Attachment 3 Eval Criteria FA701422Q0033 6June22.docx

Solicitation#: FA701422Q0033 O&S Legacy Cost Model Support and Independent Cost Estimates BPA FAR Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation Criteria

1. This contract is a 100% small business competitive set-aside on General Services Administration (GSA) Professional Services Schedule under SIN and NAICS 541611 (Administrative Management and General Management Consulting Services). This acquisition will result in Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs for Program Management (PM) and Travel/ODCs, and FFP/Level of Effort (LOE) CLINs for labor. This will be a multi-award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) with a five (5) year ordering period in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 8 Required Sources of Supplies and Services 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 https://www.acquisition.gov/.

1.1 The Government intends to On-Ramp new vendors to the existing Multi-Award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) and will select the proposals found to be most advantageous to the Government considering Facility security clearance (FCL) level, technical approach, and price. Under this solicitation, the Government will also award two Call Orders. The evaluation criteria consists of three (3) factors: Factor I – FCL level. Factor II – Technical Approach, and Factor III – Price Proposal to include PECP. The tradeoff process for this acquisition will permit a tradeoff between the technical approach and price with the technical approach being significantly more important than price. The awardees of the multi-award BPA will then have the opportunity to compete for the Second and Third Call Orders awarded under this BPA. The evaluation criteria for the Call Orders can be found in Attachment 6, Ordering Guide, Pages 11-17 under “How will each call order be evaluated?” The evaluation criteria consists of two (2) factors: Factor I – Technical Approach and Factor II – Price. The tradeoff process for the award of the both orders will permit a tradeoff between the technical approach and price with the technical approach being significantly more important than price.

1.2 The BPA and Call Orders will be awarded to the Offeror(s) 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 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Item of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror(s) who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. The sole existing contractor on this BPA will also have the option to compete for both Call Orders.

1.3 The Government intends for a multi-award BPA to support the AFCAA mission; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. This acquisition will result in a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) / FFP Level of Effort multi-award BPA and the BPA awardees will have the opportunity to compete for the award of the First Call Order. If a proposal is non-compliant with instructions outlined in the Instructions to Offerors, then it will be deemed nonresponsive and not be further evaluated.

1.4 The evaluation for the On-Ramp to the BPA Award will be completed utilizing the factors in the following sections. ***The Call Order Factors/Ratings can be found in Attachment 6 – Ordering Guide, Pages 11-17.

1.5 Factor I: The Government will validate that each PRIME Offeror submitting a proposal for this requirement must have the correct facility security clearance (FCL) level. If the Offeror does not have the FCL level based on the Contract Security Classification Specification DoD Form 254 (DD254), they will not proceed to Step 2 for evaluation of the technical approach.

1.6 Factor II: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submission for these factors and subfactors:

· Factor II: Technical Approach (O, G, U)

· Subfactor a. Commercial/Corporate Experience (O, G, U)

· Subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan (O, G, U)

1.6.1 Technical/Risk Ratings: Factor II: Technical Approach, and subfactor a. Commercial/Corporate Experience and subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan will be rated as “Outstanding, Good, and Unacceptable” (O, G, and U) based on the description provided in Table 1 below. Rating definitions are provided below – (Table 1 – Technical/Risk Rating).

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

OUTSTANDING (O)

Fully meets all solicitation requirements OR exceeds many of the solicitation requirements for this factor or subfactor; AND proposal demonstrates a low risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

GOOD (G)

Fully meets all solicitation requirements for this factor; areas where the proposal does exceed the solicitation requirements, if any, are of little or no value to the Government AND proposal demonstrates a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

UNACCEPTABLE (U)

Does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies for this factor. The risk of unsuccessful contract performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

Evaluation 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.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1.6.2 Only those proposals rated as “Good or Outstanding” at the Factor II: Technical Approach and subfactor a. Commercial/Corporate Experience level and subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan will be evaluated for their submitted pricing in Factor III. If Factor II – Technical Approach, subfactor a. Commercial/Corporate Experience or subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan receives a rating of “Unacceptable” the proposal will not be evaluated for Factor III: Price Proposal.

2.0 Factor III: The Government will evaluate the remaining factor, Factor III – Price Proposal, to include the Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP). Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the total price proposed for the CLINs on Attachment 4, Pricing Worksheet. Evaluation of Option Periods and the pricing for FAR 52.217- 8 shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or the 52.217-8 six (6) month option to extend services.

2.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.2 The Government intends to award without exchanges. Accordingly, Offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. The Government will not search for information within the proposal in order to make the proposal acceptable. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold exchanges, then communication will be made with one, some, or all of the Offeror(s) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the award decision.

