Attachment 3 - Section M - Evaluation Basis for Award.docx

Attachment 3 - Section M - Evaluation Basis for Award Section M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

M.1.1. Source Selection Methodology: The Government intends to award multiple Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. The source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15. Award will be made to all responsible Offerors whose proposal is determined to be Technically Acceptable, has an Acceptable Past Performance rating, and conforms to all other material requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation of Technical Acceptability and Past Performance is described in Paragraph B below. Proposals will not be ranked, and there will be no tradeoffs between factors. As a condition of the IDIQ award, each successful Offeror will be issued an initial Task Order for the Contractor School at a Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) of $4,000.00. This price is established by the Government and is not subject to negotiation. Accordingly, cost/price is not an evaluation factor for the award of the base IDIQ contracts. All subsequent performance-based Task Orders will be awarded in accordance with the ordering procedures specified in Section H of the contract, at which time price/cost will be a significant evaluation factor as applicable.

M.2. PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS

M.2.1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions, if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

M.2.2. Evaluation Factors: Proposals shall be evaluated against two factors: Factor 1: Volume II - Technical, and Factor 2: Volume III – Past Performance. An Offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for both factors, and for all subfactors under the Technical factor, to be eligible for award.

M.3. FACTOR 1: VOLUME II - TECHNICAL

M.3.1. General: The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s written technical proposal, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

M.3.2. Subfactor 1 – Technical Scenario Response: To be rated “Acceptable” for this subfactor, the Offeror shall submit a separate and complete Task Order Management Plan (TOMP) for each of the three (3) sample task order scenarios (Services, Construction, and Commodities) located in Section L. The Government will evaluate each of the three (3) TOMPs independently if it presents a sound, feasible, and compliant approach for its respective scenario. The Offeror’s approach must adequately describe all procedures, plans and assumptions as well as a reasonable and sound methodology to quickly respond and execute the requirements. Each TOMP shall provide sufficient detail to demonstrate a thorough knowledge and understanding of the requirements by addressing, at a minimum, the following areas:

(a) Management and Execution Approach: The Offeror’s approach for: on-site management, command and control, communications, deployment site control processes, quality control plan, integration and listing of subcontractors.

(b) Mobilization, Demobilization, Staffing, and Readiness: The Offeror’s approach for: staffing and mobilization, personnel readiness, contractor security, and personnel safety.

(c) Logistics and Supply Chain: The Offeror’s approach for providing all required logistics, including: sources and origins of materials (including supplier name and contact data), equipment, and supplies; transportation delivery routes, including the use of air and sea ports; fuel sources and other consumables; and staging locations.

(d) On-Site Resource Management: The Offeror’s approach for: materials handling, storage sites, property and equipment control, and facilities layouts.

(e) Schedule: The Offeror’s schedule for completing the scenario, which shall demonstrate realistic critical path milestones to meet the required performance dates.

M.3.3. Subfactor 2: Program Management: To be rated “Acceptable” for this subfactor, the Offeror shall submit the ten (10) management plans listed below. The Government will evaluate each individual plan to determine if it is complete and adequately addresses all of the required elements as described in the following sections. A failure to submit any one of the ten plans, or the submission of a plan that is deemed inadequate, will result in an "Unacceptable" rating for this entire subfactor. Additionally, the Government will evaluate these plans as a whole to determine if the Offeror’s overall management approach demonstrates that it is:

(a) Effective in maintaining support in contingency environments and in identifying and resolving problems;

(b) Sufficient to provide oversight for effectively managing and integrating subcontractors; and

(c) Capable of integrating applicable federal regulations and best business practices at the task order level.

M.3.3.1. Staffing Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Staffing Plan that describes the Contractor’s overall approach to recruiting, training, and retaining personnel. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.1. The plan shall address, at a minimum, the following elements:

(a) Global Response Capability: The approach for providing on-site expertise worldwide within individual task order timelines, including standard operating procedures, workforce capacity, and relevant past recruiting efforts.

(b) Personnel Readiness: The process for ensuring all personnel obtain required vaccinations, visas, and other documentation to meet deployment timelines.

(c) Workforce Composition: The methodology and process for staffing with U.S. Nationals (USN), Local Nationals (LN), and Other Country Nationals (OCN), and for leveraging external resources to augment the workforce.

(d) Workforce Stability and Flexibility: The plan for maintaining a stable workforce in high-stress environments and quickly filling unexpected vacancies (e.g., use of retention incentives, recruitment bonuses). This may include demonstrating reach-back capabilities and the flexibility to relocate in-country personnel.

M.3.3.2. Quick Response Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Quick Response Plan that details their capability to respond rapidly to urgent mission requirements, including situations deemed unusual and of compelling urgency. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if its adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.2. The plan shall describe, at a minimum:

(a) Expedited Response Timelines: The plan for meeting expedited response timelines, ensuring an on-site presence within 24 hours for CONUS and 48 hours for OCONUS requirements.

