Attachment 21 Section M Draft.pdf

FA2488-22-R-B003

Attachment 21

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Eglin Operations and Maintenance Services

(EOMS) II

2 OCT 2024

FA248824RB003

Attachment 21 Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M-1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, and the Department of Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Part 5315. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Attachment 20, Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical and Cost / Price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior technical capability, lower technical risk, and / or higher priced Offeror outweighs the price 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 board (SSEB) 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.

M-1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Eglin Test and Training Complex (ETTC) Eglin Operations and Maintenance Services (EOMS) II Program.

M-1.3 Competitive Advantage from use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP)

The Government will evaluate any competitive advantage resulting from the Offeror’s proposed use of GFP (other than the list provided at Attachment 4) and make adjustment to Most Probable Cost (MPC) IAW FAR 45.2 and 52.245-9.

M-1.4 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.

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination, if during evaluation, the proposal is found to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation. Further, the Government may reject any proposal that is incomplete (e.g., missing a volume or other information required by the solicitation).

M-1.5 Discussions

The Government anticipates that discussions may occur as part of this acquisition and reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines them to be necessary. The Offeror’s initial proposal should still contain the Offeror’s best terms. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO with the approval of the SSA may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

Should the Government need to conduct written exchanges with Offerors, they will be in the form of Evaluation Notices (ENs). Page format and limitations will be placed on responses to ENs in the event they are issued. The specified page limits for EN responses will be identified in the letters forwarding the ENs to the Offerors. If discussions are required, they may be conducted either orally or in writing. The scope and extent of the discussions are a matter of the PCO’s judgment as set forth in FAR Subpart 15.306. Offerors may be restricted to a short turnaround (e.g., within 2-10 business days) in responding to the PCO.

M-1.6 Competitive Range

If discussions are conducted, the PCO will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (except as provided for in M-1.4 above), which will be approved by the SSA. If the PCO determines that an Offeror’s proposal should not be included in the competitive range, whether for purposes of efficiency or otherwise, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. A written notice of the decision will be provided to the unsuccessful Offeror IAW FAR 15.503, whereupon Offeror may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR Subpart 15.505.

M-1.7 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs)

FPRs will be requested from those Offerors remaining in the competitive range when discussions have been concluded. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award. Any changes to or non-concurrence with contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise its proposal. Rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-1.8 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation and instructions contained in Attachment 20, Section L may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award; this includes incomplete proposal submission (e.g., missing a volume or other information required by the solicitation). Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M-2.1.1 The following evaluation factors and subfactors 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 subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1.1: Management Approach Subfactor 1.2: Technical Operations Subfactor 1.3: Qualified Personnel Subfactor 1.4: Transition

Factor 2: Cost / Price

M-2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: The Technical factor is more important than the Cost / Price.

Factor. Within the Technical factor, all the subfactors are of equal importance.

M-2.2 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

M-2.2.1 Technical Rating. The Technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror's solution for meeting the Government's requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in Table M-2.2.1-1. The Technical ratings described in Table M-2.2.1-1 focus on the significant strengths, strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration (i.e., assign a significant strength or strength), for performance in excess of threshold requirements. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror's proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Each subfactor will receive an independent color/adjectival rating that will not be rolled up into an overall rating at the factor level. However, a Technical rating of "Unacceptable" in one or more Technical subfactors will result in a proposal that is not awardable.

Table M-2.2.1-1: Technical Rating Definitions

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

M-2.2.2 Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), significant weakness(es), and/or deficiency(ies), considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contact performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table M- 2.2.2-1. The Technical Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation will address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation is or is not manageable.

Each subfactor will receive an independent Technical Risk rating that will not be rolled up into an overall rating at the factor level. However, a risk rating of "Unacceptable" in one or more Technical Subfactors will result in a proposal that is not awardable.

Table M-2.2.2-1: Technical Risk Rating Definitions

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 emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have a high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

M-2.2.3 Evaluation Finding Types

Each proposal will be evaluated against the solicitation and its stated evaluation factors and subfactors for award. The Government's Technical evaluation will focus on compliance with solicitation requirements, including proposal significant strengths, strengths, excesses, uncertainties, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies (as defined in Table M- 2.2.3- 1).

Table M-2.2.3-1: Evaluation Finding Type Definitions

Finding Type Definition

Significant Strength An aspect of the proposal with appreciable merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contact performance.

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

Meets Requirement Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding, meeting the minimum requirements.

Excess An aspect of the proposal that has exceeded mandatory minimums whose removal and corresponding price decrease may make an Offeror's proposal more competitive.

Uncertainty An aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear.

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of the 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.

