Attachment 0003 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

HEAVY LIFT 9 (HL9)

SOLICITATION NUMBER: W519TC-23-R-0002

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This acquisition will utilize best value PPT with technical factors source selection process, IAW FAR 15.101-1 and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022. The USG will compare the Offeror’s proposal to Attachment 0002, ‘Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’ to perform a compliance review. Any Offeror’s proposal determined non-compliant per the terms noted in Attachment 0002, ‘Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’ will not be evaluated and will not be further considered for award. Additionally, IAW FAR 15.305, past performance will be evaluated. The number of awards will be dependent on the number of Offerors whose proposals are determined to provide the best value to the Government. The requirements for this acquisition are clearly definable and the risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low. Award(s) will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) whose offer conforming to the solicitation is/are determined to provide the best value to the Government, based on a tradeoff between price and performance. The source selection will employ the following evaluation factors: Technical (inclusive of the following sub-factors: Management Approach, Technical Capability, and Maintenance and Quality Control Plans), Past Performance and Price. Technical sub-factors and the technical factor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and the proposal must be rated acceptable for all technical sub-factors in order to receive an acceptable rating for the technical factor. The Past Performance factor will be adjectivally rated via a Performance Confidence assessment. Past performance is more important than Price.

However, as non-price factors equalize, price becomes more important in the best value analysis. Clarifications and discussions with Offerors may occur during the evaluation process.

M.2. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARD(S). ACC-RI intends to award up to five (5) FFP IDIQ contracts. The USG reserves the right to reject any or all proposals and make no award if such action is in the best interest of the Government. The number of awards will be dependent on the number of Offerors whose proposals are determined to provide the best value to the Government.

M.3. COMPETITIVE RANGE & DISCUSSIONS. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), after evaluation of all proposals, the PCO may make a competitive range determination for purposes of efficiency as set forth in Attachment 0002, ‘Section L Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors’.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

M.4.1. The USG will review the completed solicitation and amendments for accurate completion and applicable signatures. Unless fill-ins are required, individual copies of attachments within the ‘List of Attachments’ Section of the

Solicitation do not need to be included within this submission.

M.4.2. The Executive Summary will not be evaluated. Rather, it will be reviewed to assist evaluators in familiarizing themselves with the approach each Offeror will use to meet the requirements of the PWS.

M.5. EVALUATION FACTORS. The USG will evaluate the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Management Approach Subfactor 2: Technical Capability Subfactor 3: Maintenance and Quality Control Plans Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

M.6. EVALUATION APPROACH. As outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022, the technical factors and subfactors will be evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. These factors and subfactors will identify the minimum requirements that are key to successful contract performance and will evaluate price and the acceptability of products or services. Past performance will be evaluated on recent and relevancy which will result in a performance confidence rating.

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability and ranked using the past performance confidence rating. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every technical non-price factor/subfactor. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

- Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP. Marginal levels of overall detail in any subfactor could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range.

- Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.7. EVALUATION APPROACH. In accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2023, Section D.8.2.2, the technical factors/sub-factors are evaluated on an objective, acceptable/unacceptable basis, (see below).

M.8. TECHNICAL FACTOR. The term “technical”, as used herein, refers to technical factors and subfactors (non-price), other than past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine if the Offeror provides a sound and well-developed technical approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the personnel, resources, and compliance requirements necessary to properly execute contract requirements in a safe, secure, efficient, and quality based manner. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

M.8.1. Technical Subfactor 1 - Management Approach: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Management Approach for all ordering periods. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror adequately explains how it will manage logistics support for a large fleet of line haul, heavy lift, and personnel transportation assets, manage complex projects; staffing (recruit and train workforce, retain key people, and transportation into and within theater); operate a program management office (staffing skill sets and levels in program management office), and manage operations for commercial line haul. The plan must be specific, detailed, and complete and clearly and fully demonstrate how the Offeror will accomplish these tasks.

M.8.2. Technical Subfactor 2 - Technical Capability: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed Technical Capability. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror clearly and fully describes a sound technical approach, and a thorough understanding of technical methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements. Major emphasis of the USG’s evaluation will be placed on the Offeror’s plan to provide all personnel, supervision, labor, materials, tools, and vehicles as well as all required equipment, other items, and non-personal services necessary to accomplish the operation of the Government’s HL9 requirement IAW the PWS.

M.8.3. Technical Subfactor 3 - Maintenance and Quality Control Plans: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s maintenance plan for the performance of both scheduled and

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

unscheduled maintenance and quality control plan. The USG will evaluate whether the maintenance plan adequately describes the Offeror’s ability to provide scheduling, facilities, and equipment. The Offeror’s proposal must adequately describe its ability to provide trained mechanics and adequate maintenance facilities without degradation to fleet readiness or availability; and outline manufacturer approved maintenance schedule for planned and unplanned maintenance procedures.

The USG will also evaluate whether the Offeror's approach and maintenance and quality control plan adequately details the Offeror’s plan to implement a robust maintenance and quality control program providing comprehensive maintenance and quality control of its processes and procedures. The Offeror must adequately describe its surveillance and oversight processes to ensure the integrity and effectiveness of its maintenance and quality control program. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposal adequately identifies and explains procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. In addition, the USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s plan adequately addresses controls designed to ensure PWS requirements are met for acceptance, condition, safety standards, maintenance requirements, and record keeping. These plans must be realistic, achievable, and supportable. The USG will evaluate whether the Offeror’s quality control plan adequately demonstrates a sound technical approach and a thorough understanding of quality methods and techniques for meeting performance standards and customer requirements including:

1) Providing a comprehensive, independent plan for developing and maintaining the QC program.

