Attachment 9 Draft Section M.pdf

Draf t

Attachment 9 25 June 2021

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis For Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize a Performance Price Tradeoff Source Selection Procedure, with technical acceptability to make an integrated assessment for best value award decisions. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable for the Volume II Factor 1 Technical Proposal. Past performance will be considered significantly more important than price. 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 the superior past performance of a technically acceptable higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. Contracts shall be awarded to the offerors deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications and all other information required by evaluation factors of this request for proposal) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. In this Performance Price Tradeoff process, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between past performance and price. For all technically acceptable proposals, Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Price.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 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 a price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

The Government intends to award up to two (2) Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contracts. This acquisition allows for full and open competition utilizing North American

Industrial Classification System Code (NAICS) of 611512, size standard of $30M.

The Multiple Award IDIQ contracts will include a DD 254 Department of Defense Contract Security

Classification Specification (See Section J Attachment 4) to secure F-16 Controlled Critical Assets

(CCA). Foreign firms or US companies determined to be under Foreign Ownership or Control will not be eligible to participate.

1.2 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. 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. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to either hold discussions or request a clarification, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices

(ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk to the offeror’s proposal that may change the rating of the offeror’s proposal.

Attachment 9 25 June 2021

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors.

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1: Executive Summary

Subfactor 2: Staffing and Retention Plan

Subfactor 3: Comprehensive Schedule and Work Breakdown Structure for Mobilization Period

Subfactor 4: Conceptual Training Needs Assessment

Subfactor 5: Small Business Participation Commitment

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 - Price

2.2 Volume I – Executed Contract Documentation

The Government will review Volume I for completeness. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the executed contract documentation and supporting documentation meet the requirements of Sections L & M of this solicitation.

Description:

a. Submit the Standard Form 33. Complete blocks 12, 13, 14, 15A-C, 16, 17, and 18 of the SF

33, Solicitation, Offer, and Award. An authorized official of the firm submitting the offer must sign and date the SF 33 in block 17 and 18. In doing so, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP, Sections A through J. Complete the representations and certifications in the RFP or the System for Award Management (SAM).

The offer acceptance period listed in box 12 shall be for no less than 240 calendar days.

b. Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Applicable to Other than Small Businesses Only): The offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR Subpart 52.219-9

Alternate II, FAR Subpart 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, DFARS

252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), DFARS 252.219-7004, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program), and AFFARS 5319.704, Subcontracting

Plan Requirements. IAW FAR Subpart 19.702 (b)(3), Small Business Subcontracting Plans are not required for work that will be performed entirely outside of the United States and its outlying areas. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be assessed as part of responsibility and must meet the FAR, DFARS, and AFFARS requirements prior to award of a contract. Subcontracting Plans need to be consistent with the Small Business Commitment

Participation Document.

The Small Business Subcontracting Goals are as follows:

Small Business 10% of total contract dollars

Small Disadvantaged Business 5% of total subcontracting dollars

Woman Owned Small Business 5% of total subcontracting dollars

HUBZone Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small

Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars

Describe how specific subcontracting percentage goals and targets will be met for the F-16

International Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training contract expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total contract dollars and total subcontracting dollars to each socio-economic small business category listed above. The subcontracting goals may be met by any combination of subcontracts or vendor purchases and should make use of small businesses to the maximum extent practicable.

For proposal purposes, an anticipated obligated value is provided for completing the Small

Business Subcontracting Plan. Offerors shall use an anticipated program ceiling of $255M over the 10-Year Program Life Cycle.

c. Intellectual Property: Training courseware, syllabi, and student materials developed using funding under any Task Order(s) first created, generated, or produced and required to be delivered under this contract shall constitute instructional works and the copyright to these works shall be assigned in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7020, Rights in Special Works.

