Atch 2 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

1. This acquisition will utilize the Best Value Continuum, in which the Government seeks to award to an offeror who provides the greatest confidence that they will meet the Government’s requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. Subject Tradeoff source selections procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315 will be used to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

The tradeoff process permits tradeoffs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to award to a higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the high priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. Price/Cost is not the most important evaluation factor, but its degree of importance will increase commensurably with the degree of equality among different offeror’s non-cost factors.

2. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluation of the factors and subfactors described in this solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process is by its nature, subjective; therefore professional judgement is implicit throughout the source selection process.

3. Factors and Subfactors and Relative Importance. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

- Subfactor 1: Mobilization Plan & Recruiting, Hiring, and Retention Plan.

Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor 3 – Price.

3.1. Relative importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Past Performance is more important than Technical Capability. Within Technical Capability, the subfactor components are descending in importance (i.e., Mobilization Plan is the most important component). Finally, Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

B. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

1. By submission of its proposal, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications. The Government intends to award a contract to the offeror deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation criteria, to represent the best value to the Government. The

Government intends to award one contract to the offeror who in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall value in response to the solicitation requirements.

2. Award without Discussions. The government intends to award without discussions.

Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price, technical, and past performance standpoint. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposals meets the minimum requirements solely on the basis of the evaluation of the initial proposal as submitted.

2.1. Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their written proposals (e.g., defining the relevance of the offeror’s technical information and respond to adverse past performance information to which an offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor clerical errors as described in FAR 15.306(a). Any such exchange between the offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions.

2.2. However, The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors and subfactors, the Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

2.2.1. Communication exchanges may be conducted after receipt of proposals leading to the establishment of the competitive range. Communications may be limited to those offerors whose past performance is the determining the competitive range or offerors whose exclusion from, or inclusion in, the competitive range is uncertain.

2.2.2. The Contracting Officer will promptly notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range; whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505. Offerors excluded from the competitive range, or determined to be technically unacceptable, may request a pre-award debriefing or they may choose to wait until after the source selection decision to request a post-award debriefing. However, offerors are entitled to no more than one debriefing.

2.2.3. 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 requests for Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the Source Selection Decision.

C. EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1. Step 1: Review all proposals for responsiveness. Proposals shall adhere to proposal submission instructions as outlined in Section L, Instructions to Offerors (ITO) of this solicitation. Offerors are strongly advised to thoroughly read the instructions. Proposals must be fully responsive to, and consistent with, the solicitation requirements, PWS, and evaluation factors for award. Proposals shall consist of four (4) separate volumes: Volume I – Contract

Documentation, Volume II – Technical Capability/Risk, and Volume III – Past Performance, and Volume IV – Price. Proposals deemed non-responsive will not be evaluated and eliminated from further consideration.

2. Financial Documents. This information will be used to determine the offeror’s responsibility pursuant for FAR 9.104-1. Offeror shall submit a financial capability letter completed by offeror’s financial institution (Attachment 6 to this solicitation) or Certificate of Competency (COC) issued by the Small Business Administration (SBA).

2.1. Financial responsibility will not be evaluated as a separate subfactor. However, it is a basic contract requirement with a pass/fail determination thus it will be evaluated during the source selection process. A contract may only be awarded to the offerors who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).

3. Step 2, Concurrent Evaluation of Factor 1 – Technical Capability, Factor 2 – Past Performance and Factor 3 – Price/Cost.

4. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

4.1. The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the offeror’s understanding and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s approach to meet the solicitation requirements. Inconsistencies between the Technical and Price proposals may result in the assessment of up to high proposal risk under this factor.

4.2. The term “Technical” refers to non-price factors and subfactors other than past performance.

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical evaluation provides for two related assessments: a technical capability assessment and a technical risk assessment. The technical capability assessment evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk assessment considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactor 1, for each component, Mobilization Plan & Recruiting, Hiring, Training, and Retention Plan a Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be assigned. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

4.3. The following definitions will be followed:

4.3.1. Strength: An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

4.3.2. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4.3.3. Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4.3.4. Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

4.3.5. Risk: The potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, the need for Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful performance. Table M-1 below provides Technical Risk descriptions.

Table M-1: Technical Risk Descriptions

RATING DESCRIPTION

Low Proposal may contain weakness (es) which may have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. It 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 weakness or combination of weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

4.4. Technical Subfactor 1 – Mobilization Plan & Recruiting, Hiring, and Retention Plan.

Technical Subfactor 1 has two components: 1) Mobilization Plan and 2) Recruiting, Hiring, Training, and Retention Plan. Each component in Technical Subfactor 1 will receive one of the combined Technical/Risk adjectival ratings described in table M-2 below.

