Attachment 12 - Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

FA002122R0002, SETA VI

ATTACHMENT 12

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION

1.0. PROGRAM STRUCTURE

When questions arise between proposals where the same teaming partner or subcontractor is listed on multiple proposals, written documentation of teaming and subcontracting arrangements required as part of the management plan submission (see paragraph 3.1 this document) will determine which of the proposals will be evaluated. If all proposals have written documentation of teaming or subcontracting arrangements, none of the proposals will be evaluated. If only one proposal has written documentation of teaming or subcontracting arrangements, the proposal with the written documentation will be evaluated. If none of the proposals have written documentation of teaming or subcontracting arrangements, none of the proposals will be evaluated.

2.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov. The Government intends to award up to five (5) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity contracts.

The Government will select up to 5 of the best overall offers, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The selected offerors will be awarded the minimum order and will compete for future TOs under this contract. The evaluation process will proceed as follows:

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is/are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 sub-factors to represent the best value to the Government.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give evaluation credit/positive consideration by assigning strengths for performance in excess of threshold (minimum) requirements identified in Technical Sub-factor 2. The Government intends, if it is in its best interest, to incorporate into the resulting contract, performance or capability exceedances above mandatory threshold (minimum) requirements. If discussions are conducted, incorporation will take place by change to the appropriate contractual documents before or after request for final proposal revision. In the event of contract award without discussions, the Government, if it is in its best interest, reserves the right to incorporate into the resulting contract, any proposed performance or capability exceedances above mandatory threshold (minimum) requirements included in the offeror’s proposal.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror(s) who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror(s), where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all 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 judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.1. Correction Potential of Proposals.

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.

2.2. Discussions.

The government intends to award without discussions. However, if, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.3. Solicitation Requirements

By submission of its proposal, 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 sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in a proposal being determined un-awardable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

2.4 Financial Responsibility

The offeror shall provide a completed Attachment 8 Financial Responsibility Questionnaire in Volume V, Contract Documentation to demonstrate the offeror‘s ability to obtain required resources. A contract may only be awarded to an offeror who has sufficient resources to perform on this contract; therefore, the fully completed and signed Financial Responsibility Questionnaire will serve as acceptable evidence to the Contracting Officer that the offeror has sufficient financial resources to cover startup expenses for this acquisition IAW FAR 9.104-3(a). The questionnaire shall be completed by a financial institution and include contact information of the issuing organization, and will be signed by the financial institution’s point of contact.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

1.0. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1: Management Plan Sub-factor 2: Workforce Management Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.0. Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors.

The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows: Past Performance and Technical are approximately equal in importance. Within the Technical Factor, sub-factor 1 will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and will not be part of the tradeoff determination /order of importance. If the technical sub-factor 1 is rated unacceptable, the proposal is unacceptable. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.0. Volume II Technical Factor

The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost factors and sub-factors other than past performance. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Technical evaluation provides for two related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. For Technical Sub-factor 1, Corporate Management Plan a Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating will be assessed. For Technical Sub-factor 2, Workforce Management Plan, a Combined Technical/Risk Rating will be assessed. For sub-factor 2, an assessment of technical risk will be conducted and is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The technical evaluation will include consideration of the risks identified in the offeror’s Technical Risk Matrix (Technical Volume Tab 6) and throughout the offeror’s technical proposal.

3.1. Technical Sub-factor 1: Management Plan.

The Management Plan sub-factor has two components, (A) Teaming/Organizational Structure and (B) Business Approach. Sub-factor 1 will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, excerpted below in Table M-1. If Sub-factor 1 is rated unacceptable, the technical proposal will be deemed un-awardable. Anything above the minimum requirements will not be evaluated.

Table M-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

3.1.2. Teaming/Organizational Structure

Evaluation Description: The offeror’s proposal includes a completed Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization which identifies the proposed organizational structure for conducting business operations under this contract. The company name, address, contact phone number, PWS functional capabilities, and location of work for prime contractor and all teaming partners and subcontractors is included. Formal written business and/or teaming agreements are included for any identified teaming partners and subcontractors identified in Attachment 1, Contractor Team Organization. Additionally, the offeror’s submission includes a narrative describing how the proposed Teaming/Organizational Structure will ensure the following outcomes:

1) Sufficient depth and breadth to accomplish multiple geographically dispersed task orders

2) Coverage for all PWS functional capabilities for PWS Sections 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, and 1.3.4.