If the offeror proposes to use exclusively privately funded developed training courseware, syllabi, and student materials for any of the train-the-trainer deliverables, the offeror is required to submit assertions in accordance with DFARS 252.227-7017, Identification and

Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions. Assertions MUST be included in

Section J Attachment 3. An award cannot be executed unless the offeror has provided sufficient information to enable the Contracting Officer to review any listed assertion. The offeror shall provide substantiating documentation (certified payrolls) in Volume I of the proposal and the United States Government (USG) must receive a cost savings reflected in the proposed Unit Price Book (Exhibit B) per train-the-trainer deliverable for all exclusively privately funded developed training courseware, syllabi, and student materials. License rights, transfer, and copyright shall be IAW DFARS 252.227-7020 (c) and (d).

2.3 Volume II – Factor 1 Technical

The Government will evaluate all Technical Proposals for acceptability. Subfactors will be evaluated and assigned an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" rating as described below. Any subfactor evaluated as

"unacceptable" will render the entire proposal "unacceptable" and ineligible for award.

For the purposes of technical evaluation, the term “offeror” will include any proposed teaming arrangements. 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 the technical proposal to be rated as “Acceptable”, the offeror must demonstrate a clear understanding of the requirements of the

F-16 International Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training program. If any portion of the technical proposal is “Unacceptable” the overall proposal will be rated as “Unacceptable.” Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be evaluated for Past Performance. 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 RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable

The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance and does not meet small business objectives.

2.3.1 Subfactor 1 – Executive Summary

Description: The executive summary should at a minimum address the offeror’s key technical, performance and management features in regards to performing the requirements of the solicitation. The purpose of this section is to provide the Government evaluators with a clear and concise introduction to the content and structure of the Technical proposal. This should be a "big picture" explanation and provide the Offeror’s overall approach and supporting rationale for the technical performance/management.

The offeror shall summarize their overall management plan/approach. This plan shall include the offerors overall management approach with regard to organization, coordination, planning, initiating, executing, monitoring and controlling of the program. This will include how the offeror intends to mobilize within the 120-calendar day period to establish the training capability to include developing courseware, syllabi, and any student materials.

The offeror shall submit an organizational chart delineating the key functional areas within the Prime

Contractor’s corporate structure and their relationships and interactions between the headquarters staff, and key field staff personnel as well as all teaming partners and subcontractors that depicts a systematic approach to manage all of the requirements in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Quality Control Plan (QCP): The offeror shall provide a general description of their quality control plan that outlines the offeror’s intended approach to provide quality control. This plan will include but is not limited to courseware development, logistics, academics, OJT, student services, and maintaining partner nation F-16 On-the-Job Training Aircraft in Flyable Condition while performing a demanding training schedule, aircraft forms/documentation.

The offeror shall describe the ability to obtain a license to utilize the Original Equipment Manufacturer

(OEM) Operational Flight Program (OFP) in a contractor-provided simulation device(s), or otherwise provide pilot differences simulation capability to include F-16V and F-16 Block 70/72.

The offeror shall show CONUS Facility(s) meeting Secure Storage Facility (SSF) requirements, F-16 support equipment listing required for F-16 aircraft maintenance or capability to acquire necessary equipment, and pilot differences training device(s).

The standard has been met when: The offeror demonstrated a comprehensive effort to effectively organize, coordinate, plan, initiate, execute, monitor and control the program to establish the training capability to include courseware, syllabi, and any student materials within the 120-calendar day mobilization period. The offeror demonstrated the ability to establish a training capability for aircraft maintenance differences and pilot differences training to include the F-16V and F-16 Block 70/72. The offeror provided a well-defined QCP that demonstrated internal controls to achieve program requirements. The offeror-provided plan described a comprehensive approach to meet the aircraft flyable condition requirement. The offeror provided an executed licensing agreement for aircraft simulation OFP in a contractor-provided device(s); if simulation OFP is not to be utilized to produce pilot training device(s), a subcontract or teaming arrangement was provided proving access to training device(s) sufficient to provide pilot differences training to include the F-16V and F-16 Block 70/72. The offeror has provided substantiating documentation that an SSF CONUS training facility(s) has been obtained. The offeror provided an F-16 support equipment listing for the conduct of aircraft maintenance or demonstrated the capability to acquire equipment for proposed training necessary for maintaining aircraft flyable condition, and pilot differences training device(s).

