Attachment 4 - Section M - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI) Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 & 3.104

Solicitation #: FA4890-22-R-0004

Attachment 4 – Section M – Evaluation Criteria

1.0 BASIS OF AWARD

1.1 This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Subjective Trade-off source selection process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 31 Mar 2016 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 3 Oct 2017. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible (IAW FAR Part 9) Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

1.2 Factor ratings and assessments will focus on each proposal’s strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, performance confidence and price. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 The Government may award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each Offeror’s technical, past performance, and price proposals.

1.4 If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation notices and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

1.5 Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions in the submitted FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); 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.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Proposals will be evaluated using the following three factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price/Cost. Technical is more important than Past Performance. When combined, Technical and

Past Performance are significantly more important than Price. There are three sub-factors within the Technical Factor: (A) Management and Staffing, (B) Deployment and Mobilization, and (C) Transition- In. Sub-factors are of equal importance. The greater the equality of proposals for factors other than price, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

2.2 As a basis for award, price is of secondary consideration; therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Price is not expected to be the most significant factor in the selection of an Offeror for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. When competing proposals are evaluated and determined to be equal, total price and other price factors would become the most significant factor. Prices will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is reasonable and to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between technical and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally priced cost estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price credibility rests solely with the Offeror. Price proposals will not be rated or scored. Price proposals must be reasonable, realistic, and balanced. The Government will make a subjective evaluation to determine if the Offeror’s technical approach and proposed price represents the greatest value to the Government.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

3.1.1 The Technical Factor consists of three sub-factors: (A) Management and Staffing, (B) Deployment and Mobilization, and (C) Transition-In. The Technical Factor will be evaluated using a combined technical rating and risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations will utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table M2.

The Offeror’s technical solution will be assessed a combined technical/risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk ratings are listed in Table 1, below. In order to be eligible for award offerors are required to meet all aspects of each technical sub-factors and receive a minimum “GREEN/Acceptable” rating.

Table 1: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

PURPLE Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

RED Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2: Risk Definitions

Low

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

Table 3: Technical Evaluation Descriptors

Definitions

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

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

Significant Weaknesses

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

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.

3.1.2 Technical Sub-factors

3.1.2.1 Sub-factor A – Management and Staffing. The Offeror shall provide a comprehensive plan to manage the STRAP program and staff STRAP support services:

a. Demonstrates a logical and appropriate program and management structure (organizational structure; functional alignments; key positions; lines of communication/authority; approach and processes to ensure quality, security, asset management and other key functions; management, control and role of subcontractors) to ensure successful contract performance.

b. Demonstrates a logical and appropriate staffing arrangement (number of workers, labor categories, skill levels, responsibilities and qualifications (e.g., security clearance, certification, experience, and knowledge, skills, and abilities) to meet all tasks under the PWS.

3.1.2.2 Sub-factor B – Deployment and Mobilization. Demonstrates a clear understanding of OCONUS deployment/travel processes and requirements, and capability to effectively deploy personnel to/from locations in Southwest Asia (including designated war/combat zone locations) for the life of the contract.

3.1.2.3 Sub-factor C – Transition-In. Demonstrates an executable (logical timeline with realistic milestones) 90-day Transition-In Plan. Details the offeror's processes and procedures necessary provide continuity of STRAP mission support and continuity of operations from contract award through performance start to ensure minimal service disruptions and no service degradation. Exhibits a logical and appropriate:

a. Phased approach for transitioning in the contractor’s management structure, overarching program management, overarching quality management, workforce and STRAP assets/materials;

b. Timeline to assume all PWS tasks and responsibilities from the incumbent by full performance start;

c. Processes and procedures necessary to mobilize workforce to all locations; and

d. Transition-in risks and proposed handling strategies.

3.2 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

In evaluating past performance, the government will consider the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. Using the offeror submitted Past Performance Contract References, the government will verify Offeror’s recent, relevant and satisfactory past experience, as defined below.

3.2.1 Recency. An assessment of the Past Performance Contract References submitted by the offeror will be made to determine recency. To be eligible for consideration, the cited effort for the prime, teaming partner, joint venture, and/or significant subcontractors must have a minimum 12 consecutive months of performance, performed within 3 years of the date of this solicitation. Past performance references that fail this condition will not be evaluated.

