3.C-LGIP_Section_M_20201203.pdf

FA820321R0002

3 December 2020

C-LGIP Section M

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M Content:

1 Source selection 2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 3 Volume I – Contract Documentation 4 Volume II – Technical 5 Volume III – Past Performance 6 Cost/Price 7 Pre-award Survey 8 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive multiple award best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) (refer https://www.acquisition.gov). Failure to meet a requirement of this solicitation may result in an offer being determined Unawardable and excluded from further consideration. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale, but it is noted that providing an exception list and rationale may still result in a submission being deemed non-conforming. The Air Force will award to all responsible, qualifying offerors who receive an Acceptable rating for all evaluation factors.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Air Force anticipates a minimum of two (2) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity awards as a result of this Solicitation. Each offeror who is awarded a C-LGIP IDIQ contract will receive a task order for $1,000.00, the minimum guarantee, to provide a Contractor Management Plan (CMP) in accordance with CDRL A015, due within 15 calendar days of task order award. The Government has no obligation beyond the minimum guarantee to any awardee of a C-LGIP IDIQ contract. The Air Force reserves the right to award some, one, or no contracts as a result of the Request for Proposal (RFP) if it is in the best interest of the Government. If the Air Force determines not to award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

1.3 Unawardable Offers

The Air Force may determine a proposal Unawardable that, as a result of its evaluation, receives an Unacceptable rating in the evaluation factors or subfactors identified in this document.

Likewise, the Air Force may determine a proposal Unawardable that fails to demonstrate comprehension of the complexity and risks of the program, including contract terms and conditions. Once a proposal is deemed Unawardable, the proposal will not be evaluated further.

1.4 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Offeror’s responses to

C-LGIP Section M

Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 Factors and Subfactors

For award purposes, offers will be evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors.

Award of C-LGIP IDIQ contracts will be made to all qualifying offerors based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Capabilities Subfactor 2: C-LGIP Statement of Work

Factor 2: Past Performance

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors for award of basic multiple award IDIQ contract

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are of equal importance. Technical subfactors are of equal importance to each other. To be determined a “qualifying offeror”, IAW FAR 15.304, an offeror must receive an Acceptable rating for both Technical and Past Performance.

3 VOLUME I – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This Volume will be reviewed for completeness and evaluated in a pass/fail type evaluation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L, para’s 4.1 - 4.2. A proposal that fails an evaluation IAW this paragraph may be determined Unawardable.

4 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

Factor 1, Technical, will receive an Unacceptable rating if either Subfactor 1 or Subfactor 2 receives an Unacceptable rating. If a Subfactor receives an Unacceptable rating, the Government may choose not to perform further evaluation of that offeror’s proposal.

4.1 Technical, Subfactor 1 – Technical Capabilities

This subfactor assesses if the Offeror’s Technical Capabilities (limit 30 pages) demonstrates an acceptable approach to:

4.1.1 How the Offeror has (or can obtain), and how they will maintain, management and engineering staff with:

a) qualifications and experience (PWS para. 14.0 and Tables 2, 3 and 4)

b) consistent with what the Air Force requires (PWS para. 14.0 and Tables 2, 3 and 4)

c) among the six landing gear categories (PWS para. 14.2).

4.1.2 Teaming arrangements, if applicable (will not count against page limitation).

4.1.2.1 Teaming Arrangements clearly identify:

a) The scope of the arrangement

b) The type of work to be performed by each party

c) The management plan for coordinating work between each party

C-LGIP Section M

e) The conflict resolution plan

f) Other important aspects of the relationship

4.1.2.2 The Government reserves the right to reject any Teaming Arrangement(s) that, in the Government’s opinion, would limit the Government’s ability to pursue its policies on competitive contracting and subcontracting.

4.1.3 Succession Management Plan includes details on how turnover, succession, and training of staff will be handled to meet the qualification and experience requirements for the entire 20-year period of performance.

4.1.4 The Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates their commitment to Small Business Participation and to meeting the Government’s Small Business subcontracting goals as defined in the PWS (para. 11.3). This commitment is supported by:

a) The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in the proposal

b) The extent of commitment to use such firms

4.1.5 Quality Control Plan, in accordance with PWS para. 13.2, addresses how quality will be managed over the entire 20-year period of performance. The Quality Control Plan shall include a detailed and comprehensive approach to meeting the performance thresholds given in the Services Summary table (PWS Appendix, Table 1). In addition, the Quality Control Plan shall provide identification and mitigation of program risks to cost, schedule and/or performance, and any applicable quality standards that will be utilized (e.g. ISO 9001-2000 or equivalent).