Table M-2: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

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.

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

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

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.

4.4.1. The technical ratings focus on the strengths, risks, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The adjectival ratings depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets Technical Subfactor 1 requirements. Component ratings will not be rolled up into an overall adjectival rating for Technical Subfactor 1.

4.5. Mobilization Plan. Evaluation Description: Offerors shall expediently mobilize and be ready to fully perform all contract requirements within 30 calendar days of the performance start date. Offerors shall submit their mobilization plan detailing how the offeror intends to manage, staff, schedule, and complete all necessary start-up tasks within 30 calendar days of the performance start date. The Mobilization Plan shall include Section C, paragraphs C.3.3.1.1 through C.3.3.1.3 of Section L, Instruction to Offerors, and shall demonstrate the offeror’s ability to mobilize and be ready to fully perform all contract requirements within 30 days after contract award.

4.5.1. Measure of Merit. This requirement is met when the offeror’s Mobilization Plan adequately addresses Section C, paragraphs C.3.3.1.1 through C.3.3.1.3 of Section L of the solicitation, and represents a reasonable approach to managing, staffing, scheduling, and completing all start-up tasks in order to be ready to fully perform all contract requirements within 30 days after contract award. In addition, the Mobilization Plan identifies potential start-up risks and provides risk mitigation strategies that lower potential risks to a reasonable level.

4.6. Recruiting, Hiring, and Retention Plan. Evaluation Description: Offerors shall describe their approach to recruitment, hiring, and retaining personnel. The narrative shall demonstrate the offeror’s ability to continuously provide qualified personnel who have the required security clearances and possess the required education, experience, qualifications, and/or certifications while minimizing employee turnover. The Recruiting, Hiring and Retention Plan shall address Section C, paragraphs C.3.3.2.1. through C.3.3.2.4. of Section L of the solicitation.

4.6.1. Measure of Merit. The requirement is met when the offeror’s Recruiting, Hiring, and Retention Plan addresses Section C, paragraphs C.3.3.2.1. through C.3.3.2.4. of Section L of the solicitation and demonstrates a reasonable approach to continuously providing sufficient qualified personnel who have the required security clearances, education, experience, and/or certifications while minimizing employee turnover.

5. FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1. Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will evaluate past performance.

5.2. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to perform the required services, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. As such, the Government will assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint members,’ and if applicable, any proposed teaming subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet users’ needs. 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. The past performance evaluation is subjective, and as stated previously, the Government will use professional judgement the source selection process.

5.3. Joint Venture. If an offeror is a joint venture (JV) with no past performance information, the past performance record of all companies performing the JV will be considered and the past performance section must contain references from each company forming the JV. If the JV company, as the offeror, has a past performance record, the past performance record of the JV company will be considered for evaluation purposes. If the JV company has less than three (3) past performance records for the offeror, the past performance records of the individual companies comprising the JV will be considered to make up the minimum number of three (3) past performance references for the offeror.

5.4. Mentor Protégé. If an offeror is a Mentor Protégé (MP) participant with no past performance information, the past performance record of the mentor will only be considered if the mentor is either a teaming partner/subcontractor or part of the JV submitting a proposal as identified in the Offeror Summary Table in Volume I.

5.5. Past Performance Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s past and present work record that is recent and relevant to this acquisition to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform as proposed.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after aspects of the offeror’s present and recent performance records are evaluated.

5.6. The Government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of offerors’ submitted past performance information, past performance questionnaires received and other past performance information data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), other databases or systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and any other sources. The past performance evaluation will include verification of dates of service for recency and type of work for relevancy. The past performance evaluation does not establish, create, or change the existing record or history of an offeror’s performance on past or present contracts, rather the past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those contacts.

5.7. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent contracts are defined as contracts or task orders where services were performed, or are still being performed, within three (3) years of the issue date of this solicitation. In addition, a current effort must be ongoing for at least six (6) months prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. A completed effort must be performed during the past three

(3) years with at least six (6) months of that effort performed within three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. The Government reserves the right to consider any recent present/past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

5.8. Relevancy Assessment. The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent current and past performance obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts most closely resemble the scope, magnitude and complexity of this solicitation.

Scope considers the number and types of aircrew and support labor categories provided.

Magnitude considers the overall dollar value of the effort. Complexity considers who the services were provided for and the number of required sorties flown monthly during the period of performance. Relevancy, as it pertains to present/past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of present/past performance.

5.8.1. For this requirement, relevant contracts are defined as work that the offeror has performed as either a prime or major subcontractor that included all of the following service elements:

• Recruited, qualified, managed and retained aircrew consisting of 15 or more full time equivalent (FTE) positions

• Provided flight services for DoD, or other Federal agencies with 30 or more sorties provided monthly

• Performed flight operations or training in actual aircraft

5.8.2. The contractor need not have performed all of these services on a single contract or task order (singular effort) to be determined relevant. However, past performance on contracts or task orders involving some or all of these service elements in a singular effort would be more relevant than those that did not.