2.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Staffing and Retention Plan

Description: The offeror shall demonstrate a plan to staff and retain qualified personnel for Program

Management services, courseware development, qualified F-16 aircraft maintenance instructors required by specialty, qualified F-16 instructor pilots and qualified F-16 technicians required to maintain partner nation F-16 aircraft in flyable condition. Additionally the staffing and retention plan shall demonstrate the ability of the contractor to provide qualified personnel within the 120-calendar day mobilization period.

The standard has been met when: The offeror demonstrated the ability to hire and retain, through an arrangement of the offeror’s choosing (organic, teaming, etc.), qualified personnel in a varying requirements environment throughout the life of the contract. The offeror’s plan clearly demonstrated the capability to maintain continuous program management services at all times during the life of the contract to meet all requirements of the PWS. The offeror’s plan clearly demonstrated the capability to provide qualified courseware development personnel to meet the PWS courseware requirements. The offeror’s plan clearly demonstrated the capability to provide qualified aircraft maintenance instructors in order to meet all the PWS training requirements. The offeror’s plan clearly demonstrated the capability to provide qualified instructor pilots in order to meet all the PWS training requirements. The offeror’s plan clearly demonstrated the capability to provide qualified technicians to maintain partner nation aircraft in flyable condition at the contractor facility(s).

2.3.3 Subfactor 3 – Comprehensive Schedule and Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) for

Mobilization Period

Description: The offeror shall produce mobilization milestones demonstrated in a project schedule derived from a WBS, for the offeror to establish a training capability to include courseware, syllabi and any student materials within the 120-calendar day mobilization period. The schedule must demonstrate a clear and concise approach, which the Prime Contractor and Teaming Partners will use to complete the mobilization. Key tasks should include but not be limited to courseware ready-for-training dates, CONUS SSF Facility ready-for-training, support equipment mobilization/acquisition, trainers, bench stock, consumables in-place milestones, personnel staffing ready-for-training milestones, and pilot training desktop trainer/training device/simulator ready-for-training milestone.

WBS: Provide a detailed WBS. This analysis must identify the elements of work required to mobilize within the 120-calendar day period to establish a training capability to include courseware, syllabi and any student materials. The WBS must demonstrate a clear and concise approach, which the Prime

Contractor and Teaming Partners will use to complete the mobilization. Key tasks should include but not be limited to courseware ready-for-training dates, CONUS SSF Facility ready-for-training, support equipment mobilization/acquisition, trainers, bench stock, consumables in-place milestones, personnel staffing ready-for-training milestones, and pilot training desktop trainer/training device/simulator ready-for-training milestone.

The standard has been met when: The offeror proposed mobilization milestones demonstrated a clear and concise approach in the project schedule derived from the WBS, which the Prime Contractor and

Teaming Partners will use to complete the mobilization. The mobilization milestones demonstrated an ability to establish a training capability to include courseware, syllabi and any student materials. Key tasks included but were not limited to courseware ready-for-training dates, CONUS SSF Facility ready-for-training, support equipment mobilization/acquisition, trainers, bench stock, consumables in-place milestones, personnel staffing ready-for-training milestones, and pilot training desktop trainer/training device/simulator ready-for-training milestone.

The offeror proposed WBS identified the elements of work required to mobilize and a clear and concise approach, which the Prime Contractor and Teaming Partners will use to complete the mobilization. The elements of work demonstrated an ability to establish a training capability to include courseware, syllabi and any student materials. Key tasks included but were not limited to courseware ready-for-training dates, CONUS SSF Facility ready-for-training, support equipment mobilization/acquisition, trainers, bench stock, consumables in-place milestones, personnel staffing ready-for-training milestones, and pilot training desktop trainer/training device/simulator ready-for-training milestone.

2.3.4 Subfactor 4 – Conceptual Training Needs Assessment

Description: The offeror shall specify effective internal and external processes required to determine maintenance differences and pilot differences training requirements and the ability to develop and submit a comprehensive training needs assessment. The offeror shall demonstrate the methodology used to develop a comprehensive training needs assessment for both pilots and maintainers.

