19. FEMS IV DRAFT Section M 20Sep21.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a best value 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 Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability, Small Business Participation, and Price. The resulting contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who best meets and/or exceeds the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical capability and risk of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). The Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective;

and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the Fire

Protection, Emergency Management, and Emergency Medical Services (FEMS IV). However, the

Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3. Discussions: If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal

Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the most advantageous combination to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Management of Personnel

Factor 2: Small Business Participation

Factor 3: Price

2.1. Factor 1: Technical Capability. The Technical evaluation provides for distinct evaluation of

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Combined Technical/Risk rating includes consideration of technical approach and risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Technical Capability evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 2.1(a) Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Ratings. Technical

Capability subfactors are of equal importance. Non-price factors when combined are significantly more important than Price.

2.1.1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating: Each Technical Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described Table 2.1(a) – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Ratings Description. The rating focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

A “strength” is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A “deficiency” is 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. The purpose of the Technical/Risk Rating is to assess technical approach and the risk of the proposed technical approach. For each subfactor within the Technical

Capability Factor, the Government may assign weaknesses or significant weaknesses. Identification of risks will result in either a weakness or significant weakness. See FAR 15.001.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Combined Technical/Risk subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical

Capability factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, for performance in excess of Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, which may be used as a tradeoff for a higher cost proposal.

Table 2.1(a) - Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method Ratings

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

2.1.2. Subfactor 1: Program Management. The proposed methodology shall demonstrate a sound, rational, effective, and efficient approach to Program Management. The standard is met when:

2.1.2.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the ability to effectively integrate Fire Emergency Service

(FES), Emergency Management (EM), and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response IAW SOW

Section 1.

2.1.2.2. The proposed approach addresses how offeror will effectively interface with Patrick SFB (PSFB)

Office of Emergency Management (OEM), Brevard County OEM, Kennedy Space Center, Space Launch

Delta 45, the PSFB Fire Department and the FEMS IV Program Management Directorate.

2.1.2.3. The proposed approach demonstrates an organizational chart depicting the organization functions to be performed IAW the SOW. The detailed organizational chart depicted the offeror’s organizational structure for all FES, EM, and EMS positions to include the EMS Director. Identified the reporting chain for daily operations and mission events. Identified which positions are considered key personnel and which are subcontractor positions.

2.1.2.4. The proposed approach provides the position description(s) of the FES section managers to include a brief description of qualifications (DOD/IFSAC/Pro-Board certificates are sufficient for FES personnel) IAW DODM 6055.06.

2.1.2.5. The proposed approach provides the position description(s) of the EM key personnel to include the qualifications and the functions assigned. Include a narrative description of how offeror’s proposed organization will interface with team members, other range contractors, the PSFB OEM, Brevard County

OEM, Local Emergency Planning Council, Kennedy Space Center, and the FEMS IV Program

Management Directorate IAW SOW Section 1 and Section 1.14.

2.1.2.6. The proposed approach provides the position description(s), qualifications and functions assigned to the EMS key personnel, including an EMS Director IAW SOW Section 1 and Section 1.9.8.

2.1.2.7. The proposed approach provides a Phase-In/Transition Plan not to exceed 45 days.

2.1.2.7.1. A list of required contractor provided equipment, to include description and quantity, necessary to meet SOW requirements.

2.1.2.7.2. The proposed approach provides a 45-day Phase-In Plan IAW SOW Paragraph 4.1 and supporting documentation. Describe approach on how the contractor will use the Phase–In time to assume full operational capability prior to full contract performance.

2.1.2.7.3. The proposed approach demonstrates an initial staffing and how it will increase over the Phase-

In period. Include personnel Phase-In by time and labor category, and how the “full” staffing level will be attained within the 45-days. Describe employee training/orientation activities and plan for acquiring necessary security clearances prior to assumption of full responsibilities of contract requirements.

2.1.3. Subfactor 2: Management of Personnel. The proposed methodology shall demonstrate a sound, rational, effective, and efficient approach to Management of Personnel. The standard is met when:

2.1.3.1. Personnel/Staffing. The proposed approach describes offeror’s staffing approach in numbers and labor categories (skill mixes) IAW SOW Section 1.9.

2.1.3.2. The proposed approach provides a chart showing proposed number of shifts and number of personnel per shift for staffing IAW paragraph 1.9 of the SOW to fully staff each fire station/position for day-to-day operations to meet response times (24/7) to all areas of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

2.1.3.3. The proposed approach describes the offeror’s overall training approach (initial and recurring) that addresses contractor and subcontractor employees and ensures the workforce is technically qualified to meet the SOW requirements in paragraph 1.10.

2.1.3.4. The proposed approach describes offeror’s approach to validate and track all required personnel training, qualifications, certifications and licenses for FES, EM and EMS IAW SOW sections 1.9, 1.10 and 1.14.