Rating for Subfactor 1 will be IAW Table M1:

4.2 Technical, Subfactor 2 – C-LGIP Statement of Work

This subfactor will be used to assess the Offeror’s Statement of Work (limit 20 pages) submitted in response to the C-LGIP Sample Objectives accompanying the RFP. This Subfactor will evaluate if the Offeror’s proposed SOW demonstrates comprehension of the complexity and risks of the program and their proposed approach:

4.2.1 Proposed Solution and Deliverables: Solutions are clearly explained and the relationship to each of the Sample Objectives is detailed.

4.2.2 Key Personnel: The Key Personnel, and any other applicable labor categories that will be utilized for this task, are identified and details provided for how they will be used to meet objectives and schedule. Include who will perform each aspect of the solution.

4.2.3 Risk Analysis and Mitigation: Obstacles the program is likely to encounter are identified, along with their impact on the program, and realistic solutions to avoid, mitigate and/or recover from them are provided. For each likely risk identified, the Offeror’s proposal provides a Low, Moderate or High risk classification and justifies that rating with explanation addressing the:

TABLE M1 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

C-LGIP Section M

a) Probability that the identified risk will occur;

b) Extent of impact on objectives and deliverables; and

c) Proposed risk mitigations for cost, schedule, and performance.

4.2.4 Notional Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The notional IMS describes the necessary elements of the proposed solution in relation to the objectives and indicates who will perform each task. The notional IMS clearly indicates the critical path for the duration of the task.

Rating for Subfactor 2 will be IAW Table M2:

5 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected to rate the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The past performance rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance, to include compliance with their small business subcontracting commitments.

Rating for Factor 2 will be IAW Table M3:

5.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements and the quality of that performance. Past Performance is assessed at the overall factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors in Section M para. 2. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the Offeror capability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information

TABLE M2 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

TABLE M3 – PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

C-LGIP Section M obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

5.2.1 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been completed within the past five years (5) from the date of issuance of this Solicitation. Past performance information that does not meet the recency requirement will not be evaluated.

5.2.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine if the products/services provided under those contracts are relevant to the Technical scope/requirements of C-LGIP. Consideration will be given to the projects submitted by an offeror (Section L Attachment 1 – C-LGIP Project Submissions.xlsx) to determine the project’s relevancy. A relevant contract is similar in size, scope, and complexity to C-LGIP task orders. C-LGIP’s task order scope includes experience in the six functional categories listed in Section L para. 5.0.1. Note that the relevance of a particular offeror’s project is expected to be self-evident. Relevancy of CPARS reports, or data independently obtained by the evaluators will be determined to the maximum extent practicable. Past performance information that is not determined relevant will not be evaluated.

5.2.3 Quality Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent & relevant performance information to determine the acceptability of products/services provided and the Offeror’s compliance with their small business subcontracting commitments. The Government may use other sources of information as outlined in 5.2 above in its evaluation. Information that may result in an Acceptable quality rating may include, but is not limited to, a CPARS rating of Satisfactory or better. Information that may result in an Unacceptable quality rating may include, but is not limited to, a Marginal or Unsatisfactory CPARS rating. An Unacceptable rating in any aspect of the six functional categories listed in Section L para. 5.0.1 may result in an overall Unacceptable Past Performance rating. The Government will use Table M4 (below) when assessing recent contracts for Quality:

5.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments, offerors will receive an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors, the resulting Past Performance rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of recency, relevancy and quality.

TABLE M4 – PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

C-LGIP Section M

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be reasonably assigned will receive an Acceptable rating for the Past Performance factor.

Note that adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to previously respond (FAR 15.306(b)(1)) will be communicated to the Offeror.

6 COST/PRICE

Cost/Price will not be a factor in this evaluation, but Cost/Price information will be requested and evaluated on subsequent task orders.

7 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey as part of source selection activities. Results of the Pre-Award Survey (if conducted) will be used in determining each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

8 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In addition to meeting the identified factors and subfactors, in order for offerors to be considered awardable, they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Sections L and M to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined Unawardable and removed from consideration for award.