Atch 17 RFP - Section M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (8Apr2022).pdf

FA489022R0010

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1. This competitive best value source selection using the tradeoff source selection process will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures (SSP) effective 31 March 2016, and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection 2019 Edition revised 26 July 2021. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible (IAW FAR Part 9) offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M-1.2. RESERVED

M-1.3. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to award without discussions. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the SSA determine that discussions are necessary, a competitive range determination will be made prior to conducting discussions. This range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of all tradeoff factors. The competitive range may include lesser rated proposals at the sole discretion of the Government.

M-1.3.1. The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors in writing if their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered.

M-1.3.2. Evaluation Notices (EN) will be issued to Offerors in the Competitive Range. Formal responses to ENs and final proposal revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.3.3. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested from each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the submitted FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-1.4. A Top Secret Facility Clearance is required in the performance of this contract. . Offerors (to include subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners) shall provide a copy of active facility clearance at time of proposal submission that shows the Cage Code for which the clearance is approved and that will be used for the purpose of this award. The DD254 submission(s) will be validated thru review of information in the National Industrial Security System (NISS). The proposal of an Offeror, to include subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners, that does not have the required clearance at the time of proposal submission will not be evaluated and is not eligible for award. Offerors that are unpopulated Joint Ventures shall submit information in Section L paragraph L-1.8.

M-2. EVALUATION FACTOR TRADEOFF IMPORTANCE.

M-2.1. The tradeoff process permits award to other than the lowest priced offeror or other than the highest technically rated offeror when it may be in the best interest of the Government by the Source Selection Authority (SSA). Proposals will be evaluated using the three factors: (1) Technical Capability (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. In terms of the hierarchy of importance, the following factors are listed in decreasing order of importance.

Technical capability is most important and significantly more important than past performance and price. Past performance is more important than price. Price is the least important. Furthermore, there are three subfactors within the Technical Capability Factor: (A) Management, (B) Operations, Maintenance, & Engineering, and (C) solicitation. Technical risk ratings will be assessed at the subfactor using the ratings listed in Table 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, and are listed below. An overall factor-level risk rating will not be assigned.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M-3.1.2. Subfactor A: Management

M-3.1.2.1. Aspect I: Program Management. The offeror’s proposed approach shall provide an effective organizational and management structure to successfully accomplish program management requirements and the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates the following:

• Demonstrate a sound management and organizational structure for all functional areas, detailing lines of authority, roles and responsibilities, teaming partners, subcontractors, manning levels, and skill mix to provide successful management and execution of the program.

• Demonstrate sufficient personnel in appropriate labor categories roles, and skill levels to cover proposed shift and duty schedules to fully meet all PWS requirements.

• Demonstrate an integrated systems approach to interact with host Command leadership and ACC AMIC personnel to ensure responsiveness to the customer and an effective contractor/government partnership.

M-3.1.2.2. Aspect II: Quality Management. The offeror’s proposed approach shall provide an effective organizational and management structure to successfully accomplish quality requirements and the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

• Demonstrate a sound approach to develop, implement, maintain, and continually improve a comprehensive QMS serving as the foundation of program management that complies with ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001:2015.

• Demonstrate a clear process for:

- Enforcing compliance with published technical data

- Identifying and resolving deficiencies

- Ensuring continual process improvement

M-3.1.3. Subfactor B: Operations, Maintenance, & Engineering

M-3.1.3.1. Aspect I: Operations. The offeror’s proposed approach shall provide effective operations support and the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates the following:

• Demonstrate proactive, flexible operations support to reduce system downtime and maximize ACTS operational availability.

• Demonstrate performance of ACTS loading, unloading and transport to meet flying and debriefing schedules.

• Demonstrate performance of all necessary tasks to ensure an instrumented debrief capability.

• Demonstrate performance of all ACTS operations in compliance with security and safety requirements.

• Demonstrate expertise in performing RTO and TDLM tasks.

• Demonstrate technical expertise required for operating and using the airborne systems, ground systems, communications systems, datalink systems, RTO systems, network systems and Virtual/Constructive systems listed in the PWS.

M-3.1.3.2. Aspect II: Maintenance. The offeror’s approach shall provide an effective, comprehensive maintenance program that meets requirements stated in the PWS for ACTS sustainment and the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates the following:

• Demonstrate technical expertise required for maintaining, troubleshooting, and repairing the airborne systems, ground systems, communications systems, datalink systems, RTO systems, network systems, and Virtual/Constructive systems listed in the PWS.

• Demonstrate expertise with using test equipment, to include ACTS-specific maintenance (e.g. pod-leveling tool), and tools listed in this PWS and technical exhibit.

• Demonstrate performance of all functions necessary to ensure test equipment is ready to use for maintenance on assigned equipment.