3.2.2 Relevancy. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained. The Past Performance Contract References submitted by the offeror and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy; Past Performance Contract References, PPIRS, FAPIIS, eSRS, or other databases, DCMA, and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, may be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

Relevant work is defined as a contract that meets the following criteria:

a. Functional and technical experience in RADAR sensor data format, both standard (i.e. CD-1, CD-2, ASTERIX, and ASR-9) and non-standard; and

b. Experienced with the following ancillary RADAR equipment: TDX-2000, BDX-2000, Position Plan Indicators, C-Scopes, G-Scopes, New Technology RADAR Display, and various mosaic RADAR displays (i.e. Microprocessor En Route Automated Terminal System, Tactical Display Framework, Multi Source Correlator Tracker (MSCT)); and

c. Experience configuring and optimizing systems to support airfield operations and any command and control (C2) correlator tracker requirements; and

d. Experience integrating various ATC and C2 long-range RADAR sensors and networking components with ATC Systems, C2 Centers (i.e., BC3-Ts) and RADAR displays; and

e. Ability to capture required RADAR sensor data, analyze the sensor data, perform serial to internet protocol (IP) conversion and re-configure the sensor format, without modifying the payload data to provide the required information to be displayed at remote locations; and

f. Provided network engineering to design, optimize and route information through various networks, both secured and unsecured; and

g. Have remote monitoring capability of integrated organic and non-organic networks; and

h. Experience integrating and troubleshooting Identification Friend or Foe (IFF) Modes (including

Mode 5) to support ATF and C2 requirements; and

i. Experience in RADAR network engineering and integration; and

j. Mobilizing to, and performing temporary duty within, the USCENTCOM AOR.

Each Past Performance Contract Reference submitted by the Offeror will be assigned a relevancy adjectival rating, as defined in Table 3 below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identification_friend_or_foe

Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (per 3.2.2)

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (8-10 of the relevancy criteria at paragraph 3.2.2)

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (5-7 of the relevancy criteria at paragraph 3.2.2)

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (2-4 of the relevancy criteria at paragraph 3.2.2)

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (0-1 of the relevancy criteria at paragraph 3.2.2)

3.2.3 Quality. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and summarize the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into a performance confidence assessment (see Table 4). A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned.

3.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment. Based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality, the government will assign the offeror an overall performance confidence assessment rating, as defined in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival 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

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the 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 or 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

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the Offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence.” A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in this solicitation.

3.3 FACTOR 3 – PRICE/COST

3.3.1 This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and price competition to ensure awarded prices are fair and reasonable. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. The Government will use the techniques and procedures described under FAR Subpart 15.404-1 as the primary means of assessing price reasonableness, realism, and balance.

3.3.2 Total evaluated price will consist of the sum of all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs, for transition/phase-in, the base period and all option periods. Use the Government provided STRAP Excel Pricing Template at Section L, Attachment 4, for the price proposal; follow all instructions included in the template provided. Provide back-up pricing documentation/basis of estimate describing the fixed price labor build up elements (ex. fringe, overhead, G&A, other indirect pools, etc.).

The total price for CR CLINs will be determined by adding the plug-in numbers in accordance with Table 6: CLIN Breakouts. The burden of ensuring the information contained and submitted in this workbook is complete, accurate and free of errors, rests with the Offeror. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and is judged, based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and TOEP.

3.3.2.1 Equipment/Material/Travel/Overtime. Due to the likely inability of any offeror to accurately estimate travel, material/equipment purchases, and overtime associated with this requirement, the Government is providing plug numbers to be used by all offerors when proposing for travel/material/equipment/overtime. Offerors are instructed to propose plug-in numbers in accordance with Table 6: CLIN Breakouts. However, note that actual incurrence of the costs shall be authorized by the Government PM, CO or COR in writing prior to incurrence and will be paid IAW FAR 31.205-46.

No profit or fee will be authorized on travel. Applicable burdens (e.g. G&A) may apply IAW the contractor’s accounting practices.

Table 6: CLIN Breakouts:

Period of Performance

Materials/ Equipment CLIN x002

NTE

Travel CLIN x003

NTE

Overtime CLIN x004

NTE

Base Period $1,000,000 $438,600 $5,000 Option Period 1 $850,000 $438,900 $5,000 Option Period 2 $785,000 $439,500 $5,000 Option Period 3 $612,000 $439,800 $5,000 Option Period 4 $612,000 $439,800 $5,000 6 Month Extension $306,000 $219,900 $2,500

3.3.3 There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement; thus Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The Offeror’s price proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an Offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

3.3.4 The evaluation of option periods does not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Attachment 4 – Section M – Evaluation Criteria