Attachment 7- Evaluation Factors for Award .pdf

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

Evaluation Factors for Award

This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts 12 and 15, Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) 12 and 215.3 and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 12 and 5315.3 in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information will be approximately equal to price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptability offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable Technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR:

The Technical Evaluation Team (TET) will determine whether each offeror’s technical proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table A-1 below. The TET shall evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal to assess whether the offeror’s technical proposal will satisfy all the minimum objectives established in the following technical subfactors, as it applies to the Statement of Objective (SOO).

Table A-1

TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE

RATINGS

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The technical volume shall not exceed 30 pages. The page limit does not include the title page, table of contents, any list of acronyms or definitions. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Classroom Drone Package- This subfactor is met when the offeror provides detailed specifications and capabilities for a classroom drone package to fulfill all of the requirements of paragraphs 2.1.1, 2.1.3 - 2.1.3.2, and 2.1.4 -2.1.9 of the Statement of Objective.

Subfactor 2: Student Classroom Drone Curriculum- This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a Student Classroom Drone Curriculum that prepares students for safe and responsible drone operations, no matter the skill level of the student. The Student Classroom Drone Curriculum shall meet all of the requirements of paragraphs 2.2.1 - 2.2.1.5 of the Statement of Objective.

Subfactor 3: Instructor Classroom Drone Curriculum- This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an Instructor Classroom Drone Curriculum with a step-by-step instructor’s guide that is singular teacher driven. The Instructor Classroom Drone Curriculum shall meet all of the requirements of paragraph 2.3.1 of the Statement of Objective.

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR:

The past performance evaluation team shall evaluate the past performance of all technically acceptable offers in accordance with the ratings in Table A-2 below. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the SOO.

The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment# 4) and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)). If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Attachment 6, does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, subcontractor(s), teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

(A) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years from the issuance date of the solicitation.

(B) Relevant is defined as contract efforts for similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity, than the effort described in the solicitations Statement of Objective. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table A-2 below.

Table A-2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must:

• The effort involves providing 501-750 classroom drone packages that include safety equipment, spare parts, and flight simulators over a 12 month period. Effort must also include classroom and instructor curriculum.

• Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, or subcontractor, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” but meets most of the following:

• The effort involves providing 251-500 classroom drone packages that include safety equipment, spare parts, and flight simulators over a 12 month period. Effort must also include classroom and instructor curriculum.

• Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, or subcontractor, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance fails to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” or “Relevant” performance but meets some of the following:

• The effort involves providing 100- 250 classroom drone packages that include safety equipment, spare parts, and flight simulators over a 12 month period. Effort must also include classroom and instructor curriculum.

• Performance must be done as the prime contractor, or, if a member of a joint venture, or subcontractor, the Offeror must have contributed at least 50% of the effort.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude and of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: “Very Relevant”, “Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant”.

(C) Sources. The Government will seek relevant performance information from the offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, subcontractor(s), teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company, when:

(1) The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

(2) When the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect the performance of the proposed effort.

(D) Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s past performance meets the SOO and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment will consider things such as: the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

(E) Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table A-3.

Table A-3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings 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 an 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 reasonably be assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR:

The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal, as required by Attachment 6- Instructions to Offerors, as described below. Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Attachment 6- Instructions to Offerors will not be considered or evaluated. Evaluation of the option(s) will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with independent Government cost estimates, comparison with market research, and analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Offers shall be ranked according to price, including option prices. All line item prices will be evaluated.

An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the pricing schedule by the unit price for CLINs 0001-4001 for the base year, and each option period to confirm the extended amount for each. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the Contracting Officer may request submission of certified cost or pricing data and may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

PRICE PERFORMANCE TRADE-OFF:

After the initial evaluation of each offeror’s price proposal, the Government will rank all offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP and conduct the Technical Evaluation solely on the offer with the lowest TEP. If the lowest-priced offer is determined to be Technically Unacceptable, that offer will be eliminated from consideration and the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability. Once the lowest- priced, Technically Acceptable offer is determined, the Government will then proceed to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation for the offeror. If this offeror is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and no other offers will be evaluated or considered.

If the offeror with the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer does not have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest-priced offer for Technically Acceptability and if determined Technically Acceptable, proceed to conduct a Past Performance Evaluation on that offeror.

The process will continue (in ascending TEP) until the Government finds an offeror with a Technically Acceptable offer and a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating or until all Technically Acceptable offers are considered.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the offeror with a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating (if found) and all technically acceptable offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the offeror with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating; unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions. For example: five technically acceptable offers are received; the offerors with the first and second lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the offeror with the third lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those three offerors.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors;

however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.