Attachment 0010 - SECTION M Instructions.pdf

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government intends to award on a competitive basis a FFP IDIQ Small Business Set-aside contract for Sustainment Engineering and Technical Support. The Government also intends to award in conjunction with that award a Task Order to the offeror that is awarded the IDIQ contract. The Government intends to issue the IDIQ contract and task order to the offeror whose proposal provides Best Value to the Government based on Source Selection Procedures. Interested parties must submit a proposal in response to this solicitation in order to be eligible for contract award.

Responsive proposals shall address all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and criteria set forth in Instructions to Offerors section and Evaluation Factors section.

Offerors must receive a minimum of ACCEPTABLE in Factor 1 Technical in order to be eligible for award. An Unacceptable in any subfactor will result in an overall unacceptable proposal. Prices deemed not fair and reasonable will result in an overall unacceptable proposal.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(a)). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary, therefore it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially.

However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offerors responses to evaluation notices (ENs) and the FPRs will be considered in making award decision. If a Competitive Range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition amongst the most highly rated proposals. The decision to establish a Competitive Range will be made at the sole discretion of the Contracting officer and agreed to by the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth below. In order to be considered for contract award, each offerors’ proposal must be determined by the Contracting officer as Responsive and Responsible. To be eligible for an award the offeror must be assigned an evaluation rating of “ACCEPTABLE” or higher under the Technical Factor; rating of “RELEVANT” and “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” or higher or a rating of “NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE” under the Past Performance Factor. The offeror’s price must also be found complete, fair, reasonable and balanced.

Any proposal that is evaluated as unacceptable in terms of any of the evaluation factors may be rejected for such reasons. Furthermore, any significant inconsistency between proposed Technical, Past Performance, and the Price submitted, if unexplained, may be grounds for a determination of Non-Responsive and rejection of the proposal due to an offeror’s misunderstanding of the work required or an inability to perform any resultant work under the contract. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offeror’s proposal.

The Government will evaluate proposals to determine compliance with all requirements of the solicitation, including any attachments and exhibits. It will also evaluate proposals for unique, creative and innovative methods, processes, and/or solutions that are beneficial to the Government. The Government cautions offerors that in order for proposals to be eligible for award, the proposals shall be in compliance with the terms and conditions set forth in the RFP.

The Government will not evaluate multiple proposal submissions from the same offeror.

An evaluation rating of "LIMITED CONFIDENCE" or ‘”NO CONFIDENCE” in the Past Performance factor will render the entire proposal to be evaluated as

“UNACCEPTABLE”.

UNACCEPTABLE OFFERS. The Government may determine that a proposal is Unacceptable and therefore Non-responsive in that it:

a. Merely offers to perform work according to the RFP terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms without support and elaboration as specified in the solicitation.

b. Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the RFP requirements due to submission of a proposal that unacceptable in terms of technical approach.

c. Fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in the solicitation.

d. Incomplete Volumes necessitating the cross reference of information from one volume to another volume to provide a complete response to the RFP. All volumes shall be complete with no cross-referencing between volumes.

e. Is unbalanced within the meaning of FAR Part 15, or is unbalanced as to prices for the first ordering period and for subsequent ordering periods where prices are significantly high or low for one given period versus another period.

1.1 RESPONSIBILITY

Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be placed with offerors which the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104. The Government may access System of Award Management (SAM), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other systems to verify responsibility. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on any and all offerors.

2. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government employees in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. Offerors are cautioned that their initial proposal submissions should contain their best terms.

The overarching evaluation approach for the technical factors are 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.

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.

The evaluation approach for each factor follows:

2.1 FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL (Volume II:

The Offeror shall describe their technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the PWS cited in this solicitation. The Offeror shall describe their approach and processes as outlined in the following five subfactors, Technical Understanding, Organizational Structure and Management Approach, Key Personnel Qualifications, Management of Resources and Initial Task Order and the Offeror submits a proposal that clearly outlines their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the QASP.

Subfactor 1 – TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING The Offeror shall describe their approach to perform all aspects of the scope of the Soldier Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS) technical support services contract IAW the Performance Work State including but not limited to, Program management, Logistics, Engineering, Test, Validation, Verification, and Maintenance Sustainment related requirements for the RPUAS Program for the U.S. Army Group I Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) inventory comprised of SRR, MRR, and LRR aircraft as well as the Handheld Ground Control Station (H-GCS) utilizing Tactical Open Government-owned Architecture (TOGA). The Offeror shall describe their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the QASP. The Offeror shall describe their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the QASP.

