2. FEMS IV Section M.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, Past Performance, 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.

To be eligible for award, the offeror’s proposal must be received timely and deemed responsive in that the proposal meets all requirements of the solicitation; conforms to all required terms and conditions;

includes all required representations and certifications; and acknowledges all amendments, if applicable.

Furthermore, offerors should ensure the requested information is Section L is included or updated as needed. An offeror’s proposal deemed non-responsive may not be evaluated further.

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.

http://www.acquisition.gov/

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. Non-price factors, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to Price.

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Management of Personnel

Factor 2: Past Performance 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, 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.

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 purpose of the Technical/Risk Rating is to assess technical approach and the risk of the proposed technical approach. 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. For each subfactor within the Technical Capability Factor, the Government may assign weaknesses or significant weaknesses. “Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. “Significant weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A “risk,” as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical subfactors may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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 offeror’s approach to Program Management. This subfactor evaluates how:

2.1.2.1. The proposed approach effectively integrates Fire Emergency Service (FES), Emergency Management (EM), and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) response IAW SOW Section 1.

2.1.2.2. The proposed approach demonstrates an efficient 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 organizational chart effectively depicts the organization functions to be performed IAW the SOW. The proposed organizational chart depicts an effective organizational structure for all FES, EM, and EMS positions to include the EMS Director. The proposed organizational chart identifies an efficient reporting chain for daily operations and mission events. The proposed organization chart clearly identifies which positions are considered key personnel and which are subcontractor positions.

2.1.2.4. The proposed position description(s) of the FES section managers include a brief description of qualifications and are compliant (DoD/IFSAC/Pro-Board certificates are sufficient for FES personnel) IAW DoDM 6055.06, DoD Fire and Emergency Services Certification Program (F&EESCP).

2.1.2.5. The proposed position description(s) of the EM key personnel include the qualifications and functions assigned. The proposed approach demonstrates an efficient 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 position description(s), qualifications and functions assigned to the EMS key personnel, including an EMS Director, meet the requirements IAW SOW Section 1 and Section 1.9.8.

2.1.2.7. The proposed Phase-In/Transition Plan is effective and does not exceed 60 days.

2.1.2.7.1. The proposed list of contractor provided equipment, to include description and quantity, meets SOW requirements.

2.1.2.7.2. The proposed approach demonstrates an effective 60-day Phase-In Plan IAW SOW Paragraph 4.1 and supporting documentation. The proposed approach demonstrates an efficient plan to use the Phase–In time to assume full operational capability prior to full contract performance.

2.1.2.7.3. The proposed approach demonstrates efficient initial staffing and effectively describes how staffing will increase over the Phase-In period. The proposed approach effectively demonstrates how personnel Phase-In by time and labor category, will result in “full” staffing levels within the 60-days. The proposed approach demonstrates appropriate employee training/orientation activities and an efficient 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 offeror’s approach to Management of Personnel. This subfactor evaluates:

2.1.3.1. Personnel/Staffing. The proposal describes an effective staffing approach in numbers and labor categories (skill mixes) IAW SOW Section 1.9.

2.1.3.2. The proposal depicts a chart showing proposed number of shifts and number of personnel per shift for efficient 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 proposal describes a sound 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 proposal describes an effective 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 proposal describes an effective 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 proposal demonstrates the 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 a sound 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 effective 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: PAST PERFORMANCE. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, all critical subcontractors. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past 5 years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2.2.1. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

2.2.1.1. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance

Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources.

Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

2.2.1.2. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.2.1.3. Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL include the present/past performance of critical subcontractors meeting the established definition in Section L in paragraph 2.2.1.

2.2.1.4. Key Personnel: For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than 3 years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past 3 years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

2.2.2. Recency Definition: An evaluation of each past performance information citation will be completed to determine if the project is recent. To be determined recent, a project must be ongoing or completed within the past 5 years from the date of solicitation issuance. This includes projects awarded prior to this period, but still had performance during the recency timeframe. Past performance information will be given a recency rating in accordance with Table 2.2.2.(a). Recency Evaluation Method.

2.2.3.

RATING DESCRIPTION

Recent A project must be ongoing or completed within the past 5 years from the date of solicitation issuance.

Not Recent A project that is not ongoing or completed within the past 5 years from the date of solicitation issuance.

Past performance information that is not recent will not be evaluated further.

2.2.4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided and/or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each Past and Present Performance contract that has met the recency criteria. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Statement of Work will be utilized to determine the relevancy of the work performed on Past and Present contracts to include but not limited to all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Offeror will be given a relevancy rating in accordance with Table 2.2.3.(a). Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method:

Table 2.2.3.(a) Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.2.5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency and relevancy of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below in Table 2.2.4.(a). Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Table 2.2.4.(a) Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description

Table 2.2.2.(a). Recency Evaluation Method

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

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. The offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation.

If the CO determines the offeror non-responsible, the CO will comply with FAR Subpart 19.6, Certificate of Competency and Determination of Responsibility.

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.