Attachment 4 - Section M - Evaluation Factors AGE II Draft.docx

Attachment 4 – Evaluation – Commercial Items

Addendum to 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS (OCT 2014) The following addendum replaces FAR provision 52.212-2 in its entirety.

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

A decision on the technical acceptability of the three lowest priced proposals will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in Section 2 below.

Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract at Attachment 4 Instruction to Offerors – Commercial Items.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) support requirement. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government may 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 not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered easily correctable within the Government’s time constraints, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

Award will be made to the responsible offeror 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 also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2 below.

1.2 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, based on the initial proposal received, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Request for 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.

1.5 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 of Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Attachment 4 Instructions to Offerors and Attachment 5 Evaluation. 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. Attachment 5 Evaluation 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 Attachment 5 of the solicitation.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Sub-factors. IAW 15.304(e)(3) All evaluation factors, other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly less important than cost or price.

2.1 VOLUME I, FACTOR 1: PRICE

2.1.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Balance, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1.2 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L - Instructions to Offerors. Completeness is submitting an offeror’s pricing proposal with all the required portions filled out entirely. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.1.3 Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed fully burdened unit prices to include profit for all Labor and Consumable Supplies. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of the Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.1.4 Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Subpart 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals. IAW FAR Subpart 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.2 TEP - Offerors shall input into the Attachment 1 TEP Matrix, Not-to-Exceed (NTE) unit prices for each item for all task order price years to cover the 5 year ordering period and the 12 month 52.217-9 Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. Unit prices shall include direct labor rates, all direct costs, indirect costs (Overhead, General and Administrative, Fringe Benefits, etc.) and profit necessary for the performance of the entire requirement. Unit prices provided shall be rounded to the nearest penny.

The TEP will consist of the cumulative value for all CLINs 0001 through 0007 including Option CLINs 1001 through 1007. The TEP for CLIN 0009 Post Award Conference will be evaluated as $2,000 for all offerors. The TEP for CLINs 0001 through 0007 and Option CLINs 1001 through 1007 will be calculated by applying notional quantities to a predetermined equipment list across all task order price years. The sum of these notional quantities applied to the offeror’s proposed pricing for each category of equipment and over and above (O&A) rate will determine TEP. Notional quantities will be for Government evaluation purposes only and will not be disclosed to offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed prices are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed (NTE). A no bid or an omitted unit price may result in an incomplete Price Volume submission. An omitted unit price may result in proposal elimination.

The formula for application of notional quantities used will not be disclosed to offerors. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed NTE unit prices are contractually binding.

Submit a copy of the completed TEP Pricing Matrix in Price Volume I in MS Excel (non PDF format).

2.2.1 A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW Section 2.1 and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on TEP.

3 VOLUME II, FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

3.1 The three lowest priced proposals will be identified using the TEP. The three lowest priced offerors’ written technical proposals shall be evaluated, based on the sub-factors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance of Work Statement (PWS) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following sub-factors in sufficient detail.

Sub-factor One – Management Approach

3.1.1 A technical evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

3.1.2 A minimum of the three lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than three offers are received.

3.1.3 If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award will be made to that offeror.

3.1.4 If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable, evaluations may continue and the SSA may award to the next lowest priced technically acceptable offeror or set a competitive range that may include some or all of the offerors.

3.1.5 It is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical acceptability.

3.2 VOLUME II TECHNICAL

3.2.1 The written technical proposal shall be clear, concise, and include all the information required by this provision in sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal should not simply reiterate, rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet these requirements. Offerors shall assume the Government has no prior knowledge of their capabilities, work processes, facilities, and experience and will base its evaluation on the information presented in the offeror’s technical proposal.

3.1.2 Technical Acceptability / Unacceptable Ratings

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating Method

3.1.3 Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors:

3.1.4 Sub-factor One: Management Approach

Management Approach consists of three plans: (a) Program Management Plan; (b) Quality Control Plan; and (c) Property Management Plan.

(a) Program Management Plan (PMP) The offeror’s proposed PMP shall be evaluated based on their demonstrated approach to accomplishing the technical and schedule requirements set forth in the PWS Sections as identified below:

i. Description of Services; PWS Sections 2.3, 2.4, 2.6.5, 2.6.6.

ii. Tool Control; PWS Section 4.

