Attachment 4 - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION PROCESS

M1.1 Introduction.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s proposals. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth below. This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215, DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022, and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DAFFARS) 5315.

M1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the AN/FPS- 117 CLS program as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror.

If the Government determines a contract will not be awarded, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offeror(s).

M1.3 Evaluation Criteria for Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

This acquisition will utilize the tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Volume I – Factor 1, Cost/Price

Volume II – Factor 2, Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical Knowledge and Experience

Subfactor 2: Logistics and Asset Availability

Subfactor 3: Quality Control and Training

Subfactor 4: Contractor Resources and Stakeholder Engagement

Volume III – Factor 3, Past Performance

Volume IV – Factor 4, Small Business Participation Submission

Volume V – Factor 5, Administrative and Responsibility Material

Order of Importance: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after tradeoffs have been applied which are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The evaluation will be made on four non-price factors and one cost/price factor. The non-price factors include technical, past performance, Small Business Participation, and administrative and responsibility material. The technical factor has four subfactors, each of equal importance, which are: technical knowledge and experience, logistics and asset availability, quality control and training, and contractor resources and stakeholder engagement. The technical factors four subfactors will be individually assessed and assigned a separate Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. Past performance will be evaluated using a performance confidence

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 assessment. The other two non-price factors, small business participation and administrative and responsibility material, will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Only proposals evaluated as acceptable under small business participation and administrative and responsibility material will be considered for the award. In the best-value tradeoff analysis, the evaluation factors are significantly more important than cost/price. However, Price will contribute to the selection decision.

M1.4 Eligibility.

To be eligible for award, a proposal must comply in all material aspects with the requirements of the law, regulation and the terms and conditions set forth in this solicitation; and the Offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable.

M1.5 Discussions.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer 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 If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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 remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the Offeror’s ratings.

M1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal. 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 within the Government’s time constraints or by conduct of meaningful discussion, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, either as a result of initial evaluations, or after clarifications, communications, and/or meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable.

Award will be made to the responsible Offerors whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in the RFP.

M1.7 Cross-Reference Matrix.

The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), Section L (Instructions, Conditions, and notices to Offerors), and Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help Offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR VOLUMES/FACTORS

M2.1 Volume I – Factor 1, Cost/Price Proposal.

M2.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for:

1) Completeness

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

2) Reasonableness

3) Balance

4) Realism

5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

6) Cost or Pricing Information Requirements

7) Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP)

M2.1.2 Completeness

M2.1.1.1 The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The Offeror shall ensure they have provided all requested pricing information.

M2.1.3 Reasonableness

M2.1.3.1 The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

M2.1.4 Balance

M2.1.4.1 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 TEP, the price of one or more contract line items and/or labor categories are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items and/or labor categories. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M2.1.5 Realism

M2.1.5.1 In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government will evaluate the realism of the Offeror’s proposed prices, to include an evaluation of whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. It is anticipated that the same burdened labor rates (less profit or fee) for all cost type pricing arrangements will be identical to the fixed price rates within the labor rate matrix proposed in the Pricing Matrix Worksheet. This is anticipated to help satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government feels it needs further information to support its analysis, the Government reserves the right to request further information.

M2.1.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

M2.1.6.1 The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is solely for the purpose of proposal evaluation and does not represent a binding offer or final determination of cost from the Government. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

M2.1.6.2 Task Order Costs: The sum of CLIN 0002-5002, 004-5004, 0007-5007, 0009-5009, and 0026-5026 values proposed in the “Awardable Task Order” tab of the Pricing Matrix Worksheet (Attachment 6) based on the requirements outlined in Attachment 11, Awardable Task Order PWS.

M2.1.6.3 Labor Costs: The product of the proposed labor and profit/fee rates with the application of Government's notional hours for each labor category across all base and option years. Note that notional hours may not encompass

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 all labor categories proposed by the Offeror. The notional hours to be applied will be based on future estimated workload.

M2.1.6.4 Total: The TEP is the sum of Task Order Costs and Labor Costs.

M2.1.6.5 Important Considerations:

• Notional Data: The specific notional hours and their allocation across labor categories are considered source selection sensitive information and will not be disclosed to offerors; however, the same notional hours will be applied to all Offerors equally. This ensures a fair and level playing field during the evaluation process.

• Option Years: Except when it is determined not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offerors for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirements. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

• Complete Pricing: Failure to provide pricing for all required elements, including but not limited to labor rates for all categories and the requested costs within the “Awardable Task Order” tab, may be deemed an incomplete submission and could lead to proposal rejection. Similarly, omission of any required rate may result in proposal elimination. Offerors are strongly encouraged to carefully review all pricing instructions and seek clarification from the Contracting Officer if any uncertainties arise.

