Attachment 0007 Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1 Basis of Award. The award will be made based on a best value subjective tradeoff. The Source Selection Authority will make an independent, integrated assessment of the proposals as evaluated to determine award. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) determined to be the best value to the Government in accordance with FAR Part 15, with appropriate consideration given to three evaluation factors: Factor 1: Technical, Factor 2: Cost/Price, and Factor 3: Past Performance, with the order of importance as described in the table below. Offerors are cautioned that the award(s) may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered.

Evaluation Factors/ Order of Importance The Technical factor is the most important factor and is significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor.

The Cost/Price factor is more important than the Past Performance factor.

The non-Cost/Price factors combined are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor.

M.1.1 In order to be eligible for award, an Offeror must be assessed:

• A rating of ACCEPTABLE or better under the Technical Factor, and

• A rating of no less than SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE or NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE (if no relevant Past Performance) for the Past Performance factor.

M.1.2 The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas omitted from the proposal. Mere statements of compliance or recitation of the solicitation requirements (i.e., parroting of the solicitation requirements) without an intelligent, complete discussion and analysis are not acceptable. The proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of the work required under this contract. The evaluation will assess significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies as they relate to the requirements contained in the solicitation. Failure to provide a realistic, reasonable, and complete proposal may reflect a lack of understanding of the work requirements of the contract and may result in assignments of weaknesses or deficiencies supporting an Unacceptable rating.

M.2 Entry Gate Criteria.

Before a proposal will be eligible for evaluation under the three evaluation factors, the Government will evaluate entry gate criteria. The entry gate criteria will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

The government will evaluate a proposal as PASS if the Offeror has submitted the required documentation as specified in Section L.2. If the proposal is evaluated to pass, the Government will proceed to evaluate Factors 1, 2, and 3.

If the government evaluates a proposal as FAIL, the Government will not evaluate the proposal any further. If the Government evaluates the proposal as FAIL, notice will be provided in accordance with FAR 15.503, Notifications to Unsuccessful Offerors.

M.3 Factor Evaluation.

M.3.1 Factor 1: Technical. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess the Offeror’s proposed approach, as detailed in its proposal, to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror possesses a clear understanding of the technical areas, the Offeror’s overall conceptual approach for accomplishing the technical requirements, and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and resolutions proposed. The Technical factor will assess the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed technical approach to meet or exceed the requirements of the solicitation may involve risk of disruption to schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will be assessed as an inherent part of the Technical factor.

The Government will evaluate the Factor 1 – Technical proposal using the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method as described in the DOD Source Selection Procedures and the Army Source Selection Supplement. The Government will assign a rating for the technical factor based upon the following table:

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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.

M.3.1.1 Technical Areas: To arrive at the Factor 1 rating, the Government will evaluate the proposed Corporate Capabilities, as well as responses to Sample Orders 1 and 2. An adjectival rating will be assigned at the Factor level only.

M.3.1.1.1 Corporate Capabilities

The Corporate Capability area includes evaluation of (i.) Quality and Safety Management Systems, (ii.) Facility and Equipment Requirements, and (iii.) Human Resource Plan.

i) Quality and Safety Management Systems: The Offeror will be evaluated on its ability to comply with contractor quality management requirements of the PWS. This shall be evaluated with a review of the proposed contractor quality processes and procedures by assessing whether they meet or exceed the PWS requirements in paragraph 6.0.

• Note for evaluation of compliance with DCMA 8210.1: If the Offeror does not have certificates and/or DCMA approved procedures at the time of evaluation, the Offeror will be evaluated on the draft status of both requirements. The draft status of the requirements will be substantiated by demonstrating an effective date of on or before contract award. Substantiation is satisfied by a point of contact in the audit agency that can verify the Offeror’s viability in satisfying the proposed schedule. Draft Ground and Flight Risk procedures will be evaluated for Offerors without DCMA approved Ground and Flight Risk procedures.

ii) Facility and Equipment Requirements: The Government will evaluate the facilities in accordance with the ability to meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS and in the table below. Proposals which exceed the requirements will be evaluated more favorably.