The PMP shall specifically address how the offeror will address the potential growth in workload throughout the life of the contract.

The PMP is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that: (a) all requirements set forth in each of the sections listed above have been defined; (b) and an effective and realistic approach to meeting these requirements has been defined.

(b) Quality Control Plan:

The offeror’s proposed Quality Control Plan shall adequately address Quality Control requirements outlined in PWS Section 5. The Quality Control Plan is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (a) a methodology to ensure quality effectiveness and comprehensive management; (b) an established, comprehensive, and feasible process to identify, track, report on, and analyze quality issues, risks, and trends; and (c) a feasible strategy to identify and resolve deficiencies, identify potential improvements, maintain inspection documentation, and make quality control inspections and corrective actions available to the Government.

(c) Property Management Plan :

The offeror’s proposed Property Management Plan shall adequately address Property Management requirements outlined in PWS Section 8. Property Management Plan is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate the voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) or industry-leading practices (ILPs) the contractor intends to follow for maintaining accountability and safeguarding property including Government Furnished Facilities (GFF), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and contractor furnished property is accounted for and safeguarded. The Property Management Plan will be evaluated for adequacy of its incorporation into the contract upon award.

3.1.5 Subfactor Two: Resource Management and Staffing Plan

The Resource Management and Staffing Plan Sub-factor shall adequately address Resource Management and Staffing requirements in the PWS to clearly demonstrate ability to:

(a) Staff at a level which accomplishes the requirements outlined in the PWS sections 2 and 3 and includes the functions outlined below:

i. Contract Manager

ii. Production Manager

iii. Quality Control Manager

iv. Technical Order (TO) Librarian

v. Hazardous Material (HazMAT) Manager

vi. Hazardous Waste Site Manager

vii. Air Quality Manager

viii. Security Manager

ix. Flight-line Driving Program Manager (FDPM)

x. Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Prevention Manager

xi. Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) Manager

xii. Safety Manager

(b) Recruit qualified personnel possessing current skills, experience, and certifications within required timeframes to include a detailed description of hiring. Specifically address:

i. Recruitment or training strategies specifically focused on having workers available who possess the knowledge and skills required to work on equipment specific to this contract.

(c) Retain the necessary personnel to staff task orders and meet requirements of cost, schedule and performance. Specifically address:

i. Employment agreements or contracts to retain or have available workers in job classifications you consider hard to fill.

ii. Proposes a reasonable number of personnel to maintain required production (repair, dispatch, etc.,) timelines.

The Resource Management and Staffing Plan is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (a) a methodology for staffing to meet all requirements in the time frame required; (b) a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations.

3.1.6 Subfactor Three: Contract Execution Scenario

Depot Expansion Scenario: this execution scenario is acceptable when the offeror provides a detailed outline of how they will support AGE operations at the expanded depot operations location. The outline shall include a detailed strategy for ensuring personnel and equipment (tools, vehicles, etc.) are on-site to provide AGE dispatch operations, trouble calls, PMIs, unscheduled maintenance and all other functions that would normally be required at Hill AFB.

Scenario (hypothetical): Expanded depot operations are conducted at the Ogden-Hinckley Airport, approximately 7 miles from Hill AFB. There are 700 CAT I, 930 CAT II, and 80 CAT III pieces of AGE equipment on site. The government will designate ready lines and parking locations for the equipment, special tools/GFE are provided, and there is a designated area for the AGE contractor to use as a satellite maintenance facility.

4 VOLUME III PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered

4.1.2 Recency is defined as performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

4.1.3 Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP as well as any work performed under a Federal Government contract.

4.2 Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Acceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable 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. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” past performance shall be considered “Acceptable.”

5 VOLUME IV CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1 This volume will be reviewed for completeness IAW Attachment 4 Paragraph 4.1 through 4.1.5. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range.

5.2 Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be reviewed for compliance with applicable Clauses and regulations. The negotiated plan will be negotiated prior to award and the negotiated plan will be incorporated into the contract upon award.

The joint venture agreement will be reviewed to ensure it is signed and dated by all joint venture members.

6. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

6.1. 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.