The standard has been met when: The offeror demonstrated the methodology utilized to determine training requirements for a given partner nation. The offeror submitted a detailed conceptual plan for how an effective training needs assessment would be conducted and documented for an F-16 new-buy country to include Block 70/72. The offeror provided a detailed conceptual plan for how an effective training needs assessment would be conducted and documented for an existing F-16 partner nation purchasing new aircraft or upgrading their aircraft through an upgrade of any designation to include the V-Model

(Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU), retrofit, etc.).

2.3.5 Subfactor 5 – Small Business Participation Commitment

Description: All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) shall provide the following Small Business Participation Commitment requirements and substantiating documentation

IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i)(B) and PGI 215.304 (c)(i)(A). Small Business Participation Commitment evaluates the offeror’s corporate commitment and the extent to which offerors identify and commit to specific small business performance under the contract.

a. The Contracting Officer will evaluate IAW DFARS 215.304 and PGI 215.304 (c)(i)(A) the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the Student Support

Services (Lodging, Transportation, and Meals for Pre-Delivery Training) task required under this contract.

b. Student Support Services are reserved for Small Business Subcontracting, therefore offerors shall provide Signed Teaming Agreements (TA) or signed Letters of Intent (LOIs) when committing to

Small Business Participation. The signed TAs or LOIs commit the parties to performance under the basic IDIQ contract.

(i) A subcontractor without a TA or LOI with the Offeror is NOT considered as part of the “team” and will not be evaluated as such.

(ii) Past Performance Information submitted for subcontractors without a TA or LOI will not be evaluated.

(iii) The Government will consider the Offeror and all subcontractors a “team” when a signed TA or LOI is provided.

(iv) A Joint Venture (JV) will be considered a sole business entity

(v) Mentor-Protégé (M-P) is a relationship and not a business entity. M-Ps require formal TAs or LOIs to qualify for consideration as a team member.

The standard has been met when: The proposal demonstrates a valid corporate commitment in providing small business participation for Student Support Services performed under this contract.

2.4 Volume III– Factor 2 Past Performance

Offerors shall provide recent past performance information on completed or current contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the work as identified within the PWS. Failure to provide required recency and relevancy descriptions may impact the integrated performance confidence assessment rating, (i.e. aspects of previous or current contracts should match work elements identified in the Solicitation/PWS).

Offerors are cautioned the Government will use data provided by the teaming partners as well as the prime contractor. Past Performance Information submitted for subcontractors without a TA or LOI will not be evaluated. The offeror shall provide no more than six (6) recent and relevant past performance/current references. The offeror shall provide one (1) recent and relevant past performance/current reference from the Small Business Teaming Partner performing Student Support

Services. Each past performance/current reference shall describe recency, relevancy, and quality as outlined in paragraphs 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3 below. The Government reserves the right to obtain data from other sources such as the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and the

Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Offerors are cautioned that not providing a reference for the Small Business Teaming Partner may impact the overall integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Lack of any past performance will not automatically disqualify an offeror, but it is a factor that is considered in the Best Value Subjective Tradeoff Source Selection described in this section. If the offeror claims there is no past performance, then that status must be identified to the Contracting Officer by placing a summary page in Volume III Past Performance.

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 any and all sources. Other sources may include, but are not limited to, CPARS and/or similar systems, PPIRS using all CAGE/DUNS numbers of contractors who are part of the partnership or joint venture identified in the Offerors proposal, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (ESRS) and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the Offeror's performance. This evaluation is separate and distinct from the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination. The assessment of the Offeror's past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the Offeror's probability to successfully meet the requirements of the RFP.

2.4.1 Recency

Provide a summary of previous/current contracts not to exceed one (1) page of information per reference.

The summary should explain what aspects of each contract are deemed recent as related to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will only consider recent performance on a project effort completed or on-going within the last three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. Ongoing contracts may be used as long as they have received an initial CPARS rating.