2.2.1 If the Government requires additional information or clarification and interchanges are necessary, the Government will issue Interchange Notices (INs) as necessary to Offerors. INs will be sent electronically to Offerors to ensure complete understanding of any discrepancies. Any necessary page changes to the Offeror’s proposals will be obtained prior to concluding interchanges. Throughout the interchange process, the Government will document any changes in ratings and total evaluated price. Offeror responses to INs at the conclusion of interchanges will become its final proposal and be considered in making the award decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time of interchanges, any further changes or exceptions are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

3.0 Evaluation Factors

3.1 The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

· Factor I – Facility Security Clearance (FCL) Level Validation (Pass/Fail)

· Factor II - Technical Approach (O, G, U)

· Subfactor a. Commercial/Corporate Experience (O, G, U)

· Subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan (O, G, U)

· Factor III - Price Proposal including PECP

3.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Each Technical factor and subfactor will be rated individually. Each technical subfactor is of equal importance. When combined, the Technical Approach (including all subfactors) is significantly more important than price.

Factor I - Facility Security Clearance (FCL) Level (Pass/Fail)

Factor I will receive a Pass rating upon the Offeror’s demonstration of the following:

· Facility is cleared up to the clearance requirements specified on the DD254

· Approved/issued by the Defense Security Service (DSS)

· Posted in the DSS Industrial Security Facility Database (ISFD)

· Verifiable SECRET FCL must exist at time of proposal

Factor II - Technical Approach (O, G, U) The Government will review all proposals to determine if the response meets the evaluation criteria listed below for Factor II Technical Approach and each subfactor:

The Technical Approach will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s Technical Approach demonstrating the following:

· Demonstrates a clear understanding of the tasks in Section 2 of the PWS

· The Offeror has the capabilities, expertise, experience, and knowledge in all matters pertaining to Air Force cost estimating policies and procedures

· Demonstrates a clear understanding of the tools and resources available to meet the cost estimating tasks outlined IAW Section 2 of the PWS

Subfactor a. Commercial/Corporate Experience (O, G, U) This subfactor will be evaluated based on demonstrating the following:

· The Offeror has the commercial, corporate experiences, and capabilities to meet the tasks as identified in Section 2 of the PWS

· The identified projects/contracts or task orders are similar in scope, complexity, and dollar value that aligns with this requirement

· The Commercial/Corporate Experience demonstrates proven commercial or industry practices that have been effective in previous awards or task orders

Subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan (O, G, U) This subfactor will be evaluated based on demonstrating the following:

· An Offeror’s Management/Staffing Plan outlines the proposed number of labor categories and proposed personnel that maps back to the specific tasks of the PWS in Section 2.

· The Offeror’s plan demonstrates a sound management and staffing plan that will document/identify qualified personnel to support the tasks IAW the PWS, minimize impact on recruiting and retention, and incentivize employees to meet or exceed requirements. The Management/Staffing Plan will also clearly identify all personnel resources and skill sets to fulfill the full scope of the PWS requirements through a matrix table or chart that clearly identifies the proposed staff, qualifications and skillsets, as well as any certifications (if applicable) of the proposed personnel.

· An Offeror’s Management/Staffing Plan addresses the oversight of the staff/personnel supporting this contract at the Offeror’s facility and the process for safeguarding all data and documents at the facility.

The proposals rated as “Outstanding” OR “Good” for Factor II –Technical Approach, subfactor a. Commercial/Corporate Experience, and subfactor b. Management/Staffing Plan will then proceed to Factor III. Any proposal that receives a rating of “Unacceptable” will NOT move to Factor III for price evaluation.

Factor III – Price Quote (Fair, Reasonableness and Not Unbalanced) The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) proposed for the CLINs on Attachment 4, Price Worksheet, which includes the base period and all option periods. The price of the six-month extension will be included in the TEP. The Government estimates travel on this BPA as $45,000.00 for the base and all option years combined. These totals are pre-populated within Attachment 4 – Price Worksheet and should not be changed when pricing. Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness. For additional information, see FAR 31.102 Fixed-Price Contracts. Evaluation of Option Periods and the pricing for FAR 52.217- 8 shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or the 52.217-8 six (6) month option.

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP) will be evaluated as “Acceptable/Unacceptable” IAW FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. If the offeror’s PECP is determined to be “Unacceptable,” then Factor III will be determined unfair and unreasonable.

The Offerors must map the labor categories proposed to their awarded GSA Professional Services Schedule labor categories. The Offerors must provide a chart, table or graphic showing the designation of the labor categories they deem professional and provide a description of each labor category and the tasks of the PWS that each will perform.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one (1) or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. In accordance with FAR 52.212-2(b), the Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Additionally, an offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Reasonableness concerns for which adjustments cannot be adequately quantified, or cost structures considered too low, too high, or unbalanced to support anticipated call order requirements with sufficiently qualified personnel may be determined to represent increased proposal risk.

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. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

BASIS OF AWARD

Basis for Award: The CO shall select the offerors the Government determines represents the best value in accordance with the established criteria set forth in this Evaluation Criteria. Trade-offs may be utilized to award to the best-valued sources based on a comparative assessment of quotes in accordance with the established criteria.