M2.1.6.6 CLIN X001 – Not Separately Priced (NSP) – Data: These prices are assumed to be included in the other CLINs and will not be evaluated separately.

M2.1.6.7 Labor Rates

M2.1.6.7.1 Labor and Profit/Fee Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual Task Orders and modifications. Fully burdened labor rates include direct labor rates and indirect rates (Overhead, G&A, Fringe Benefits, etc.).

M2.1.6.8 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

M2.1.7.3.1 If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness, Balance, and Realism due to the Offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the Offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the Offeror has any unacceptable rating.

M2.1.7 Cost or Pricing Information Requirements

M2.1.7.1 Accounting System

M2.1.4.1.1 The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has a government acceptable accounting system.

Failure to possess or obtain Government acceptability of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award. If the Offeror does not currently have a government accepted accounting system, the Government may conduct a Pre-award Survey as part of this source selection, using the Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractors, Attachment 7 of this solicitation. Results of the Pre-award Survey (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M2.1.8 Pricing Assumptions

M2.1.8.1 The Government will review Offerors pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the Volume I – Factor 1, Cost/Price Proposal for implications it may have on acceptability of the Offeror’s proposal.

M2.1.9 Professional Employee Compensation Plan (PECP)

M2.1.9.1 The professional employee compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated IAW FAR 52.222-46 to ensure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the Offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 professional employee compensation plan will result in the Offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

M2.2 Volume II – Factor 2, Technical Proposal.

M2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal, and a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the evaluation of Factor two and its subfactors.

Evaluation of proposals will focus on the Offeror’s ability and approach to understand and meet the AN/FPS-117 CLS program PWS requirements. If an Offeror’s proposal receives an Unacceptable rating for any technical subfactor, it will result in an Unacceptable rating for the overall technical proposal factor. Offerors that simply restate the Government’s requirement will be rated Unacceptable.

M2.2.1.1 The Technical Rating includes consideration of proposal strengths and deficiencies, defined below:

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency is 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.

M2.2.1.2 The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses, Defined below:

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

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

M2.2.1.3 Technical Rating

M2.2.1.3.1 The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table M2.2.1.3.1

Technical Rating

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Technical Rating

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

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

M2.2.1.4 Technical Risk Rating

M2.2.1.4.1 Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Technical Subfactors will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color rating in Table M2.2.1.3.1) as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Table M2.2.1.4

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, 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, 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, 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.

M.2.2.2 Subfactor 1: Technical Knowledge and Experience For Technical Knowledge and Experience, this sub-factor evaluates the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates ability to:

M2.2.2.1 Understand radar systems sustainment/modifications and their accompanying disciplines (e.g.

electrical/electronic engineering, mechanical engineering, computer/software engineering, RF/Radar engineering) and apply it to maintenance, troubleshooting, design/modification, training, and test and evaluation of PESA/AESA legacy radar systems and software. Of particular interest is accomplishing this for L-Band Radar Systems and utilizing personnel with experience in these disciplines.

M2.2.2.2 Implement a cybersecurity framework and governance structure, including their organizational approach to managing cybersecurity risks and ensuring compliance with industry standards including their methods for identifying

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 and assessing potential cybersecurity threats, and their procedures for responding to and containing incidents. The Offeror's description of their risk assessment methodologies, including their approach to identifying, assessing, and prioritizing cybersecurity risks as well as techniques, including their procedures for remediating vulnerabilities and preventing future incidents. Finally, the Offeror's relevant certifications, accreditations, or compliance with DOD Risk Management Framework DoDI 8510.01.

M2.2.2.3 Produce technical data packages for support of legacy components/systems/modifications and newly developed systems/parts for engineering and technician use in maintaining systems. Examples of such products are Technical Orders (T.O.’s), manuals, drawings (2D/3D mechanical/electronic/electrical schematics), software/hardware architecture and flow diagrams, models/simulations. Understand Model Based System Engineering (MBSE) and its application at the LRU to System Level.

M2.2.3 Subfactor 2: Logistics and Asset Availability.

For Logistics and Asset Availability, this sub-factor assesses the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates capability to:

M2.2.3.1 Provide comprehensive logistics and asset availability support for the AN/FPS-117 system. The evaluation encompasses several key aspects, including the Offeror's procedures for supplying and sustaining spare hardware, which involves procurement, inventory management, and quality control measures. Reference PWS paragraphs 3.2, 3.5, 3.7

M2.2.3.2 Mitigate Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) risks, including risk identification, strategy development, and plan implementation to ensure the continued availability of critical components and materials.

