Attachment_5_Section_M (DRAFT).pdf

RFP ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Contract Field Teams (CFT)

Labor Augmentation Support

Requirements (LASR)

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

(a) This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. For LASR, the best value basis for award will be determined by utilizing the Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) approach.

(b) Best value is defined as the Offerors that demonstrate Past Technical Experience within the Government-validated HTRO Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) with Acceptable Past Performance and Acceptable Small Business Commitment. The Government is not evaluating price as part of this source selection as authorized by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). Therefore, the Government is not selecting a lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, nor will it conduct a subjective tradeoff.

(c) In order to determine that a proposal represents the best value, the Government will also determine (1) if the Offeror is responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; and (2) if the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

(d) The Government seeks to award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts in two (2) competition pools:

(1) Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool: ID/IQ contracts to Small

Businesses whose offers represent the best value to the Government for task orders that will be set-aside under the special provision titled “Process and Criteria for Issuing Task Orders” (Section H-1 of the contract to result from this solicitation). This pool is for smaller CFT requirements where there are less than one hundred (100) FTEs CONUS and less than fifty (50) FTEs

OCONUS.

(2) Full and Open Competition Pool: ID/IQ contracts to either Small or Large

Businesses whose offers represent the best value to the Government for orders that will not be set aside. This pool is for larger CFT requirements where there are greater than or equal to one hundred (100) FTEs CONUS and greater than or equal to fifty (50) FTEs OCONUS.

(e) Offerors competing for inclusion in the Small Business Set-Aside competition pool

DRAFT

may elect to compete also for inclusion in the Full and Open competition pool. Small Businesses will be evaluated in the appropriate competition pool(s) based on the offeror’s selection located on the front page of the RFP.

(f) Contract award will only be made to Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

(g) The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on the evaluation criteria described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

(h) This source selection is conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, “Contracting by Negotiation”, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 20 Aug 2022, and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.gov, http://www.acquisition.gov.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award contracts to each Offeror that is technically acceptable by meeting the HTRO MTTR and has acceptable Past Performance and Small Business Participation. The number is not known at this time. The Government reserves the right not to award any contracts at all, depending on the quality of the proposals.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling

The ceiling of the IDIQ is $7.08B. The total value of all task orders (TOs) awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount.

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order

The minimum guaranteed order is $2,000.00.This amount represents the effort involved with the post-award conference. This is not a requirements contract and any Contractor that is awarded a LASR IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond that for the post-award conference.

1.5 Proposal Substantiation

An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government reserves the right to adjust the Offeror’s score unilaterally downward, potentially down to zero (0) points.

1.6 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach. The Government may also reject an offer where the past performance record results in an assessment of “Unacceptable” described in section

2.4 below.

1.7 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 AS9100D Certification, Factor 2 HTRO Scoring Matrix, Factor 3 Past Performance, Factor 4 Small Business Participation, or a combination of the four factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.9 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that the initial offer contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if Offerors will be required to include EN responses in the FPR. The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how Offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. Note: Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the Draft FPR and/or FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.10 Reviews and Visits

The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.11 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. In the case a discrepancy exists between Section L- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors Used to Evaluate Each Proposal

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

(1) Factor 1: AS9100D Certification

(2) Factor 2: HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix

(3) Factor 3: Past Performance

(4) Factor 4: Small Business Commitment

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors

(a) For this solicitation, the Offerors ability to provide the AS9100D certification for

Factor 1 is a prerequisite to the best value analysis. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be evaluated after meeting the AS9100D prerequisite.

(b) For all proposals that include the AS9100D Certification, Factor 2 (HTRO Self-

Scoring Matrix) will be used to rank the proposals that are found to have acceptable ratings for Factor 3 (Past Performance) and Factor 4 (Small Business Commitment).

Offerors whose proposals meet the Minimum Technical Threshold Rating with Acceptable Past Performance and an Acceptable Small Business Commitment Plan will receive an award.DRAFT

2.1.2 Evaluation Methodology

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate Factor 1 on a pass/fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable, or Unacceptable as depicted in Table 2.2 below.

Upon the offerors ability to provide the required AS9100D certification, the Government will utilize the HTRO MTTR methodology to evaluate Factor 2: HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix. The HTRO MTTR method requires the Offeror to score itself on the HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix, based on the criteria described in Section L Instruction to Offerors.

The Government intends to conduct a technical evaluation of the HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix in a single phase using a Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Self-Rated Scoring Validation methodology where Offeror’s Government-validated scores must fall at or above a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) to be deemed an acceptable Offeror.

Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below and Small Business Commitment will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 below.

Pricing is not being requested nor will it be evaluated for purposes of award of the LASR IDIQ contracts as authorized by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). Pricing will be evaluated at the task order level once the IDIQ contracts are awarded.

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical AS9100D Certification

Factor 1 is pass or fail and will receive the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. To be determined technically acceptable in Factor 1, the Offeror must be provide the AS9100D Certification. The Technical Fact 1 ratings are defined as follows:

Table 2.2 Technical AS9100D Certification

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

2.3 Factor 2 – HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix

The Government has established a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) that an Offeror must meet or exceed in order to be considered acceptable for award. The Government has determined that an Offeror’s Government validated score represents their level of prior demonstrated capability to perform similar work, and those with a high degree of prior demonstrated capability of the categories contained in the Scoring Matrix (Attachment 12) present a lower risk to the Government of unsuccessful performance. The Government has set the MTTR at 52,000 points. The Government will only validate self-scored matrices at or above the MTTR.

2.3.1 HTRO Self-Scoring Matrix & Work Sample Categories

There are twenty-one (21) work sample categories that the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s evaluate according to the methodology set in Section L.

2.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. For the work samples/efforts provided IAW Section L paragraphs 4.5 and 4.5.1, the Government will assess Past Performance based on the Government-validated score for each offeror IAW Section M paragraph 2.3. The Government also reserves to right to identify additional work samples/efforts to be utilized in its evaluation of Past Performance. For Government identified work samples/efforts, the Past Performance evaluation will be conducted in four phases: recency assessment, relevancy assessment, and performance quality assessment and will not be applied towards the offeror’s self-score matrix. For both offeror identified work samples IAW Section L paragraphs 4.5 and 4.5.1 and for Government identified work samples/efforts, the Government will evaluate an overall performance confidence assessment for each offeror.

2.4.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. For the work samples/efforts provided IAW Section L paragraphs 4.5 and 4.5.1, the Government’s recency assessment will be included within the Government’s validation process of an offeror’s self/score matrix within IAW Section M paragraph 2.3. For all other Government identified work samples/efforts, to be considered recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. The Work Samples and Narratives provided in Volume II and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of recency of past performance. The Government’s assessment of recency will be included in the overall performance assessment rating. Government identified work samples/efforts that fail to meet the requirements of recency will not be further evaluated for recency, performance quality or included in the overall confidence assessment.

2.4.2. Relevancy Assessment.

In determining relevancy for each contract reference, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. For the work samples/efforts provided IAW Section L paragraphs 4.5 and 4.5.1, the Government’s relevancy assessment will be included within the Government’s validation process of an offeror’s self/score matrix within IAW Section M paragraph 2.3. this solicitation requires.

For all other Government identified work samples/efforts, the Government will evaluate relevancy and assign a relevancy rating for each recent PPI contract reference in accordance with the following criteria:

Table 1. Relevancy Definitions

RATING DEFINITION

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

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

NOTE: For the work samples/efforts provided IAW Section L paragraphs 4.5 and 4.5.1, in which the offeror’s self-score can be validated by the Government IAW Section M 2.3, the Offeror’s work sample/effort will also be determined “Relevant” in regards to Factor 3, Past Performance. However, for the work samples/efforts provided IAW Section L paragraphs

4.5 and 4.5.1, in which the offeror’s self-score cannot be validated by the Government IAW Section M 2.3, the Offeror’s work sample/effort will be determined “Not Relevant” in regards to Factor 3, Past Performance.

2.4.5 Performance Quality

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts.

Performance Quality consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Performance Quality may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment.

Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating.

Satisfactory (S) Green

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory (U) Red

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or nonexistent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

Unknown (UK) Unknown performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.4.6 Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures:

ACCEPTABLE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record and performance quality, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNACCEPTABLE

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

NOTE: Offerors who are determined to have an overall Unacceptable rating for the Factor 3, Past Performance will not be considered in the best value award decision.

2.5 Factor 4 – Small Business Commitment

The Government will evaluate the extent of participation of small business concerns in the offeror’s plan for acceptability. To be acceptable, the offeror shall provide a complete and responsive small business commitment plan that considers all federally-designated small business categories. The offeror’s Small Business proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and receive one of the ratings below:

Table 2.5 Small Business Commitment

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.5.1 Government Field Support Agencies

Compliance with the requirement for cognizant DCAA/DCMA field office information provided in Section 1 will be noted, if such information is applicable to the Offeror.