

For purposes of determining the best value, the evaluated price will be
the total of the proposed fee for the five year base term and the first
five years of award term incentive, along with the probable cost for
transition, Key Personnel's annual total compensation costs for the
first year of contract performance, and the five years of ground lease
adjustment.

# 

# M.10 [Selection]{.underline}

A contract shall be awarded to the responsible Offeror whose offer meets
the requirements of the RFP, and is determined to be the best value to
the Government.

Selection of the best value shall be determined through the process of
evaluating strengths and weaknesses of each Offeror's Capabilities and
Approach Proposal in accordance with the evaluation criteria stated in
this Section M. In making the best value determination, the Government
is more concerned with obtaining a superior Capabilities and Approach
Proposal than making award to the Offeror with the lowest evaluated
price consisting of the most probable cost and fee.

The Government shall assess whether the strengths and weaknesses between
or among competing Capabilities and Approach Proposals indicate
superiority from the standpoint of what the difference might mean in
terms of anticipated performance. Thus, to the extent that Offerors'
Capabilities and Approach Proposals are close or similar in merit, the
evaluated price is more likely to be a determining factor.

#  {#section-5 .TOC-1}