M-2.2.4 Subfactor 1.1: Management Approach

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's management approach as described in Performance Work Statement (PWS) 4.1.1 including risk management IAW the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.4.1 Workload Management

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach to accommodate significant workload increases or decreases, both for standard workload fluctuations as described in PWS 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, and 4.1.6.

M-2.2.4.2 Budget Management

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a sound approach to managing costs within an annual budget, IAW PWS 4.1.19.

M-2.2.4.3 Quality and Performance Management

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the use of objective metrics in performance measurement IAW PWS 4.1.1 and 5.

M-2.2.4.4 Management Operations Execution

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to the Management Operations Scenario description and questions identified in paragraph L-3.2.2.4.

M-2.2.4.5 Prior Experience

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates it has prior relevant experience that validates its approach and ability to meeting the requirements of the PWS.

M-2.2.4.6 Small Business Participation

M-2.2.4.6.1 Small Business Participation Commitment Document This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound plan to meet the Minimum Quantitative Requirement of 20% of the total contract value for the participation of small businesses in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture (JV), teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

M-2.2.4.6.2 Small Business Subcontracting Plan This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan adequately addresses the elements required by FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Subcontracting plans are not evaluated; they are assessed for accuracy. .

M-2.2.5 Subfactor 1.2: Technical Operations

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s understanding of and approach to accomplish the requirements of the EOMS II effort identified in the PWS, IAW the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.5.1 Operation of Test and Test Support Assets

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror describes an approach to effectively conduct operations of test and test support assets and ensure timely delivery of test and system operational data IAW PWS 4.1.3, 4.1.4, and 4.1.6.

M-2.2.5.2 Lifecycle Sustainment

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror describes a sound lifecycle sustainment program for test and test support assets IAW PWS 4.1.9, 4.1.10, and 4.1.11.

M-2.2.5.3 Sustainment and Modernization

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the system engineering and planning processes required for successful execution of Sustainment and Modernization projects IAW PWS 4.1.24.

M-2.2.5.4 Sustainment and Modernization Execution

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to the Sustainment and Modernization Scenario description and questions identified in paragraph L- 3.2.3.4.

M-2.2.5.5 Data Assertions

The Government will evaluate the degree to which any of the Offeror's asserted restrictions reflected in its completed Section K representation (DFARS 252.227-7017(d)) will inhibit successful accomplishment of the objectives specified in the PWS.

M-2.2.6 Subfactor 1.3: Qualified Personnel

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to provide key personnel and a skilled workforce with the experience and capabilities to understand, lead, manage, and execute the requirements identified in the PWS, IAW the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.6.1 Key Personnel

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror identifies key positions, qualifications, and rationale necessary to understand, lead, manage, and execute the EOMS II effort.

M-2.2.6.2 Staffing Plan

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror provides a Staffing Plan that demonstrates a sound approach to recruit, train, and retain a qualified workforce to execute ETTC’s complex / dynamic projects IAW the PWS over the life of the contract.

M-2.2.7 Subfactor 1.4: Transition

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s transition plan and ability to be prepared to achieve full performance on the first day of contract operations without interrupting or degrading the performance of the ETTC mission IAW the Measure of Merit below.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Transition Plan demonstrates a sound approach to seamlessly transition during phase-in and phase-out activities to ensure full continuity of test operations and sustainment services IAW PWS 8.

M-2.4 Factor 3: Cost / Price

M-2.4.1 Cost / Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the Cost / Price proposal for

(1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the PCO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Offeror’s Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated by the Government computing an MPC for each proposal independently for the base, option periods, and award terms. The MPC will be the Government’s estimate of anticipated performance costs plus any fee anticipated to be awarded.

Evaluation of option periods and award terms shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or award terms.

M-2.4.1.1 Completeness. The Government will review the Offeror’s Cost / Price volume for completeness and compliance with Attachment 20, Section L-3.3 of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate both the Cost Model and accompanied Cost Narrative for completeness.

M-2.4.1.2 Reasonableness. The Offeror’s Cost / Price volume will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For Cost / Price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information, see

FAR 31.201-3.

M-2.4.1.3 Realism. The Cost / Price evaluation will include the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and reflect a sound approach to resourcing those requirements, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Only the labor rates and associated costs as specified in Cost Model Attachments will be evaluated for realism

M-2.4.1.4 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced with respect to prices, IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

M-2.4.1.5 TEP. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed costs for all options and award term periods, including the six-month extension of services period., The six-month extension of services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, and will only be utilized if necessary. The TEP will not include Transition.

M-2.4.2 FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46 to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation.

Failure to comply with this provision may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.