2.1.3.5 The proposed approach describes offeror’s approach to ensure standards of care will be followed on medical responses IAW Brevard County protocols and Florida State Statutes as specified SOW section

1.9.8.

2.1.3.6. The proposed approach describes offeror’s experience and effectiveness in resolving day- to-day union and labor relation issues.

2.1.3.7. The proposed approach describes in detail the offeror’s contingency plan for continuing contract performance in the event of a labor strike or personnel shortage IAW SOW Section 1.

2.1.3.8. The proposed approach describes an acceptable approach to maintain a qualified Emergency

Operations Center (EOC) Manager and qualified Emergency Management Analyst(s) for 24 hour operations for extended periods up to seven days IAW SOW Paragraph 1.14.

2.2. FACTOR 2: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION. The proposed Small Business Participation shall demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of Small Business Objectives.

All offerors (both other than small businesses (large) and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use small business(es) as defined by 13 CFR 121 in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror meets/does not meet the requirements as set forth in Section L and is acceptable or unacceptable. Factor 2: Small Business Participation will receive one rating described in

2.2.(a) below.

Table 2.2.(a) Small Business Participation Rating Method

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of Small

Business Objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet Small Business Objectives. Proposal is unawardable.

2.2.1 Factor 2: SB Participation. The offeror’s proposal was submitted using the format and tables as specified in Section J, Attachment 17 “Small Business Participation Commitment Document” as specified in Section L, Paragraph 2.2.1. The standard is met when:

2.2.1.1. Prime Offeror’s Size: The offeror’s proposal identified the applicable size and applicable socioeconomic categories for the PRIME offeror only, using the NAICS specified in this solicitation.

2.2.1.2. Minimum Quantitative Participation (MQP): All offeror’s Small Business Participation proposals shall include an MQP in terms of the percentage and the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each business category. The Government has provided the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR). The offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall meet at a minimum the MQR. Offerors shall provide detailed explanations/documentation to support quantitative small business participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror shall be evaluated as Small Business Participation.

Small business prime offerors shall include offeror’s information in the document. Binding commitments shall become enforceable, contractual requirements.

Table 2.2.1.2. Government Small Business MQR Percentages

Business Size MQR Sub Percentage

Base Year

MQR Sub Percentage

All Option Years

(Independently)

Small Business 12% 12%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 8% 8%

Historically Underutilized Business

Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

1% 1%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

1% 1%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small

Business (SDVOSB)

3% 3%

AbilityOne (Non-Profit) Small

Business1

.01% .01%

Note 1: DFARS 219.703 - Eligibility requirements for participating in the program. Qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind and other severely disabled, that have been approved by the Committee for

Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled under the Javits-Wagner-O’Day Act (41

U.S.C. 46-48), are eligible to participate in the program as a result of 10 U.S.C. 2410d and Section 9077 of Pub. L. 102-396 and similar sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts. Under this authority, subcontracts awarded to such entities may be counted toward the prime contractor’s small total small business goal.

2.2.1.3. Small Business Concerns (SBC): The offeror’s proposal provided all required information and back up documentation as specified in Section L, Paragraph 2.2. and Section J, Attachment 17 “Small

Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)” to demonstrate which Small Business

Concern(s) as defined in FAR Part 19 are specifically identified to satisfy requirements of the solicitation for the entire performance period.

2.2.1.4. Description of Efforts: The proposal demonstrates the extent to which the offeror provides a description of efforts to assure that small business concerns, to include all socio-economic small business categories and nonprofit agencies that are associated with the AbilityOne Program will have equal opportunity to compete for subcontracts under any resulting contract.

2.2.1.5. Extent of Commitment: The proposal demonstrates the extent of the offeror plans to develop additional subcontracting opportunities for small, small disadvantaged and other socio-economic categories, and nonprofit agencies that are associated with the AbilityOne Program over the life of the contract and to correct any participation deficiencies during the course of contract performance.

2.3. FACTOR 3: PRICE. The price shall be complete, reasonable, and balanced. The Government reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from competition if unreasonable. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable and/or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

2.3.1. Complete: The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted Vol. III - Price.

Any proposal which fails to conform to the requirements or specification in the solicitation may be considered ineligible for award. Proposals should be complete and clear and not require additional explanation of information. The Government may make a final determination as to whether a proposal is acceptable or unacceptable based solely on the proposal as presented and submitted.

2.3.2. Reasonable: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Reasonableness will be based on an evaluation of the offeror’s Total Evaluated

Price (TEP). The TEP will be the total/sum of all proposed prices for separately priced line items CLINS

0001, 1001-1005, 2001-2005, 3001-3005, 4001-4005, 5001-5005, 6001-6005 (option to extend services).

For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. The evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-

1(c), as determined appropriate, may also be performed in further determining the reasonableness of the proposal.

2.3.3. Balanced: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with the respect to separately priced line items. An offer may be rejected if the Procuring Contracting Officer

(PCO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.