Atch 5 - Section M.pdf

STS

FA9101-26-R-B005

Attachment 5

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M-1.1 Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive best value source selection in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Part 5315, and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022. Technically acceptable competing Offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be considered technically equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

M-1.2 A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, 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 gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet 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 superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the cost / price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals according to the source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While 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 business judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.3 The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” ‘is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination, if during evaluation, the proposal is found to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing a volume or other information required by the solicitation).

M-1.4 The Government intends to award without conducting discussions (except clarifications may be conducted as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Offerors should not assume they will be contacted or afforded an opportunity to qualify, discuss or revise their proposals. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if necessary at any time at the discretion of the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and the SSA.

Discussions would then be held with all offerors within the competitive range after all offers had been evaluated. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would other otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO with the approval of the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of Evaluation Notices (ENs). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of the PCO’s judgment as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (e.g., within 2-10 business days) in responding to the PCO.

M-1.5 Competitive Range If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, which will be approved by the SSA. If the PCO determines that an Offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, whether for purposes of efficiency or otherwise, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. A written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror IAW FAR 15.503, whereupon Offerors may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Subpart 15.505.

M-1.6 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) FPRs will be requested from those Offerors remaining in the competitive range when discussions have been concluded. 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 increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award. Any changes to or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise its proposal. 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-1.7 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one, firm-fixed-priced (FFP), Single Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contract with a five-year ordering period for the Survivability Test Stand (STS) Project.

M-1.8 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) The Government shall review and determine whether the Offeror selected for award has addressed and resolved all OCIs in its OCI mitigation plans before making award. If an OCI is not adequately addressed or mitigated, the Government reserves the right to notify the Offeror as-is, and allow the Offeror a reasonable opportunity to respond before making an award decision. The Government reserves the right to reject offers which do not adequately resolve all OCIs. The Government also reserves the right to obtain an OCI waiver and make an award when in the best interest of the Government.

M-1.9 NIST SP 800-171 Plan In accordance with DAFFARS 5309.105-1 the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) is checked for supplier risk assessments when determining responsibility. IAW DFARS 252.204.7303(b) the contracting officer will verify that the summary level score of a current NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment (i.e., not more than 3 years old, unless a lesser time is specified in the solicitation) for each covered contractor information system that is relevant to an offer, contract, task order, or delivery order are posted in Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). Offerors are required to represent they will implement National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Special Publication (SP) 800-171 SP 800-171 (reference the provision DFARS 252.204-7008). A score of 110 must be in SPRS, if assessment score is less than 110, contractors must submit a plan with their proposal to become compliant.

M-2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach Subfactor 1.2: Management Approach Subfactor 1.3: Integration Approach

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

M-2.2 Evaluation Approach

M-2.2.1 Technical Acceptability Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass / fail basis, assigning one of the technical ratings described below. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically Unacceptable. An offeror who receives a final technical rating of Unacceptable in any subfactor will not be considered for award.

Table M-2.2.1 Technical Rating Definition

TECHNICAL

RATING

DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M-2.2.1.1 The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

M-2.2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1.1: Technical Approach This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s understanding and approach to fulfill the requirements described in the Statement of Objectives (SOO), Use Cases, and threshold requirements in the Key Performance Parameters (KPP) / Key System Attributes (KSA) IAW the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.1.1.1.1 Measure or Merit: Technical Requirements This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound understanding of and approach to meeting the Use Cases detailed in the SOO IAW applicable laws, regulations, and governing documents.

M-2.2.1.1.1.2 Measure of Merit: Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW) This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a CSOW, including Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) items, that clearly demonstrate how the Offeror will meet the requirements for the Preliminary Design Review (PDR) task order of the STS contained within the SOO.

M-2.2.1.1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Management Approach This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed integrated approach to managing all resources required to meet the requirements identified in the SOO, and thresholds described in the KPPs, and KSAs.

M-2.2.1.1.2.1 Measure of Merit: Resource Management This element of the subfactor is met when the proposal demonstrates a sound approach to managing the workforce and subcontracts in coordination with Government entities to ensure the

STS is built, delivered, and installed IAW the SOO and attachments. Proposal describes the project team with the necessary skills and qualifications to effectively design and develop the STS, minimizing risks related to skill gaps and enhancing productivity and quality outcomes.

M-2.2.1.1.2.2 Measure of Merit: Small Business This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan to meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement of 10% of $100M for the participation of small business in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture (JV), teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

M-2.2.1.1.3 Subfactor 1.3: Integration Approach This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach for how they will integrate the components and subcomponents for the STS system.

M-2.2.1.1.3.1 Measure of Merit: Technical Comprehension in Business This measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes an effective business model to demonstrate an understanding of the technical diversity required for the STS project to meet the requirements detailed in SOO Attachments 1 and 2. This includes a description of developmental, test, and manufacturing resources.