STANDARD: The Offeror provides sufficient detail to provide evaluators an understanding of how the offeror intends to perform all aspects of the scope of the SUAS technical support services contract IAW the Performance Work State including but not limited to, Program management, Logistics, Engineering, Test, Validation, Verification, and Maintenance Sustainment related requirements for the RPUAS Program for the U.S. Army Group I Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) inventory comprised of SRR, MRR, and LRR aircraft as well as the Handheld Ground Control Station (H-GCS) utilizing Tactical Open Government-owned Architecture (TOGA). The offeror’s proposal provides the evaluators an understanding that the offeror clearly understands the service support requirements of the PWS and demonstrates an understanding of the Army PEO Aviation UAS Project Office mission and programmatic needs. The Offeror provides sufficient detail to provide evaluators an understanding of their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the QASP.

Subfactor 2 – ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH The Offeror shall describe their organizational structure including all subcontractors that will comprise the entire contractor team. The Offeror shall describe their performance -based approach to managing the contractor team, in coordinating day- to day operations, in coordinating and collaborating with Government personnel in both management and service delivery functions, and effectively and efficiently meeting all contract requirements found in the PWS.

STANDARD: The Offeror provides sufficient detail to provide evaluators an understanding of the performance-based management approach and contractor team organizational structure that supports effective management of contractor and subcontractor personnel in performing the task requirements defined in the PWS. The Government will evaluate the organizational structure to include subcontractors that comprise the entire contractor team. The Government will evaluate the performance-based approach to managing the contractor team in conducting day-to-day operations, coordinating and collaborating with Government personnel in both management and service delivery functions, and effectively and efficiently meeting all contract requirements.

Subfactor 3 - KEY PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

The Offeror shall provide resumes of proposed Key Personnel who will perform work under this contract as identified by the Government. The Offeror shall indicate current employees, contingent employees and subcontractors (current and contingent). Each resume will be mapped to one labor category.

STANDARD: The Offeror provides resumes that meet the minimum requirements defined in the Personnel Qualification Requirements for Key Personnel. The Offeror indicates current employees, contingent employees and subcontractors (current and contingent). Each resume addresses one labor category. The Government will review the resumes of proposed Key Personnel who will perform work under the contract and will evaluate and assess the education, relevant experience, and demonstrated performance of each proposed Key Person. The review will focus on the qualifications and experience of each individual as compared to the Personnel Qualification Requirements provided in the PWS. Each resume will be mapped to one labor category

Subfactor 4 - MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES

The Offeror shall describe their proposed approach for this contract to recruiting/obtaining, training, retaining and replacing personnel of appropriate qualifications, experience, education, and skill levels to satisfy the requirements and objectives set forth in the PWS. The Offeror shall describe their approach to managing workload fluctuations, ensuring the ability to maintain the required personnel, and their approach to ensure timely availability and cost effectiveness of contractor resources.

STANDARD: The Offeror provides sufficient detail to provide evaluators an understanding of its approach for this contract to recruiting/obtaining, training, retaining and replacing personnel of appropriate qualifications, experience, education, and skill levels to satisfy the requirements and objectives set forth in the PWS. The Offeror provides sufficient detail to describe their approach to managing workload fluctuations, ensuring the ability to maintain the required personnel, and their approach to ensure timely availability and cost effectiveness of contractor resources. The Government will evaluate the proposed approach to recruiting/obtaining, training, retaining and replacing personnel of appropriate qualifications, experience, education, and skill levels to satisfy the requirements and objectives set forth in the RFP. The Government will evaluate the strategy for recruiting contractor personnel currently providing support for these requirements. The Government will evaluate the approach to managing workload fluctuations ensuring the ability to maintain the required personnel, and the approach that ensures timely availability and cost effectiveness of contractor resources.

Subfactor 5 – INITIAL TASK ORDER

The Offeror shall propose to the task order that will be evaluated and issued in conjunction with the IDIQ award to establish a minimum guarantee using the criteria established in the Government-provided PWS and the Contract Line Item Numbers CLINs. The Offeror shall describe their technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the Task Order. The Government will evaluate the offerors use of proposed labor hours and labor mix in regards to realism and efficiency.

STANDARD: The offeror describes their technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Offeror shall submit a proposal that clearly outlines their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the QASP. The Government will evaluate the offerors use of proposed labor hours and labor mix in regards to realism and efficiency.

2.2 FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume III):

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Past Performance against a probability of success in performing work specific to the SOW requirements. The Government’s evaluation will consider the offeror’s execution of cost, schedule and performance relative to the areas as described in Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors Section, as well as information that addresses demonstrated use of business processes relevant to the SOW. Based on the offeror’s input and other Government Past Performance research, the Government will make a Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will also evaluate the recent and relevant Past Performance Citations provided by the offeror and as documented in CPARS, SAM;

EPLS; FAPIIS; eSRS and other sources of information available to the Government.

The performance Confidence Assessment will include assessing the risk associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by the offeror's record of Past Performance. Recent is defined as the past three years from the date of the release of the RFP. Relevant is described as contracts for aircraft manufacturing or associated components in support of the Government or commercially.