Facility Requirement Minimum Objective PWS Reference

Fueled Hangar Space 32,256 sq.

ft. 64,512 sq. ft. 4.2 Unfueled or Defueled Hangar Space

32,256 sq.

ft.

161,280 sq.

ft. 4.3

On-Site Mooring 10 aircraft 10 aircraft 4.4 Logistics Support Operation Space

20,000 sq.

ft.

200,000 sq.

ft. 4.5

Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Category 4 Category 5 4.6 Aircraft Fueling and Defueling

2,500 gallons 5,000 gallons 4.7

COMSEC Vault Acceptable vault Acceptable vault 4.8 Hazardous Material Storage 2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq. ft. 4.9

Prior to award, the Government will perform a site visit and physically inspect the facilities, equipment, and/or materials proposed by the Offeror. This inspection will determine whether the facilities, equipment, and/or materials proposed meet or exceed the PWS requirements. The inspection(s) shall be conducted during normal business hours and upon at least three (3) days’ notice to the Offeror.

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s tooling and equipment for capability to support a minimum of 10 helicopters per month. Minimum and objective requirements for tools and equipment are listed in PWS 4.10. Proposals which include objective requirements will be evaluated more favorably

iii. Human Resource Plan: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s capability to obtain and maintain a qualified workforce. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach for recruitment and retention of employee personnel to ensure that the Offeror will provide a stable workforce.

M.3.1.1.2 Sample Order 1

Sample Task Order 1 will be evaluated by assessing the Offeror’s understanding of the Technical Requirement (RFP Attachment 0013). The proposal should address each work area in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements, schedule, and the problems presented therein. The Offeror should provide evidence of sufficient planning to show that work will be accomplished as required and on schedule, utilizing all available resources.

The Sample Order will also be evaluated by assessing the Offeror’s ability to execute the task. The evaluation will specifically look to the Offeror’s ability to provide qualified and trained personnel, the proper level of effort, expertise and UH-60 specific facilities required for performance, the ability to procure Original Manufacturer (OEM) parts, and the ability to develop and document repair procedures supporting Army Airworthiness Approval of Maintenance Engineering Calls (MECs).

The Management Plan of the Sample Task order will be evaluated by assessing the Offeror’s management plan for completeness and clarity. Specifically, the evaluation will consider the quality of the Offeror’s description of the Management Plan, the clarity of the Offeror’s plan to manage administrative, technical, and financial requirements, and the completeness of the schedule including risks, opportunities, and issues.

M.3.1.1.3 Sample Order 2

Sample Task Order 2 will be evaluated by assessing the Offeror’s understanding of the Technical Requirement (RFP Attachment 0014). The proposal should address each work area in sufficient detail to demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements, schedule, and the problems presented therein. The Offeror should provide evidence of sufficient planning to show that work will be accomplished as required and on schedule, utilizing all available resources.

The Sample Order will also be evaluated by assessing the Offeror’s ability to execute the task.

The evaluation will specifically look to the Offeror’s ability to provide qualified and trained personnel, the proper level of effort, expertise and UH-60 specific facilities required for PWS performance, the ability to procure Original Manufacturer (OEM) parts, the ability to develop and document repair procedures supporting Army Airworthiness Approval of Maintenance Engineering Calls (MECs), a complete Bill of Material (BOM), the processes for ordering and kitting hardware.

The Management Plan of the Sample Task order will be evaluated by assessing the Offeror’s management plan for completeness and clarity. Specifically, the evaluation will consider the quality of the Offeror’s description of the Management Plan, the clarity of the Offeror’s plan to manage administrative, technical and financial requirements, and the completeness of the schedule including risks, opportunities, and issues.