M-3.1.3.3. Aspect III: Engineering. The offeror’s approach shall provide an effective, comprehensive engineering function that meets the requirements stated in the PWS and the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates the following:

• Demonstrates engineering capability in requirements collection, system design, architecture development, documentation, test, certification, configuration management, advanced troubleshooting, and creation of engineering reports and papers for all required engineering activities.

• Demonstrates software engineering capability for total lifecycle support of a software product line.

• Demonstrates radio and transceiver system engineering capability for microwave, datalink, and radio systems to include field engineering activities such as tower installations.

• Demonstrates network engineering capability for key training networks such as ACTS, TENA, and LMON to include on-site integration activities with local networks and circuits.

M-3.1.4. Subfactor C: Transition. The offeror’s approach shall provide an effective plan for transitioning resources and personnel during Phase-In at the start of the contract and the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates the following:

• Effectively phases in resources and trained, qualified personnel required to assume mission responsibilities at contract start.

• Identifies actions to prevent interruption of services.

• Identifies an effective and timely approach to complete open actions (e.g. work orders, requisitions, etc.)

and integrate these actions into the proposed data management system.

M-3.2. FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

M-3.2.1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offerors’ recent and relevant present and past performance to determine whether there is a reasonable expectation that the offeror can successfully perform the ACTS requirements. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the prime contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost, and schedule.

M-3.2.2. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first aspect is to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent to this acquisition. The second aspect is to determine whether the offeror’s recent performance information is relevant to this acquisition. The third aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on the recent and relevant contracts or, the quality of product or service provided. Past performance shall be evaluated and assessed based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records submitted. Past performance will be assessed a confidence rating at the factor level in accordance with the definitions provided in Table 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, and are listed below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

M-3.2.2.1. A recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided by the offeror or found by the Government. Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent.

M-3.2.2.2. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s Present and Past Performance will be made for recent PPI references whether provided by the offeror or found by the Government. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor provided PPI contract reference. Each Past Performance Information (PPI) contract reference will receive a relevancy rating in accordance with the definitions listed below.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Description Assessment

Very Relevant

Past or present performance effort:

1) Involved in the same type work (ACTS), magnitude and complexity of effort required by the ACTS PWS.

2) Work performed simultaneously at CONUS and OCONUS DoD locations.

3) Involved directly with operating and maintaining DoD combat training systems for aircrews.

4) Involved directly with operating and maintaining special purpose equipment and software required by the ACTS

PWS.

5) Performed engineering services of same complexity and scope to those identified in the ACTS PWS.

6) Evidence of past ability to obtain/maintain Top Secret clearances.

Very relevant if evidence of fully meeting or exceeding 4 or more of the 6 Very Relevant criteria.

Relevant

Past or present performance effort:

1) Involved in similar type work (e.g. electronic training systems), magnitude and complexity of effort required by the ACTS PWS.

2) Work performed at CONUS or OCONUS DoD locations.

3) Involved indirectly with operating and maintaining DoD combat training systems for aircrews.

4) Involved directly with operating and maintaining precision measurement and test diagnostic systems.

5) Performed general software, radio, or network engineering services.

6) Evidence of past ability to obtain/maintain Secret clearances.

Relevant if evidence of fully meeting or exceeding 4 or more of the 6 Relevant criteria.

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.

Somewhat Relevant

Past or present performance effort:

1) Involved in similar type work (e.g. electronic training systems), working with aircrews on DoD installations.

2) Involved with operations and/or maintenance of systems, and operating and maintaining equipment and computer software.

3) Evidence of past ability to obtain/maintain less than Secret clearances/access.

Somewhat Relevant if evidence of fully meeting or exceeding 2 or more of the 3 Somewhat Relevant criteria.

Not Relevant Past or present performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant if unable to achieve one of the other ratings.

M-3.2.2.3. The Government will assess performance contained in all recent and relevant performance records to ascertain if the offeror can successfully perform ACTS requirements. Performance will be assessed on all relevant PPI references using information obtained through one or more of the following: 1) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 2) similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4) DCMA channels; 5) interviews with program managers and COs; and 6) other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. The evaluation will consider the recency, relevancy, and quality of each performance reference as it relates to this acquisition when assigning the past performance rating.

M-3.2.3. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports: 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. IAW FAR 15.306(b), communications shall be held with offerors whose past performance information is the determining factor preventing them from being placed within the competitive range. Such communications shall address adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not had a prior opportunity to respond.

M-3.3. FACTOR 3: PRICE

M-3.3.1. Price will be evaluated on the total overall price. Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP) consists of the total proposed extended prices for all fixed price CLINs and all cost-reimbursable CLINs for the transition, the base period, option periods1 through 4, and 50 percent of the option period 4 price to represent the price for the optional extension of services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Government has provided estimates for the cost-reimbursable CLINs. All CR CLINs are exclusive of indirect rates and profit/fee.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-3.3.2. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price. Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal.

M-3.3.2.1. Price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (Reference FAR 15.404- 1(g)). Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

M-3.3.2.2. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.