5.8.3. Degrees of relevancy will be assessed for present/past performance using the criteria outlined in Table M-3 below.

5.8.4. Consideration will be given to the business relationship between the offeror and teaming partners and subcontractors listed on the Offeror Summary Table (Volume I). Teams that have demonstrated successful performance together in the past will be considered more relevant than a contract performed by the offeror alone, subcontractor alone or either with different teaming partners and subcontractors. The past performance information and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

5.8.5. A more relevant past performance record will be weighted more heavily than a less relevant performance record. Greater relevance generally will be assigned past performance that includes a larger number of aircrew and support staffing, followed by work performed for relevant clients (e.g. DoD) followed by dollar value of existing aircrew and support staffing contracts. The government will use the degrees of relevancy in Table M-3, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method when assessing relevancy ratings to contract references.

Table M-3: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITION

VERY RELEVANT Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation desires.

The present and past performance included all of the following:

• Recruited, qualified, managed and retained aircrew consisting of 20 or more full time equivalent (FTE) positions

• Provided flight services for Special Operations Forces (SOF), DoD, or other Federal agencies with 50 or more sorties provided monthly

• Performed Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR) flight operations or training in actual aircraft

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation desires.

The present and past performance included all of the following:

• Recruited, qualified, managed and retained aircrew and support staff consisting of 15 or more FTE positions

• Provided flight services for DoD, or other Federal agencies with 30 or more sorties provided monthly

• Performed flight operations or training in actual aircraft

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

The present and past performance included all of the following:

• Recruited, qualified, managed and retained aircrew and support staff consisting of 10 or more FTE positions

• Provided flight services for DoD, or other Federal agencies with 20 or more sorties provided monthly

• Performed flight operations or aircrew and support staffing services

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

The present and past performance included all of the following:

• Recruited, qualified, managed and retained aircrew and support staff consisting of less than 10 FTE positions

• Provided flight services for DoD, or other Federal agencies with less than 20 sorties provided monthly

• Did not perform flight operations or aircrew and support staffing services

5.9. Performance Confidence Assessment. After evaluating recency and relevancy, past performance will be evaluated for quality and assigned one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings in Table M-4 below. Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings reflect the Government’s confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

Table M-4: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent and 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.

5.9.1. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

5.10. Adverse Past Performance. Offerors will 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. 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.

6. FACTOR 3 – PRICE

6.1. Price proposals will be evaluated for Completeness, Balance, Reasonableness, and Realism.

6.2. Completeness. The price proposal will be reviewed for completeness and to determine the extent to which all the price elements have been addressed in compliance with Section C, paragraphs 5.0 through 5.5.4 of Section L of the solicitation.

6.3. The Total Proposed Price and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated for each offer.

6.3.1. Total Proposed Price. The Total Proposed Price will be calculated using the prices proposed on the Price Worksheet (Attachment 9 to this solicitation) for the base period, and all option periods. Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) quantities identified will be multiplied by unit prices to confirm the extended price. Then the extended price for all CLINS will be added together for a total for that specific performance period. The total for all performance periods will be added together to calculate the total proposed price.

6.3.1.1. All unit and extended prices provided shall be rounded to no more than two positions after the decimal point. Unit prices shall be used in the event that extended prices are calculated incorrectly.

6.3.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government reserves the right to extend services for an additional 6 month extension period, in accordance with FAR 52.217-8. Option to Extend Services. If the Government exercises FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, the extension will not exceed 6 months total and CLINS will be added to the contract at the time FAR 52.217-

8 is exercised at a monthly price equal to the preceding period of performance’s price in accordance with FAR 52.217-8.

6.3.2.1. The TEP for each offeror will be calculated by adding each offeror’s Total Proposed Price to the price calculated for the 6-month extension of services. Therefore, the TEP will include the base period, all option periods, and the 6-month extension of services.

6.3.2.2. The Total Evaluated Price is for evaluation purposes only and will not be included in the total contract award.

6.3.3. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options nor shall the evaluation of FAR Clause 52.217-8 obligate the Government to execute the clause.

6.4. Balanced pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6.5. Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will determine prices fair and reasonable through the use of one or more of the price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). A determination of unreasonably high TEP may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

6.6. Realism. For evaluation purposes only, offeror’s Professional Compensation Plan will be evaluated for realism to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. The evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Failure to demonstrate realistic professional compensation in relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the Offeror does not comprehend the complexity of the requirements.