Attachment_2_Section_M_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

RFP #FA557025R0001

Section M Evaluation Criteria

SECTION M

EVALUATION CRITERIA

FOR

RAF FAIRFORD FUELS AND MARSHALLING

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FA557025R0001

501st Regional Contracting Office

28 February 2025

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) source selection conducted in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures and the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. Award will be made to those Offerors whose proposals demonstrate Technical Experience within the Government-validated Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR), with Acceptable Past Performance, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements, and who have been determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1.

1.1.1 The Government is not evaluating price as part of this source selection as authorized by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). Therefore, the Government is not selecting a lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, nor will it conduct a subjective tradeoff.

1.1.2 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on the evaluation criteria as described later in this section. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. A single-award contract will be awarded to the Offeror that meets the HTRO MTTR, with Acceptable Past Performance, whose proposal conform to the solicitation’s requirements, and who has been determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1.

1.3 Period of Performance. A base plus four (4), 12-month Option Periods will result from the award of this contract.

1.4 Proposal Substantiation. An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

1.5 Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Government determines discussions to be necessary. Discussions will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306.

2.0 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, technical requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. If a proposal fails to conform to any requirements of the solicitation the Offeror may be deemed ineligible for award. Offerors are NOT permitted to take exception to any terms and conditions within the Request for Proposal (RFP).

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines it to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract. Please see Section L, Para. 3.6 for additional information and submission requirements for actual and/or perceived OCIs.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize the HTRO MTTR methodology.

This method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume II: Technical Experience, based on the criteria described in Section L Instruction to Offerors. The Government will validate scores and evaluate all the criteria mentioned in Section L, including Appendix C to Section L, Self- Scoring Matrix, even if not reiterated in this document, Section M, Evaluation Criteria.

The evaluation uses two evaluation factors, Technical Experience and Past Performance. There is no cost/price evaluation for this acquisition, and therefore there will be no trade-offs between cost/price and technical. The Government intends to conduct the technical evaluation using a HTRO Self-Rated Scoring Validation methodology where the Offeror’s Government-validated rating must fall at or above the MTTR to be deemed an acceptable Offeror.

Following Government-validation of Self-Rated Scores, the Government will then evaluate the Past Performance Volume of Offerors who meet or exceed the MTTR.

3.2 Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR). The Government has established a MTTR that an Offeror must meet or exceed in order to be considered acceptable for award. The Government has determined that an Offeror’s Government-validated rating represents its level of demonstrated capability to perform similar work, and those with a high level of demonstrated capability of the categories contained in the Scoring Matrix (Appendix C to Section L) present a lower risk of unsuccessful performance to the Government. The Government has set the MTTR at 17,000 points.

The Government will only validate self-scored matrices at or above the MTTR. The Offeror’s Self-Score is the total of all points claimed for each category. The Government-validated rating is the total of all points that the Government evaluation team validates during their evaluation.

The Government will validate based documents identified within the Cross Reference Matrix (Appendix D to Section L). The Government-validated rating may be lower than the Offeror’s Self-Score if the Government evaluation team is unable to find evidence for the claimed points within the Offeror’s proposal as cited in Appendix D.

The Burden of Proof for substantiating points in the HTRO MTTR Self-Rated Scoring Matrix rests with the Offeror. As stated in Section 1.6, the substantiating documentation shall contain sufficient data to validate points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal.

3.3 Evaluation Factors. The Government will use the following evaluation factors to evaluate Offerors’ proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 3.1:

Factor 1: Technical Experience Section 1: Relevant Marshalling Services (Categories 1-3) Section 2: Relevant Fuels Experience (Category 4) Section 3: Certifications/ Innovation (Category 5) Section 4: Staffing (Category 6) Section 5: Geographic Expertise (Category 7)

Factor 2: Past Performance

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

Section 1, Categories 1-3: RELEVANT MARSHALLING SEVICES

Category 1: Marshalling Experience In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Experience by validating points assigned to the value of having experience with providing “Follow Me” service, marshalling experience, and experience in utilizing powered and non-powered ground equipment support for aircraft within a single project. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with the strength of the Offeror’s technical experience, which is a top priority for the Mission Partner.

