ATTACHMENT 9 Evaluation Criteria.pdf

10th Logistics Readiness Squadron Services

RFP FA700023R0013

Attachment 9, Evaluation Factors for Award

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48CFR, CHAPTER 1) CLAUSES

Clauses are located in the SF 1449.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR, CHAPTER 2)

PROVISIONS

None at this time.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

1.1 Best Value. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101- 1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government intends to make a single award by selecting the best value offeror, who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, as supplemented by the DFARS Subpart 209.1. The Offeror’s proposal shall conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors) and will be assessed based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Price. Among the acceptable proposals, a tradeoff may occur among the Past Performance Factor 1 and Price Factor 2 if it is in the Government’s best interest to do so. This may result in an award to other than the lowest priced proposal where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines the tradeoff process is in the best interest of the Government.

While the Government source selection evaluation team 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 SSA may consider recommendations, minority opinions, and reports and analyses prepared by others; the source selection decision shall be based upon the SSA’s independent judgment.

1.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

RFP# FA700023R0013

Attachment 9

1.1.2 Responsibility Determination. To be eligible for award, the Offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104. If the Offeror is determined not responsible, then PCO will comply with FAR Subpart 19.6, Certificates of Competency and Determinations of Responsibility. Information will not be evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, Trade-off Process, but will be used solely for the purpose of determining contractor responsibility.

1.1.3 Adequate Price Competition. The CO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination, and if in the CO's opinion adequate price competition exists, no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Pricing Data, will not be required.

1.1.4 Discussions. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to award the contract without discussions [except clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)] but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. In the event discussions are held, the Final Proposal Revision (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 introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.1.5 Competitive Range. IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2), the CO 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. The Government intends to conduct a two-phased approach. Phase I will be a gate approach which all eligible 8(a) offerors must pass to advance to Phase II. If an Offeror’s Phase I proposal does not receive a “pass,” the Government will not evaluate that Offeror’s Phase II proposal, and will notify the Offeror that the Offeror was eliminated from further consideration, and therefore ineligible for award.

1.1.6 North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code. This acquisition is a competitive 8(a) set aside. The prime contractor must be an 8(a) company under NAICS code 561210, Facilities Support Services, with a small business size standard of $47 million, and perform at least 50% of the work. If a Joint Venture, then the 8(a) company needs to perform at least 40% of the work. This acquisition will be conducted using a two-phased approach. All eligible 8(a) companies must submit a proposal for Phase I and Phase II. Upon receipt of proposals, the Government will verify the Offeror is an 8(a) company before proceeding to evaluate its Phase I proposal. If the Offeror is not an 8(a) company, the Government will notify that Offeror that it is not eligible for consideration and is therefore eliminated from consideration for this award. The Government will evaluate all 8(a) offerors’ Phase I proposals and will evaluate each proposal as either “pass” or “fail.” If an 8(a) offeror’s Phase I proposal passes, then the Government will evaluate their Phase II proposal IAW FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the DFARS and the

DAFFARS.

1.1.7 Non-Compliance. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications as required, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. This also includes being an

8(a) company under the NAICS code listed above. IAW FAR 19.816(c), a contractor that has completed its term of participation in the 8(a) program may be awarded this acquisition if it was an 8(a) participant eligible for award of the contract on the initial date specified for receipt of the offers contained in the solicitation and if the contractor continues to meet all other applicable eligibility criteria. To confirm this, the Government intends to conduct a compliance check on both offerors’ Phase I and Phase II proposals. If the Government finds either the Phase I or Phase II proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the Offeror’s overall proposal may result in the Offeror being excluded from the competition or being ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2.1 Two-Phased Approach. The Government requests offerors submit proposals for Phase

I and Phase II on or before the date/time listed in Attachment 8, paragraph 3.1.

Failure to submit both proposals on or before the exact date/time may result in the Offeror being considered non-compliant and ineligible for award. The Government will evaluate first an Offeror’s Phase I proposal and determine whether the Offeror met the criteria to “pass” this gate. If an Offeror receives a “pass” rating for Phase I, then the Government will evaluate an Offeror’s Phase II proposal. If the Offeror does not receive a “pass” rating for Phase I, then the Government will not evaluate an Offeror’s Phase II proposal and that Offeror will be ineligible for award.

3.0 Phase I – Fuel Truck Phase In Qualification Gate. The Offeror must receive a “pass” rating on its Phase I proposal.

Table 1 - Phase I Fuel Truck Phase In Qualification Rating

Rating Definition Pass: Offeror did provide a sound approach with supporting documentation to have fuel trucks DOT-certified prior to phase-in ending.