(i) The summary should not exceed 1 page per reference and include:

(A) Name of project (Contract number)

(B) Name and address of customer or Government agency

(C) Name, telephone, fax number and/or email of customer contact or contracting officer

(D) Dollar value

(E) Period of performance/Completion date

(F) Brief description of work completed

Recency Assessment - An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been completed or on-going during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Ongoing contracts may be used as long as they have received an initial CPARS rating. Any effort that is deemed “not recent” will not be evaluated further. A

Recency Assessment will be assigned for each evaluated effort as described below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RECENCY RATINGS

Rating Description

Recent Presented past performance effort is ongoing or has been completed during the past three (3) years.

Not Recent

Presented past performance effort is not ongoing and or has not been performed during the past three (3) years.

2.4.2 – Relevance

Provide a summary not to exceed two (2) pages in addition to the recency submission explaining what aspects of each reference are deemed relevant as related to the requirements of this solicitation. Relevant past performance information must demonstrate training international military students on Fighter and/or

Advanced Aircraft to include pilot and maintenance specialties at CONUS and/or OCONUS locations.

The summary shall describe the contractor facilities used, contractor support equipment, contractor training devices, and data rights/licenses used to support the referenced contract. Relevant past performance information for the Small Business Teaming Partner must demonstrate Student Support

Services to include lodging, transportation, and meal support for various CONUS locations.

Relevance Assessment - The Government will conduct a comprehensive evaluation of all performance information deemed recent to determine how closely the work performed under those contracts relate to this solicitation. Paragraph a. listed in the description column will be utilized when assessing past performance/current references for Fighter and/or Advanced Aircraft training. Paragraph b. listed in the description column will be utilized when assessing the past performance/current reference submitted for the Small Business Teaming Partner to support Student Support Services.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevance when assessing each reference:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCE RATINGS

Rating Description

Very Relevant

a. The effort involved demonstrates very similar scope, complexity and magnitude as the F-16 International

Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training.

Offeror manages Fighter and Advanced Aircraft training to

International Students at CONUS and OCONUS locations.

Additionally, effort involves providing contractor facilities, support equipment, training devices, and data rights/licenses.

b. Student Support Services effort involved lodging, transportation, and meal support services for various

CONUS locations very similar to the scope, complexity and magnitude required for Small Business Participation under this contract.

Relevant

a. The effort involved demonstrates similar scope, complexity and magnitude as the F-16 International Aircraft

Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training. Offeror manages Fighter and Advanced Aircraft training to

International Students at either CONUS or OCONUS locations. Additionally, effort involves providing three of the four listed items: contractor facilities, support equipment, training devices, and data rights/licenses.

locations similar to the scope, complexity and magnitude required for Small Business Participation under this contract.

Somewhat Relevant

a. The effort involved demonstrates somewhat similar scope, Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training.

Offeror manages Fighter training to International Students at either CONUS or OCONUS locations. Additionally, effort involves providing two of the four listed items:

contractor facilities, support equipment, training devices, and data rights/licenses.

transportation, and meal support services somewhat similar to the scope, complexity and magnitude required for Small

Business Participation under this contract.

Not Relevant

a. The effort involved does not demonstrate similar scope, Aircraft Maintenance and Pilot Differences Training.

Offeror does not demonstrate efforts for Fighter or

Advanced Aircraft training to International Students at

CONUS or OCONUS locations. Additionally, effort does not involve providing at least two of the four listed items:

contractor facilities, support equipment, training devices, and data rights/licenses.

locations not similar to the scope, complexity and magnitude required for Small Business Participation under this requirement.

2.4.3 – Quality

The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses or provided CPARS.

The offeror shall provide either a Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ) or CPARS for each recent and relevant reference (See Section J, Past Performance Questionnaire Attachment 7). It is the responsibility of the offeror to provide either a completed PPQ or CPARS for the recent and relevant past performance references.