M.3.2 Factor 2: Cost/Price

M.3.2.1. The government intends to award multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts. Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF), Firm Fixed Price (FFP), and hybrid FFP/CPFF Task Orders are contemplated. The cost/price proposal will be evaluated as described below.

M.3.2.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The government will not assign adjectival ratings to the Cost/Price proposals. The government shall compute a TEP which will be considered by the Source Selection Authority in determining award. The TEP will be calculated by summing the following:

• the total proposed amount for the FFP effort (CLINS X and X); and

• the probable cost amount plus proposed fixed fee for the CPFF effort (CLINs X and X).

M.3.2.3. Compliance with Section L.3.2 Factor 2: Cost/Price: The Cost/Price proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L3.2 Factor 2: Cost/Price instructions.

M.3.2.4 Business Systems Adequacy: The Government will verify the adequacy of the offeror’s accounting system and purchasing system.

M.3.2.5 Reasonableness: The government will evaluate the Cost/Price proposal to determine if it is reasonable. In accordance with FAR 31.201-3, a cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Normally price reasonableness is established through adequate competition but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1.

M.3.2.6 Cost Realism: A cost realism analysis will be performed on the CPFF effort to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the contract’s technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s technical proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs.

M.3.2.6.1 The offeror’s CPFF proposal and estimates will be traced from the Cost/Price proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical proposal. The Government will perform an evaluation of the offeror’s CPFF Labor Category Mapping of IDIQ labor categories to the offeror’s contractor/corporate labor categories, as proposed in the Attachment 0002- LSF-1 Cost/Price Template, to ensure that the offeror is proposing qualified personnel for the effort. The results of the Government’s evaluation of the CPFF Labor Category Mapping may be incorporated into the cost realism evaluation.

M.3.2.6.2 The offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the Government’s evaluation of the CPFF CLINs. The offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be evaluated to verify that they do not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404-4(c) (4) (i). For a CPFF contract, the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee.

M.3.2.6.3 Probable Cost. The results of the cost realism evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed cost, the total evaluated cost will be used in the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed cost, the proposed cost will be used in the probable cost. The government will not evaluate price realism of the FFP effort.

M.3.2.7 Unbalanced Pricing: The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs/SLINs is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for information on unbalanced pricing.

M.3.3 Factor 3: Past Performance

M.3.3.1 The Government will evaluate each offeror’s past performance and assign a Confidence Assessment, assessing the probability of successfully performing this effort. To arrive at the

Confidence Assessment, the government will evaluate the recency, relevancy and quality of the past performance.

M.3.3.2 The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s maximum of three relevant prime contracts and one major subcontractor’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team expected to perform 10 percent or more of the total proposed effort. 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, offerors should include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in its proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 488190 (Other Support Activities for Air Transportation).

M.3.3.3 Recency. First, the government will evaluate the recency of each submitted past performance effort. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. Past performance will be considered recent if it is a current performance example, or was performed within the past 3 years, calculated from the date of this RFP publication.

M.3.3.4 Relevancy. Next, the government will evaluate how relevant each recent past performance effort is to the current effort. Each recent past performance effort will be assigned a relevancy rating from the following table:

Table 2 - 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.3.3.4.1 To assess relevancy, the government will examine the similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. The Government will also use the required contract quality standards to assist in determining relevancy of the past performance effort. Those contracts which were performed with all of the following certifications: AS9110, AS9100, Government approved Ground and Flight Risk procedures in compliance with DCMA 8210.1 (to include flight operations) and/or Army Regulation 95-20, and ISO 9001:2008 (listed in order of importance) will be judged more relevant than efforts performed without these standards in place.

M.3.3.5 Quality. Finally, the government will examine the quality of each past performance effort. The government will use documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources as the basis for this assessment.

M.3.3.6 Performance Confidence. After assessing recency, relevancy, and quality of each past performance effort, the government will assign an overall Performance Confidence rating to each offeror, using the table below.

TABLE 3 - 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.