M2.2.3.3 Perform Testing, Teardown, and Evaluation (TT&E) and repair services, including troubleshooting and repair processes, as well as their method for ensuring that all repaired or retrofitted items meet the requirements outlined in the Specification Control Drawing and Acceptance Test Plan (ATP).

M2.2.3.4 Prevent, detect, mitigate, and dispose of counterfeit parts, including the Offerors counterfeit prevention strategy.

M2.2.3.5 Provide emergency engineering support services, including on-site support at any radar location within Alaska, Hawaii, and Canada, to ensure timely and effective system maintenance and repair, and commitment to have a representative on-site within 72 hours of PMO authorization.

M2.2.4 Subfactor 3: Quality Control

For Quality Control, this sub-factor evaluates the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates ability to:

M2.2.4.1 Develop and implement a quality control strategy that ensures the sustainability of the AN/FPS-117 radar systems, including configuration control and personnel certifications. Of particular interest is the contractor's ability to integrate reliability into radar components by developing Quality Metrics and Monitoring processes, including key performance indicators, frequency and methodology for collecting and analyzing quality data, and procedures for identifying and addressing trends or anomalies in quality data.

M2.2.4.2 Produce and sustain quality control procedures, including the qualifications and experience of key personnel

M2.2.4.3 Ensure all work is performed to standards, including its configuration management process, supply chain quality control, corrective action and continuous improvement process, and experience and qualifications in implementing and maintaining a quality control program.

M2.2.5 Subfactor 4: Contractor Resources and Stakeholder Engagement

For Contractor Resources and Stakeholder Engagement, this sub-factor evaluates the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates ability to:

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

M2.2.5.1 Develop and implement a comprehensive contractor resources and stakeholder engagement strategy, including a description of the contractor's resources, such as personnel, equipment, and facilities, and a plan for engaging with the Government.

M2.2.5.2 Ensure transparency and compliance through the use of regular meetings, monthly status reports, and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) CDRLs.

M2.3 Volume III – Factor 3: Past Performance.

M2.3.1 The past performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing the services delineated in the AN/FPS-117 CLS program PWS. A quality assessment will be conducted after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the AN/FPS-117 CLS program requirements. The Government will not evaluate personal references.

M2.3.2 The past performance evaluation will be based on the data gathered by summary, contractor submittals of Attachment 8 – Past Performance Information (PPI) Sheets, interviews and assessments available through the Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Subcontractor Consent Letter/Client Authorization Letter are required to be submitted with the past performance volume. If the required letters are not submitted, the past performance evaluation will not take place and the Offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award. The Government may access past performance information from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. The Government is not limited to the resources listed.

M2.3.3 The past performance evaluation result is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability in successfully accomplishing the solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertains to the requirements outlined in the solicitation. The Government will evaluate past performance of the efforts that meet the recency and relevancy requirements in Section L, paragraphs L4.2, L4.3 and Table L.4, to determine the Government’s overall expectation in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort using the past performance confidence assessment ratings as described in Section M Table M2.3.7.

M2.3.4 Recency.

M2.3.4.1 Recency will be determined based on contract references reflecting past and present performance over the past five years from the date of proposal submission. The Offeror PPI sheets will be evaluated for the five-year recency requirement. PPI will be rated at “Recent” if any part of the effort occurred over the past five years from the date of proposal submission and “Not Recent” if it occurred over five years from the date of proposal submission.

M2.3.5 Relevancy Ratings.

M2.3.5.1 The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained and determine how closely the requirements performed under those contracts relate to the AN/FPS-117 CLS program effort. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent submitted contracts. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. To assist in this evaluation, the Government will use Attachment 9 – Past Performance Relevancy Baseline to help assign one of following relevancy criteria to efforts identified in an Offeror’s Volume III proposal: (However, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Table M2.3.5 Past Performance Relevancy Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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

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

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

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M2.3.5.2 A minimum of one PPI sheet shall be submitted by the prime Offeror and, if proposing as a contractor team arrangement, at least one of the remaining PPI sheets shall be from the partner. If proposing as a prime with more than one partners, a PPI sheet shall be submitted for each partner. Note: in the event more than three partners exist, submit one PPI sheet per each partner which is an allowable exception to the three maximum PPI sheet limitation listed in L4.1.4. A Government determination of “Not Relevant” for the minimum of one prime PPI sheet and one partner(s) PPI sheet, if proposing as a contractor team arrangement, will automatically receive a rating of “Not Relevant”.