2) Setting forth internal and external quality control methods and policies for measuring, tracking, analyzing, reporting, and implementing preventive and corrective actions required to ensure the quality performance standards required by the PWS and customer satisfaction is met.

3) Demonstrating a workable relationship, to include reporting requirements, between the Offeror’s management personnel.

4) Demonstrating integration of the quality control system into daily operations.

5) Providing methods to be used for communications with the Government, measuring customer satisfaction, including a customer feedback program and a customer satisfaction reporting system.

M.9. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. The USG will utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

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

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

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

The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment will be based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Past Performance will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.305 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.305.

Past performance will be initially evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the effort to be acquired. Second, the past performance evaluation will determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior contracts.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “neutral confidence”.

M.9.1. RECENT contracts are defined as follows (not a separate rating):

- Were awarded or commenced within three years prior to the closing date of this solicitation; or

- Were awarded or commenced prior to three years, but a contract period of performance (i.e., providing services pursuant to the contract’s performance work statement) remained on-going as of the closing date of this solicitation.

M.9.2. RELEVANCY is not separately rated. When determining relevancy, the USG will review the following for similarity with HL9: type of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming. The following definitions will be used to determine relevancy of past performance information:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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.9.3. Following the recency and relevancy determination, the quality and how well the contractor performed on the contracts will be assessed. Documented results from the following sources form the support and basis for this assessment:

- Past performance information provided by the Offeror, as solicited.

- Past performance questionnaires (‘List of Attachments’ section of the Solicitation, Attachment 0019).

- Past performance information may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases.

- Past performance information may also be obtained from other sources available to the USG, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, PCOs, Fee Determining Officials, etc.

The USG may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all the information available. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

The USG will focus its inquiries on the Offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed effort. Labor brokers are not considered major subcontractors. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, the Offeror is reminded to include its most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in its proposal.

M.10. PRICE FACTOR. Price will be an evaluated factor; however, it will not be adjectively scored. The PCO will determine price reasonableness IAW FAR 15.404- 1(b), Price analysis for commercial and non-commercial items, relying primarily upon competition. The USG expects adequate price competition. However, the USG reserves the right to require submission of data other than certified cost or pricing data from the Offeror adequate to determine the reasonableness of an offer if competition is inadequate for that purpose. As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between ordering periods, quantity ranges, contract line-item numbers (CLINs), or sub-line items, as applicable. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), offers may be rejected/ineligible for award if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

The Total Evaluated Price will be derived from the Pricing Matrix.

- For each CLIN within each scenario/tab (Daily, Semi Annual and Annual), the Government will calculate a Weighted Evaluation Price by multiplying the proposed unit price for each quantity range (and each Ordering Period), by the respective weight and maximum quantity, and then summing the totals. The weight associated with each range represents the likelihood that an order, if placed, would be placed within that range. The Evaluated CLIN Price is the sum of the weighted prices for all ordering periods. The Evaluated CLIN Prices for all CLINs within each of the three scenarios (Daily, Semi-Annual, and Annual) will be summed to arrive at the Total Evaluated Price for each scenario.

- The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated by adding the Total Evaluated Prices for each scenario (Daily, Semi Annual and Annual), and any other price related evaluation factors required by the solicitation. This is the amount that will be used for the purpose of selecting the apparently successful Offeror from a pricing standpoint.

- The Total Evaluated Price will be calculated and evaluated but will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

- If an Offeror fails to propose for all scenarios (Daily, Semi- Annual, and Annual), quantities or order periods, the USG may deem the Offeror’s proposal ineligible.

- The Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated utilizing the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1

- Unbalanced Pricing: As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between Ordering Periods, quantity ranges, contract line items or sub-line items as applicable. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.10.1. Task Order Competition.

The prices proposed in the original proposals will be evaluated when making the initial task order awards. This will allow a quick turn-around for task order award after the source selection of the contract awardees.

All subsequent task order competitions will be conducted in the following manner: FAR 16.505(b)(1), will be considered for each order exceeding the micro-purchase threshold.

- The USG will solicit the awardees when a new order is required to be placed on contract. Each evaluation will specify the evaluation standards. The Offeror will have the option to keep the prices as they were originally submitted or submit unit prices lower than its original proposal.

- The Offeror with the lowest price will receive the amount of the award based on the pre-established range quantities, from the original solicitation. On a per CLIN basis or “Combination System (multiple CLIN basis)” basis, the lowest priced contractor will be awarded the requirements, up to the contractor’s range maximum. The USG may award some CLINs and not others on a per task order basis. The range maximum will have been established within the Offeror’s original proposal. Each different equipment requirement will be placed on a separate CLIN. Upon reaching the range maximum, any remaining requirements will be awarded to the next lowest priced Offeror. This process will continue until all requirements are awarded or all Offerors’ range maximums have been exhausted.

- If any requirement exceeds the maximum range for a single CLIN or Combination

System for all contractors, a Request for Proposal will be issued to all contractors, requesting price and availability for the remaining requirements not awarded. The requirements will be awarded to the contractor that submits the lowest price out of those who choose to offer. The process will continue the same as outlined above, until all requirements are awarded.

Note: Although these are the procedures that are anticipated for task order competitions, they are subject to change at the Government’s discretion.

M.4. SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.