Attachment 7_Section _M_23-Feb-21.pdf

FA8621-20-R-0002

Section M, Attachment 7 – Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Altitude Chambers Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Contract

Solicitation #FA8621-20-R-0002

23 February 2021

Prepared by:

Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulators Program Office

AFLCMC/WNS

2300 D Street, Bldg. 32 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7249

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented. The Government will perform an integrated assessment of Technical, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price to make a best value award decision. In using this best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements in a way that will be most 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 Higher technical rating, lower technical risk and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors described in this Section M. 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.

The Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror (IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), has an acceptable organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan, and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. Award cannot be made to an Offeror deemed not responsible by the Contracting Officer (CO).

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single award contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government may also choose not to award a contract for the requirement identified in this solicitation based on price and/or other considerations if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.2.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with solicitation requirements 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.3 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals at the time of the determination. If the CO 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 CO, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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. 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 purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.5 Discussions:

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW

FAR 15.306.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. 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 requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

1.7 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP):

No additional Government Furnished Property (GFP), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), or Government Furnished Materials (GFM) is required in support of this effort. The Offeror shall NOT request any additional GFP/GFE/GFM.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Process

All proposals will be evaluated for Technical, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price.

2.1 General

The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

- Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Order of Importance

Among the evaluation factors, Technical, which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating, is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price. The Technical Ratings and Technical Risk Ratings will be considered equally.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), Past Performance and Technical, which includes the Technical Ratings and Technical Risk Ratings, when combined, are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will be a substantial part of the decision.

2.3 Factors

2.3.1 Factor 1: Technical

2.3.1.1 General

The Government will evaluate Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) described in Paragraph

2.3.1.1.1 with the following technical ratings definitions in the table below.

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

If any factor receives a Technical Approach Rating of Unacceptable or Red, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

2.3.1.1.1 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

The factor is met when the offeror proposes an approach for supporting and maintaining CLS items as dictated in PWS paragraph 3.4. Specifically the following:

• Provide scheduled and unscheduled maintenance support for the Altitude Chambers.

• Establish help-desk support for receiving calls when chamber maintenance issues arise.

• Ensure that scheduled maintenance does not conflict with scheduled training operations.

• Provide all hardware maintenance support required to maintain the system in a mission capable condition.

• Record, track, and report system repair and maintenance activity to include all noted deficiencies and malfunctions.

• Analyze and resolve Altitude Chamber deficiencies and manage the support process throughout the contract period of performance.

• Keep Government informed of obsolescence risks and issues.

2.3.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

In addition to the Technical Acceptability rating, the Government will assess each Offeror’s proposal for Technical Risk. 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, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation(s) (if applicable) and document why it believes the Offeror’s mitigation is or is not manageable. A proposal with an Unacceptable risk rating is considered un-awardable.

2.3.1.2.1 Technical Risk Rating Matrix

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

YELLOW

MARGINAL

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

RED

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable 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.

2.3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.3.2.1 General

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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 Offeror’s performance shall be considered. More recent and more relevant contracts will be be given greater consideration than less recent or relevant contracts.

2.3.2.1.1 Past Performance Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Ratings, below.

Adjectival

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 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.

2.3.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process

Performance confidence is assessed at the Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the categories of technical scope detailed in PWS paragraph 3.4.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.2.3 Recency Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of the past performance information to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be on-going with at least six (6) months of performance history or must have been performed during the past five (5) years preceding the issuance date of this solicitation. For contracts that began more than five years before the date of solicitation issuance, only the year(s) that were partially or completely performed in those five years will be evaluated as recent. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of all recent performance information obtained from the Offeror, including joint venture partner(s) and critical subcontractor(s). The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to performance of efforts involving Hypobaric Altitude Chambers that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The Past Performance Information Tool outputs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the relevancy assessment ratings and definitions in paragraph 2.3.2.4.1 when assessing relevancy.

2.3.2.4.1 Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival

Description

VERY

RELEVANT

Past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT

RELEVANT

Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope or magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2.5 Quality Assessment

The Performance Quality Assessment Rating represents the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed, based upon an evaluation of an offeror’s present and past work record in dealing with Hypobaric Altitude Chambers. The Government will assess the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on past contract citations). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services and the work performed will be assessed for Contractor Logistics Support (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) will be assessed holistically. In making the quality assessment, the Government will review the received PPQs and/or CPARs, as well as other relevant CPARs available to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the assessment will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. If the Government receives adverse past performance information based on interviews or surveys, the Offeror will be notified and have an opportunity to respond. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts. Should the Government determine that contractor performance does not meet the letter of one of the descriptions of the quality ratings, the Government will rate that performance with the color that, in the Government’s sole discretion, most correctly captures the contractor’s performance.

Rating Description

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Rating Description

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score.

2.3.2.6 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see table 2.3.2.1.1). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to CLS in PWS paragraph 3.4, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an assessment of the Offeror’s performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

Performance that is more recent may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent effort. Likewise, a more relevant record of favorable past performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

2.3.3 Factor 3: Price

2.3.3.1 General

The Government will evaluate the Price proposal for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness (3) unbalanced pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3.3.1.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. If not complete and in compliance, this may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

2.3.3.1.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.3.3.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balanced pricing rests with the Offeror.

2.3.3.1.4 Total Evaluated Price

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 4).

The summation of the proposed prices for each predetermined selection of cells for each CLIN will represent the TEP for all Offerors. The Government will not disclose these predetermined cells to the Offerors in the solicitation. For purposes of TEP, the Government will assign half the dollar value of CLINs 1005, 2005, and 3005 as the value for CLIN 4000 Option to Extend Services. The offeror shall not provide a price for CLIN 4000.

The TEP will be utilized to evaluate Offerors and make tradeoffs when necessary, but will not be the ultimate contract price for this acquisition. The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only. Offerors should follow the instructions in the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet for inputting prices in each tab.