Quality is assessed after evaluating aspects of the Offeror's recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to this requirement. Particular attention will be paid to the following areas which are addressed in the Past/Present Performance Questionnaire and Contractor Performance

Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) evaluation data: Quality, Schedule, Small Business

Subcontracting, Cost Control, Management, and Regulatory Compliance. IAW FAR 15.306 Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals, if award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Quality Assessment – The quality assessment may include positive and/or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. 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.

Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. Quality will receive one of the below Past Performance Quality Ratings:

PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Rating Description

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

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

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

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

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, performance was not observed, or information was not available.

2.5 Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment

Assigning Ratings - As a result of the recency, relevance and quality assessments of the references provided, offerors will receive an Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (see table below). Collectively, past performance factors will be evaluated to comprise the Integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment Rating.

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 in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown/neutral past performance and receive a rating of “Unknown/Neutral.” A rating of "Substantial Confidence" or

"Satisfactory Confidence" past performance may be determined a better value than an "Unknown/Neutral

Confidence" past performance rating in this best value tradeoff solicitation.

Integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment

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.

Unknown/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.

Volume IV– Factor 3 Price

The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal as described below:

The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair, reasonable and balanced IAW FAR 15.404. A contract will not be awarded to an

Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed should correspond to efforts described in the technical proposal; therefore, a very low price may be considered unreasonable.

The Government may use any of the proposal analysis techniques listed in FAR 15.404-1. 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 (TEP), 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 cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness, or, if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the PCO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data (or data other than certified cost or pricing data), as appropriate, 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.

Offerors shall submit all pricing using the Unit Price Book (UPB) (see Exhibit B). Each line item shall be fully burdened to include but not limited to all fringe benefits, overhead, G&A, and profit. The UPB shall include not to exceed (NTE) unit costs. Offerors shall complete the UPB for all line items over the 10-

Year Program Life Cycle. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the aggregate of all NTE Extended

Burdened Cost line items in the UPB. Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

3. PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF WITH TECHNICAL VOLUME EVALUATION

PROCESS

3.1 Factors

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described at paragraph 2.1 of this section.

3.2 Order of Importance

In this Performance Price Tradeoff process, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between past performance and price. For all technically acceptable proposals (either initially or as a result of discussions), Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than Price.

3.3 Evaluation/Tradeoff Methodology

The Government shall evaluate offers to identify the best value to the government for award according to the below steps. The specific steps for evaluations/tradeoff are as follow:

Step 1: Completeness – The Government will review Volume I for completeness. It is the offeror’s responsibility to verify the executed contract documentation and supporting documentation meet the requirements of Sections L & M of this solicitation.

Step 2: Evaluate Technical Acceptability – After Step 1 has been completed, proposals will then be evaluated for technical acceptability of the Volume II Technical. In the absence of discussions, if a proposal is deemed technically unacceptable, it will be eliminated and past performance will not be evaluated. Thus the proposal will be eliminated from competition.

Step 3: Evaluate Past Performance – For proposals found technically acceptable in Step 2, the respective Past Performance Information will be evaluated and assigned an "Integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment" rating. Only offerors rated Substantial, Satisfactory or Unknown/Neutral on the

Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment" will then be evaluated for price.

Step 4: Evaluate Price – Proposals found technically acceptable and that have received a Substantial, Satisfactory or Unknown/Neutral Past Performance Rating will then be reviewed for fair and reasonable pricing. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be the aggregate of the Not to Exceed Extended Burdened

Cost column in the UPB.

Step 5: Source Selection Team Recommendation – After Step 4 and in the absence of discussions, the

Source Selection Team will make a comprehensive determination of their recommendation to the Source

Selection Authority regarding whether they feel it is in the best interest of the Government to consider a performance price tradeoff.

Step 6: Source Selection Authority's Decision for IDIQ Contracts – The Source Selection Authority will conduct an independent, integrated, comparative assessment to determine which offerors meet the

Government requirements of technical acceptability, provide the greatest confidence of past performance, and have a total evaluated price that represents the best value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award to an offeror with a higher TEP that has been assigned a higher Integrated

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The Government may award up to two (2) IDIQ basic contracts to the two (2) highest rated offerors.