3) A demonstration that the business/teaming agreements between the prime Contractor, teaming partners (if used), and subcontractors (if used) ensures that the prime Contractor is firmly in control and responsible for all aspects of contract performance

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates adequate capacity to provide the full range of PWS requirements and adequate ability to ensure prime contractor responsibility for all aspects of contract performance.

3.1.3. Business Approach

Evaluation Description: The offeror’s proposal provides a proposed business approach that addresses the following:

1) Processes and procedures to ensure Fair Opportunity Proposal Requests (FOPR) participation rate of 80% or greater over a twelve month period; and

2) Methodology to ensure effective contract management, at both the IDIQ and task order level, which ensures effective management of the entire contractor team; quality of services and deliverables without degradation over time; and compliance with all contract terms and conditions including Limitations of Subcontracting IAW FAR 52.219-14 and Security Requirements IAW 52.204-2

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates adequate capacity to participate in FOPRs and adequate capability for managing all aspects of contract performance.

3.2. Technical Sub-factor 2: Workforce Management Plan

The Workforce Management Plan sub-factor has four (4) components, (A) Qualification Assessment, (B) Resume Screening, (C) Communication and Complaint Resolution, and (D) Retention Plan. Technical Sub-factor 2 will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, excerpted below in Table M-2. The technical ratings focus on the meets, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements. Sub-factor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table M-2. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

TABLE M-2a TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.2.1 Qualification Assessment

Evaluation Description: The offeror’s proposal provides a methodology that demonstrates the offeror’s process to verify and validate qualifications against subsequent Government requirements including, but not limited to, accurate resumes, complete background checks, personnel clearances, and other requirements specified at the task order. Additionally, the proposal includes a demonstration of the offeror’s understanding of qualification requirements by providing a listing of key personnel (including security manager) with a description of their qualifications and clearance levels.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates an adequate methodology for ensuring all contractor employees’ qualifications are met and when required, verified and validated at task order award, prior to the start of performance IAW PWS section 1.5.3.1.

Strengths may be identified, through the use of checklists, employment criteria, flowcharts or other tools, and/or a thorough or exceptional methodology which demonstrates an ability to enhance employee qualification verifications.

3.2.2. Resume Screening

Evaluation Description: The offeror’s proposal demonstrates the offeror’s process to submit complete and accurate resume and qualification packages for its workforce no later than 10 calendar days before the required start work date of the contractor employee on task orders that require approval, IAW PWS section 1.5.3.1.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates an adequate approach for ensuring resume and qualification packages are complete, accurate, and submitted no later than 10 calendar days before the required start work date of the contractor employee.

Strengths may be identified, through the use of checklists, verification processes, issue resolution techniques, flowcharts, timelines, milestones, and key performance indicators from issuance of task order, a thorough or exceptional approach which demonstrates an ability to submit accurate resume and qualification packages above-threshold (fewer than 10 calendar days).

3.2.3. Communication and Complaint Resolution

Evaluation Description: The offeror’s proposal demonstrates the offeror’s process for ensuring effective communication between the prime, team members, and the Government. The process includes the offeror’s procedures for reviewing, tracking, monitoring, and responding to government complaints regarding contractor employee performance and describes appropriate action to resolve all issues in a manner that satisfy government concerns.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an adequate process for communication and complaint resolution in accordance with the timelines identified in the PWS section 5.1.5

Strengths may be identified, through the use of flowcharts, timelines, control processes, corrective action techniques, and milestones from notification to resolution approval by the Government, a thorough or exceptional approach which demonstrates an ability to manage communication and resolve complaints above-threshold.

3.2.4. Retention Plan

Evaluation Description: The offeror’s proposal includes a retention plan that describes the offeror’s approach to: employ and retain an appropriate number of qualified and experienced contractor personnel; and minimize contractor personnel turnover for all task orders throughout the life of the contract IAW PWS section 1.5.3. The plan includes the market analysis used to support its employee retention strategy and includes, at a minimum, onboarding procedures, employee recognition, training and development, employee communication, and change management.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates an adequate approach to: employ, retain, and minimize turnover for contractor personnel.

Strengths may be identified, through the use of communication networks, timelines, tracking and monitoring systems, critical decision points, and/or milestones, a thorough or exceptional approach which demonstrates an ability to enhance retention.

4.0. Volume III. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

4.1. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below in Table M-3.