(b) Management of Classified Information: The process for handling urgent requirements that involve classified information, including the receipt of materials from specified government locations, and how this process will not extend the required response timelines.

(c) 24/7 Planning and Communication: The approach for supporting classified real-time planning and communications with the Government on a 24/7 basis for time-critical taskings.

M.3.3.3. Procurement Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Procurement Plan that explains how they plan to acquire supplies and services to meet mission requirements. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.3. The plan shall describe, at a minimum, the Offeror’s processes for:

(a) Procurement Processes: Conducting efficient and compliant procurements, including the use of market research and supplier evaluation.

(b) Cost-Effectiveness: The methodology for obtaining supplies and services at fair and reasonable prices, demonstrating transparency, accountability, and overall cost-effectiveness.

M.3.3.4. Quality Control (QC) Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Quality Control (QC) Plan that outlines how quality, schedule, cost, and performance will be managed for both cost-reimbursable and Firm Fixed Price task orders. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.4. The plan shall describe, at a minimum, the Offeror’s processes for:

(a) Performance Management: The methodology for managing and ensuring quality, schedule, cost, and performance across different task order types (e.g., Cost-Reimbursable and Firm-Fixed-Price).

(b) Team and Subcontractor Integration: The approach for providing oversight, integrating team partners, and ensuring quality consistency through the flow-down of the QC Plan to all team members.

(c) Issue Resolution and Communication: The process for identifying and resolving issues between team partners, and for notifying the Government of performance issues, their potential impacts, and proposed mitigation strategies.

M.3.3.5. Subcontract Management Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Subcontract Management Plan that describes how it will oversee and manage subcontractors, placing full responsibility for oversight and corrections on the Contractor. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.5. The plan shall describe, at a minimum, the Offeror’s systems and processes for:

(a) Subcontractor Oversight and Integration: The approach for providing sufficient oversight, assigning work, integrating subcontractor efforts, and managing their performance.

(b) Reporting and Accountability: A system for accounting and reporting all first-tier subcontractor dollars expended.

(c) On-Site Coordination: The role and responsibilities of on-site task leaders in coordinating subcontractor efforts.

M.3.3.6. Safety Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Safety Plan that outlines processes and procedures to protect employees and property from work-related incidents. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.6. The plan shall detail, at a minimum, the Offeror's approach to:

(a) Mishap Prevention: The processes and procedures to protect employees and property from work-related mishaps.

(b) Compliance: The methodology for ensuring compliance with all Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations and all applicable Host Nation (HN) safety requirements.

M.3.3.7. Security Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Security Plan that describes how security procedures and internal controls will be implemented. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.7. The plan shall describe, at a minimum, the Offeror's approach to:

(a) Procedural Security: The implementation of Operations Security (OPSEC), Communications Security (COMSEC), and Telecommunications and Electrical Machinery Protected from Emanations Security (TEMPEST) procedures.

(b) Physical Security: The internal controls and measures that will be used to provide physical security to protect employees, information (including classified), and property.

(c) Enhanced Security: The strategies for enhancing security when operating in hostile environments.

M.3.3.8. Property Control Plan (PCP): The Offeror shall submit a Property Control Plan (PCP) that outlines the processes for managing government property. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.8. The plan shall describe, at a minimum, the Offeror's processes for:

(a) Inventories: Executing assumption and disposition inventories for government property.

(b) Property Management: Maintaining accountability of property and ensuring it is adequately controlled, protected, preserved, and properly used throughout the life of a task order.

M.3.3.9. Mission-Essential Services Contingency Plan (MEP): The Offeror shall submit a Mission-Essential Services Contingency Plan (MEP) that addresses potential disruptions to contract performance. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.9 and associated regulations (DFARS 252.237-7023, DoDI 1100.22, DoDI 3020.41). The plan shall describe, at a minimum, the Offeror’s actionable strategy for:

(a) Continuity of Operations: How the Offeror will maintain continuity of essential contractor services during a wide range of potential disruptions, including strikes, natural disasters, public health emergencies, or hostilities.

(b) Risk Mitigation: The identification, prioritization, and mitigation of risks associated with mission-essential functions.

(c) Resource and Personnel Preparedness: The specific provisions and processes for acquiring and preparing essential personnel and resources to ensure continuity of operations.

M.3.3.10. Combatting Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Plan: The Offeror shall submit a Combating Trafficking in Persons (CTIP) Compliance Plan. The Government will evaluate the plan to determine if it adequately addresses the requirements of PWS Section 5.3.1.10 and demonstrates full compliance with FAR 52.222-50. The plan shall, at a minimum, include the following components:

(a) Awareness Program: An awareness program designed to inform all contractor employees of the Government’s policy prohibiting trafficking-related activities, the specific activities that are prohibited, and the consequences for violations.

(b) Reporting Mechanism: A process for employees to report trafficking-related activities without fear of retaliation, which must include a means to make the Global Human Trafficking Hotline phone number and email address available to all employees.