M2.3.5.3 For proposed subcontractors, relevancy is defined by that which reflects experience in the area of expertise the subcontractor is projected to perform under the program, (i.e., specific functional areas in the PWS).

M2.3.6. Quality of Performance.

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304[c][2]). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information provided or obtained and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment will not be accomplished; rather, the past performance rating, is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

The following Quality elements are an example of what may be considered. The aggregate of these considerations will be taken into account to assist in assigning the contract Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

- Extent to which the Contractor’s products and services met the specification/performance requirements

- Customer satisfaction

- Timely recognition and notification of administrative and engineering problems affecting the program

- Contractor’s ability to perform independently without significant Customer direction/oversight

- Contractor’s ability to meet and monitor program schedules and critical milestones

- Contractor’s ability to control and manage subcontractors (supply Chain management)

- Contractor’s ability to control cost

- Contractor’s ability to meet proposal timelines

- Communication skills, and ability to work with stakeholders

M2.3.7 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality evaluation, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Table M.2.3.7 Past Performance Confidence Assessment

3Adjectival 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

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

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or 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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. 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.

Offerors with recent/relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous than Offerors with no recent/relevant past performance (“Neutral Confidence” ratings).

M2.3.7.1 Adverse Past Performance or Discrepancy: 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 but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken including planned or promised, and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

M2.3.8 Small Business Compliance in Past Performance: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the Offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the Offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL Offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the Offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the Offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

M2.4 Volume IV – Small Business Participation

M2.4.1 Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation Submission addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

M2.4.1.1 An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the Offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract.

M2.4.1.2 An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided.

M2.4.1.3 The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable.

Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet, and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph M2.4.1.3 above in the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated against the FY24 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY24 goals are as follows:

Business Size Sub

Small Business 22.43%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 11.55%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

3.00%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5.00%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

5.00%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

5.00%

M2.4.2 Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Table 2.4.2 Small Business Participation Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M2.5 Volume V – Administrative and Responsibility Material:

The Government will evaluate Volume V for completeness and compliance with instructions. This Volume shall be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Table 2.5 Administrative and Responsibility Material Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of all administrative and responsibility requirements. All required documentation is complete, accurate, and compliant.

Unacceptable Proposal fails to meet one or more essential administrative requirements or responsibilities. Significant deficiencies or omissions are present in the documentation.

M2.5.2 Subcontracting Plan

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror completed and submitted a subcontracting plan and how well the plan identifies small businesses and the extent of the commitment to use them.

M2.5.3 Contract Forms and Certifications.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror has completed all required signatures and contract clauses, and all representations and certifications, acknowledgments, and statements in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov), or submits the Section K representation, certification, acknowledgements or statements.

Offerors who fail to complete these requirements will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume V.

M2.5.4 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements.

If applicable, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror listed all exceptions to solicitation requirements in the required format. Offerors who fail to complete this requirement or do not provide an acceptable exception will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume V.

M2.5.5 Contractor Team Arrangement.

If utilizing a Contractor Team Arrangement, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it contains a copy of the approved arrangement, outlining the roles and responsibilities of both partners. Offerors who fail to complete this requirement will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume V.

M2.5.6 Authorized Offeror Personnel.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror provided an authorized person for this solicitation. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror provided the required letter outlined in Section L6.1.6.

Offerors who fail to complete this requirement will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume V.

M2.5.7 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

The Offeror’s OCI analysis will be evaluated for completeness, ensuring it addresses all requirements of Section L, including the analysis of the Offeror, its teammates, and Subcontractors.

The offeror's identification and classification of actual or potential OCIs will be evaluated based on their relevance to the acquisition.

If a significant potential OCI is identified, the necessity and feasibility of the proposed mitigation plan will be evaluated. The plan must directly address the specific OCI and be realistically achievable.

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

During evaluation of proposals, the Government may, after discussions with the offeror and consideration of ways to mitigate or avoid identified significant conflicts of interest, insert a clause or term and condition in the resulting contract which disqualifies the offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts

Exchanges necessary to resolve OCI issues shall not be considered discussions. As such, the Contracting Officer may issue Evaluation Notices to the offeror prior to any decision to enter into discussions in order to resolve questions or concerns with the offeror’s OCI analysis or mitigation plan.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award