4.2. Evaluation Process.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to this requirement. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government.

4.2.1. Recency

An evaluation of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing for at least 6 months, or must have been completed within three years from the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

TABLE M-3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING METHOD

Adjectival 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.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4.2.2. Relevance

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contract citations relate to the criteria established in Table M-4, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for aspects of performance that relate to the service elements required in the PWS.

Additional consideration will be given to past performance supporting Air Force Special Operations Forces as well as past performance in managing Government multiple award contracts for advisory and assistance services. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, Subcontractor, or teaming partner. The PPI reference forms, PPQs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, Table 4.

Table M-4, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Adjectival Description Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

A very relevant past performance citation is one which includes recent record of performance on a Government multiple award contract (MAC) in which the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) managed at least 3 concurrent task orders in support of Air Force Special Operations Forces.

Task order services performed must include all of the following:

1) Management and Professional Support Services (PWS 1.3.1)

2) Education and Training (PWS 1.3.2)

3) Engineering and Technical Services (PWS 1.3.3)

4) Additional Professional Services (PWS 1.3.4)

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

A relevant past performance citation is one which includes recent record of performance on a Government multiple award contract (MAC) in which the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) managed at least 3 concurrent task orders. Task order services performed must include all of the following:

1) Management and Professional Support Services (PWS 1.3.1)

2) Education and Training (PWS 1.3.2)

3) Engineering and Technical Services (PWS 1.3.3)

4) Additional Professional Services (PWS 1.3.4)

Somewhat Relevant

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

A somewhat relevant past performance citation is one which includes recent record of performance on a Government contract or task order in which the offeror (including teaming partners and subcontractors) performed at least one of the following services:

1) Management and Professional Support Services (PWS 1.3.1)

2) Education and Training (PWS 1.3.2)

3) Engineering and Technical Services (PWS 1.3.3)

4) Additional Professional Services (PWS 1.3.4)

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Any past performance record that that does not meet the above descriptions.

4.2.3. Quality of Products or Services

The Government will consider information from customers on how well the offeror performed on past contract citations. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services, the work performed, will be assessed. The quality of products or services performance assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory 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.

4.2.4. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of products or services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table M-3 above).

The past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the solicitation requirements. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent effort. 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.

5.0. Cost or Price Factor IV

1. Price will be evaluated for Completeness, Reasonableness, Balance, and Professional Compensation Plan realism.

2. For evaluation purposes only, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be based on the “All 5 Years Average Rate” and “Totals” columns in the Compensation Plan and Price Proposal.

3. If Offeror is awarded a contract, the Not to Exceed (NTE) Fully Burdened FFP Labor Rates proposed in the Compensation Plan and Price Proposal, Attachment 3, will be incorporated at award into the basic contract.

4. A five year contract period shall be evaluated.

5. Price analysis will be conducted for each Offeror’s proposal. The analytical pricing techniques and procedures described herein may be used, singly or in combination with others, to ensure that the selected best value offers are complete, reasonable, balanced, and the Professional Compensation Plan (s) are realistic.

5.1 Compensation Plan and Price Proposal

The Compensation Plan and Price Proposal will be evaluated based on the NTE Fully Burdened Labor Rates proposed for the base year plus out-year labor rate calculations. For evaluation purposes only the proposed rates for all five (5) years will be automatically averaged. The five year average will be duplicated in the “Totals” column for each labor category line item. The “Totals” column amounts will then be automatically combined to develop the TEP.

5.2 Review of Offerors’ Prices will consist of the following:

5.2.1 Completeness

A proposal is complete when all pricing data required under Section L of the RFP is provided in the format prescribed.

5.2.2 Price Reasonableness

1. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 is anticipated to determine price reasonableness.

2. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each Offeror’s Compensation Plan and Price Proposal to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1).

3. For evaluation purposes only, the reasonableness of Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated based on comparison of each Offeror’s respective TEP to the average TEPs from all Offerors.

4. If discussions are held and a competitive range is determined, TEPs will only be compared among Offerors in the competitive range.

5. Evaluation of option years shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

6. If the contracting officer determines there is insufficient data to determine the price reasonable, the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques and procedures per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

7. The overall proposed TEP must be reasonable to both the Government and the Offeror. A 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. A determination of unreasonably high TEP may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

5.2.3 Balanced Pricing

1. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items.

2. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, there is a significant difference between proposed rates from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation.

3. A proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.