Section I - Past Performance Information. The Government will evaluate Past Performance information on contracts (as a prime or subcontractor) relevant to the efforts required.

Section II – Performance: The Government will evaluate offeror's narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section I. This narrative shall describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate all performance aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the offeror’s record of: 1) conforming to contract specifications to include the timely supply of products or material resources; 2) maintaining program execution within proposed cost/price; 3) adherence to contract milestone schedules; 4) ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively; 5) professional concern for the interest of its customers; 6) establishing and maintaining adequate management of Subcontractors (e.g.: 1X Subcontractor turnover rate); and 7) specific details of compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Attachment 1 – Past Performance Assessment Questionnaire: The Government will review and evaluate all contracts identified as identified in the Past Performance Assessment Questionnaires submitted.

STANDARD: The Offeror submits the information requested in section L above. The Offeror’s recent/relevant experience and past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing this contract based on previous and current contractual efforts of similar nature and complexity relevant to this program. Recent experience being 3 years or less from date of Request for Proposal (RFP) and relevant being defined as engineering services of $1M or more similar in service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

To be considered for award, a rating of no less than “RELEVANT” with “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” or higher must be achieved for the Past Performance factor. 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 assigned, the offeror will be rated as

“NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE.”

An offeror with a rating of “NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE” is eligible for an award.

2.3 FACTOR 3- PRICE (Volume IV):

The Government will evaluate offeror's proposed price information for the contract and task order to determine if it is complete, fair, reasonable, and balanced. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s completed Supplies and Services Schedule and Contractor’s Price Workbook in accordance with the RFP and Workbook instructions.

Section I – Contractor’s Price Workbook. The Government will evaluate offeror’s proposed price for ANY item identified in the Price Workbook. The Government will evaluate proposed prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid. Offeror’s are cautioned to provide their lowest price in their initial proposal. Offerors shall provide prices that are materially balanced between the CLINs.

Section II – The government will evaluate proposed prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). The government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation, comparison to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), and comparison to historical prices paid. Price reasonableness is a matter of the competitiveness of the Offeror’s proposal, considering the total price of identified labor, ODCs and travel in relation to the Offeror’s specific technical approach.

Section III -Initial Task Order 0001: Using the labor pricing proposed for the IDIQ contract offeror shall submit pricing for the attached task order.

STANDARD: The offeror proposes prices which are complete, fair, reasonable and balanced. There is little to no additional risk incurred by the Government in accepting the proposed prices. The factor will be evaluated, but not given an adjectival rating.

3. DEFINITIONS

Adjectival Rating Definitions. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the technical factors.

Figure 1 Technical Ratings

Past Performance Factor Rating Definitions. A rating of Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, No, or Neutral Confidence (as defined below) will be assigned to the Past Performance Factor.

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.

Figure 2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

Figure 3 Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Performance Confidence Assessments 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that assignment of meaningful confidence assessment rating is not feasible.

Price Evaluation No adjectival ratings shall be utilized for evaluating price. The Government will use comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation and comparison of proposed prices with Independent Government Cost Estimate. Normally, adequate competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

Definitions Deficiency. A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001 Examples of deficiencies include a statement by the offeror that it cannot or will not meet a requirement, an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or omission of data required to assess compliance with the requirement.

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001

Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001

Rating Method

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate and rate the non-Price factors based upon the definitions and criteria provided above. An adjectival rating will not be assigned to the Price factor, but a price reasonableness evaluation will be performed. The non-Price evaluation factors in descending order of importance are:

Technical, then Past Performance. When combined, all non-Price factors are more important than the Price factor. Technical, and Past Performance will be rated using adjectival scales referenced in Section M. Subfactors of Factor 1 are of equal importance.

When combined, all non-Price factors are significantly more important than the Price factor.

4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SELECTION.

The Contracting Officer will make the announcement of the selection of successful contractors directly or through his/her designee, and contracts award through beta.SAM.gov.

5. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS.

The PCO will chair any debriefing session upon receipt of an offeror’s timely, written request (see FAR 15.503, 15.505, and 15.506). The debriefing serves to assure offerors that the Government properly evaluated their proposals and made the award determination in accordance with the RFP. Since each offeror puts considerable resources into preparing and submitting a proposal, fairness dictates that the PCO promptly debrief offerors and explain why a proposal was excluded from the competitive range or was successful or unsuccessful. Timely and thorough debriefings increase competition, encourage offerors to continue to invest resources in the Government marketplace, and enhance the Government’s relationship and credibility with Industry.

The debriefing also provides feedback to offerors to assist in improving future proposal submissions. An effective debriefing often deters a protest by demonstrating that the Government conducted a thorough, fair evaluation and made a sound decision according to the established source selection methodology. Debriefings may be done orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable by the contracting officer.