(c) Recruitment and Wage Plan: A recruitment and wage plan that ensures the Offeror only uses recruitment companies with trained employees, prohibits charging recruitment fees to employees, and ensures wages meet applicable host-country legal requirements (or explains any variance).

(d) Housing Plan: If the Offeror intends to provide or arrange housing, a plan that ensures the housing meets all applicable host-country housing and safety standards.

(e) Subcontractor Compliance and Monitoring: Procedures to prevent all agents and subcontractors at any tier from engaging in trafficking in persons. This shall include the methods the Offeror will use to monitor, detect, and terminate any subcontractor, agent, or employee found to have engaged in such activities.

M.3.4. Subfactor 3: Key Personnel: To be rated “Acceptable” for this subfactor, the Offeror shall provide the required documentation to demonstrate that their proposed Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager meet the qualifications outlined in PWS Sections 4.1.1 and 4.1.2, respectively. The Government will evaluate the submitted documentation to verify compliance. The submission for each individual shall include:

(a) Signed Letter of Intent: A signed letter of intent between the Offeror's proposed program manager, alternate program manager and the Offeror; (The on-site task order manager may be evaluated at task order awards.);

(b) Security Clearance: Evidence of current, active SECRET security clearance for the proposed Program Manager and Alternate Program Manager;

(c) Resume and Experience Narrative: A resume and a narrative summary of efforts that the key personnel were responsible for (that includes scopes/types of work, dollar value, and number of efforts where performance was completed no more than five (5) years prior to the due date of the solicitation) demonstrating that the proposed individual meet the following minimum qualifications:

(1) Program Manager: Five (5) years of program management experience within the last seven years, which required expertise in Government appropriations; Air Force Mission Support functions (specifically Engineering and Force Support); Construction, Services, and Commodities; Government acquisitions; and management of multiple task orders of a magnitude greater than $2M each in geographically dispersed locations simultaneously or equivalent deployment experience.

(2) Alternate Program Manager: Two (2) years of program management experience within the last seven years, which required expertise in Government appropriations; Engineering, Construction, Services, or Commodities; Government acquisitions; and management of multiple task orders of a magnitude greater than $400K.

M.3.5. Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation: To be rated “Acceptable” for this subfactor, the Offeror shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). The Government will evaluate the SBPCD to determine if it adequately addresses all the required elements and goals as identified in Section L of this solicitation. A plan that fails to address all required elements will be rated "Unacceptable."

M.3.6. Technical Rating Methodology: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s requirements. The Offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether it is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor (Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4). To be considered awardable, the Offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating in every technical subfactor.

DoD Source Selection Procedures Table C-1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method:

M.4. FACTOR 2: VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

M.4.1. General Assessment: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/joint venture members ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/joint venture members and if applicable, the critical subcontractor(s) demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the Offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

M.4.2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government may employ several approaches, including:

(a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the Offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(c) Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members present/past performance will include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s).

(d) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

M.4.3. Evaluation of Ordering Contracts:

(a) Submission of Task Orders: Performance on an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract is demonstrated at the individual task order level. Therefore, if an Offeror submits an IDIQ contract for past performance consideration, they shall submit one or more specific task orders issued under that IDIQ contract for evaluation. The Government will not evaluate the basic IDIQ contract itself; the evaluation will be based on the recency, relevancy, and quality of the submitted task order(s).

(b) Evaluation of a Series of Orders: If an Offeror submits a series of related task orders for evaluation, the Government will sum the total dollar value and the periods of performance of all orders in the series to determine the overall scope and magnitude of the effort for the purpose of assigning a relevancy rating. All orders submitted as part of a series should be for a continuous and relevant scope of work.

(c) Evaluation Against Magnitude and Complexity: The Government will evaluate the technical complexity, programmatic scope, and magnitude (dollar value and period of performance) of all submitted task orders against the criteria defined in Section M.4.4 below to determine the relevancy of the past performance.

M.4.4. Recency and Relevancy Evaluation:

(a) Recency: The Government will first evaluate submitted past performance efforts for recency. To be considered recent, an effort must be active or have been completed within five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Only recent efforts will be evaluated for relevancy.

(b) Relevancy: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy for each recent past performance effort. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The evaluation will consider the similarity of the scope, magnitude, and complexity of the past work to the requirements of the AFCAP VI PWS. The following adjectival ratings will be used:

(c) Magnitude and Complexity Criteria: To be considered for a "Relevant" rating, a past performance effort should generally meet the following criteria for magnitude and complexity:

(1) Duration: A period of performance of at least one (1) year.

(2) Annual Value: An annual value of at least $2,000,000. There is no upper limit on value for relevancy purposes.

M.4.5. Past Performance Evaluating Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

DoD Source Selection Procedures Table C-2: Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method:

Note: In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give GREATER consideration to the past performance information on those contracts deemed most relevant and recent to efforts described in this solicitation.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)].

Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance [see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)]. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.