M-2.2.1.1.3.2 Measure of Merit: Integration Plan This measure of merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal effectively describes the completeness and clarity of the integration plan in detailing processes, timeliness, dependencies, and management strategies for integrating and assembling the STS components and subcomponents into a complete system.

M-2.2.2 Price Evaluation The Government shall rank all technically Acceptable offers through the evaluation of the Offeror’s price proposal for the PDR order. The Government will evaluate the price proposal for

(1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP shall be the total of the PDR order to include the prices for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award.

Evaluation of option CLINs shall not obligate the Government to exercise such CLINs.

M-2.2.2.1 Completeness The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance IAW Section L-3.3 VOLUME III - PRICE PROPOSAL. The Government will evaluate both Attachment 4.7, Initial Order Pricing Sheet and accompanied Price Narrative for completeness.

M-2.2.2.2 Reasonableness The Offeror’s Initial Order Price Proposal Volume will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. 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. All CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness.

M-2.2.2.3 Realism The Cost / Price evaluation will include the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and reflect a sound approach to resourcing those requirements, pursuant to FAR 15.404. The Government will evaluate the labor category rates provided on the “Labor Categories” tab of Attachment 4.7 for realism.

M-2.2.2.4 Unbalanced Pricing Offerors are cautioned against submitting a proposal 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 TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. A proposal 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. The Government will analyze proposals for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1.

M-2.2.2.5 TEP

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s price to include all CLINs for the PDR order.

M-2.2.3 Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA). The Government will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information based on: (1) the past efforts provided by the Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources.

M-2.2.3.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent performance is defined as work that is on-going or has any period of performance within the last four years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-2.2.3.2 Relevance Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine its relevancy. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (other than CSOW); however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to efforts which are considered similar in contract scope, magnitude, and complexity when compared to the requirement in this RFP.

M-2.2.3.2.1 Past Performance Relevancy Criteria The following past performance relevancy criteria will be used as defined in Table M-2.2.3.2.1:

Table M-2.2.3.2.1: Past Performance Relevancy Criteria Criteria Description Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope includes those Technical subfactors identified in 2.1, Factor 1 TECHNICAL (other than CSOW) and the tasks/functions referenced in the STS SOO, such as Integration and

Management of a project with more than three (3) subcontractors and System Design

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past experience and the STS SOO. Efforts of less than $500K total contract scope will not be considered relevant

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, management of multiple subcontractors, multiple on-going delivery orders, contract type, and working in remote locations.

A relevancy rating will be assigned to each reference by evaluating relevancy against the Technical subfactors (other than CSOW) and the criteria above. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including JV partner(s) and major subcontractor(s). For purposes of proposal only, a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor that is awarded a subcontract that equals or exceeds 10 percent of the value of the contract, IAW DFARS 209.571-1, Definitions. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will only be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will not consider experience of subordinate affiliated offices on the Offeror unless the Offeror clearly details the proposed meaningful involvement of the Offeror’s subordinate or affiliated offices in this requirement. Past performance examples from Offerors submitted from previous JVs may not be considered as relevant in terms of scope and complexity as those where the Offeror was wholly responsible for the cited work.

M-2.2.3.2.2 Relevancy Definitions and Matrix The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The relevancy matrix and data obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevance of present and past efforts. The Government will use the relevancy definitions defined in Table M-2.2.3.2.2 when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table M-2.2.3.2.2: Past Performance Relevancy Definitions Rating Definition

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.

M-2.2.3.3 Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the Contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed as it relates to the Technical subfactors (other than CSOW). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness. The Government will use the quality levels defined in Table M-

2.2.3.3 when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table M-2.2.3.3: Quality Level Definitions Quality Assessment Rating /

Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) / BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG) / PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) / GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) / YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements.

For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) /

RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) /

WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

M-2.2.3.4 As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated PCA rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors (other than CSOW) and Price factor, the resulting PCA rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. The assessment process will result in an overall PCA of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in Table M-2.2.3.4 below. Offerors with no recent / relevant performance history, or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the PCA than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. The quality of the pieces of past performance evaluated will contribute to the overall PCA.

TABLE M-2.2.3.4- PCA DEFINITIONS

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.

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.

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.

M-2.2.4 The evaluation process shall be accomplished as follows:

M-2.2.4.1 An evaluation on the technical acceptability of each Offeror’s Technical Proposal (Volume II) will be accomplished IAW paragraph M-2.2.1, Technical Acceptability.

M-2.2.4.2 An evaluation of each Offeror’s proposed pricing will be accomplished IAW paragraph M-2.2.2 to determine price (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) realism (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) TEP.

M-2.2.4.3 An evaluation of past performance of all offers will be performed IAW paragraph M- 2.2.3, and a PCA rating will be assigned based on recency, the degree of relevancy, and the level of quality.

M-2.2.4.4 The SSA will assess the price and past performance for all technically acceptable proposals to make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

M-2.2.4.5 If the lowest priced (complete, reasonable, realistic, not unbalanced), technically acceptable Offeror, receives a Substantial Confidence PCA, then that Offeror will constitute the best value to the Government.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.