Category 2: Staffing points assigned to the number of personnel assigned, or available to be assigned to marshal aircraft under a potential contract. Ability to source personnel has been found to be an important factor as it provides the Government with basis for the strength of the Offeror’s ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Category 3: Emergency points assigned to the ability to address and/or mitigate emergency situations.

Section 2: RELEVANT FUELS EXPERIENCE

Category 4: Fuels operations points assigned to the requirements related to handling fuel, cryogenics, service station and organizational tank, inventory management, and laboratory requirements. The Government has determined these qualifications to be important as they directly relate to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Section 3: CERTIFICATIONS/INNOVATION

Category 5: Certifications, Management, Training Plan points assigned to various types of Certifications. In accordance with the PWS, and types of work to be performed, the Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements.

Section 4: STAFFING

Category 5: Staffing for Work Related to this Requirement points assigned to the number of personnel assigned as Commercial Workers. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with basis for the strength of the Offeror’s ability to fulfil Mission Partner requirements

Section 5, Category 11: GEOGRAPHIC EXPERTISE

Category 7: Existing office within the United Kingdom points assigned to whether the Offeror has a staffed office the United Kingdom. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provide insight into the ease of access to key personnel to mitigate issues/risks that arise during performance of the contract.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.2 Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will then separately evaluate the Past Performance of each Offeror that meets or exceeds the MTTR. The Government will evaluate the Past Performance of each work sample submitted by the Offeror utilizing the Past Performance Information Sheet (Appendix E to Section L), provided by the Offeror in support of their Past Technical Experience self-rated score. The Government’s evaluation will assess the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated performance record. In determining whether an Offeror’s Past Performance is Acceptable or Unacceptable, the Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, the context of the data, and the general trends in the Offeror’s performance. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Government may also obtain and evaluate Past Performance information from any other sources, including but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases, the Defense Contract Management Agency, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Government customers.

4.3 Recency. The Government will perform an independent determination of the recency of the data provided and/or obtained. Past Performance information will be determined “Recent” or “Not Recent.” In order for the Past Performance to be determined “Recent,” at least six months of the subject performance shall have occurred within the last seven (7) years, as of the date of initial RFP issuance. The Government will assign a Recency rating to each work sample submitted. The Government will not further evaluate work samples rated “Not Recent”.

4.4 Relevancy. The Government will perform an independent determination of the relevancy of data provided and/or obtained which is rated “Recent” per section 4.4 above. Past Performance information will be determined “Relevant” or “Not Relevant.” Work samples (contracts/task orders) that were proffered as support for Factor 1, Technical Experience self-rated scoring will be rated “Relevant” unless the Government downward adjusted the self-rated score to zero. A work sample submitted for Factor 2 Past Performance, but not under Factor 1, Technical Experience will be rated “Not Relevant.” The Offeror can only receive a Past Performance rating of Acceptable if the Government determines its work samples to be “Recent” and “Relevant.”

4.5 Past Performance Ratings. Upon determining an Offeror’s Past Performance to be Recent and Relevant, the Government will determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The Government will assign a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable to each Recent and Relevant work sample. Not Recent or Not Relevant contracts will not be assessed. The Government will evaluate the following to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance regarding schedule, quality of work, and compliance with contract requirements:

i. Data Obtained from CPARS

ii. Past Performance Information Sheet (Appendix E to Section L)

iii. Sources as described in Para 4.3 of this document

iv. Any other data obtained by the Government

The Government will consider, but is not limited to, information provided in the Past Performance Information. The Government may rely on Past Performance Information from any other sources.

The Past Performance ratings are defined in Table 2 below. An Offeror must receive a rating of “Acceptable” in Past Performance in order to be eligible for award.

Table 2 – Past Performance Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror's performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror's performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.