Fail: Offeror did not provide a sound approach with supporting documentation to have fuel trucks DOT-certified prior to phase-in ending.

If the offeror is rated as “fail,” then the overall rating for Phase I will be “fail.” If this occurs, the Government will notify an Offeror, and that Offeror will not proceed to Phase II and will be ineligible for award.

4.0 Phase II. Past Performance & Price Evaluation.

4.1 Factors. All offerors’ Phase I proposals determined a “pass” will advance to Phase II, and the Government will evaluate their Phase II proposal IAW FAR Part 15 and the evaluation factors of this solicitation. Each Phase II proposal will be evaluated using the following factors and subfactors:

4.1.1 Factor 1: Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to perform the required services to meet the users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance.

4.1.2 Factor 2: Price. Factor 2 (Price) will be assessed for completeness, fair and reasonableness and balance using a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) established for source selection evaluation purposes only.

4.1.3 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. All non-cost/price factors, to include Factor 1, Past Performance, are approximately equal to Factor 2, Price.

4.1.4 Unawardability for Phase II. Any Price/Cost proposal analyzed and found to be “unreasonable” or “unbalanced” may result in an offeror’s proposal excluded from the competitive range or will render the overall proposal unawardable.

4.2 Phase II, FACTOR 1 – Past Performance. Past performance will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully which will be combined with the joint venture partners, teaming partner’s and/or significant subcontractor’s past performance record. This will be accomplished through a confidence assessment rating based on the Government’s assessment of the offeror’s past performance history that is recent and relevant, to the requirements of this solicitation. The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that are similar to the solicitation requirements and the quality of the offeror’s performance record.

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: Contractor Performance Acquisition Retrieval System (CPARS);

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Document Access (EDA), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, COs, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

4.2.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the present/past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, an effort must have been performed in the past three (3) years and must have been performed for at least 6 months as of the date of RFP release. On-going actions will be considered recent so long as the effort has been performed for at least 6 months. Present/Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to the effort described in the RFP. Each Past Performance effort submitted (no more than three (3) contracts per mission focus area) shall be evaluated to contribute to the relevancy rating. Relevancy will be assigned a rating outlined in Table 2, Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Performance effort(s) that do not meet the relevancy criteria will not be further evaluated.

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Ratings Descript ion

Relevant

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

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires

Table 3: Relevancy Complexity Matrix - Areas of Past Performance

4.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the Offeror’s performance quality [how well the Offeror performed on a contract effort(s)] of recent and relevant efforts. The performance quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available to determine the Offeror’s ability to supply the services meeting the contract effort requirements. This includes information available for teaming partners and significant contractors. The Government evaluation team will accept the quality ratings received on CPARS and

Assessment Area Relevant Somewhat Relevant Not Relevant

Supply Operations

DoD experience with similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

Commercial or DoD experience with some of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

Commercial or DoD experience with little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

Grounds and Aviation Fuels Operations

DoD experience with similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

Commercial or DoD experience with some of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

Commercial or DoD experience with little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

Munitions Operations

DoD or commercial experience with similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to include transporting weapons and/or ammunition off base.

Commercial or DoD experience with some of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

Commercial or DoD experience with little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities.

PPQs. In the event of a conflict between a PPQ and CPARS report information, the CPARS report will take precedence as the official contract record.

The assessment may include adverse information. Adverse is defined as past performance that supports an unsatisfactory or marginal rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. 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 resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. Offerors may have the opportunity to address adverse past performance information obtained from references i.e., PPQs on which the offerors have not had a previous opportunity to comment, if that information makes a difference in the Government’s decision to include the Offeror in or exclude the Offeror from the competitive range. This allows the Offeror a fair opportunity to rebut any negative information that may be due solely to the poor performance of the contractor, or that may not have been adequately resolved since the date of the information provided.

4.2.4 Past Performance Evaluation Confidence Ratings. The Government will evaluate past performance and assign an overall confidence rating outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, based on all the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The partners to the joint venture in the aggregate must demonstrate the past performance, experience, business systems and certifications necessary to perform the contract. The relevancy rating will be based on the scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort of up to three (3) recent contracts per mission focus area with an aggregate rating determined using Tables 2, Past Performance Relevancy Rating, and 3, Relevancy Definitions. Offerors will receive a past performance confidence rating at the factor level as outlined in Table 4, Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, shown below.

Table 4: Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

Adjectival Ratings 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.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a)

(2) (iv)]. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of Neutral. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating = the recent performance + the relevancy rating (scope, complexity and magnitude) + quality of the past performance.

4.3 Phase II, FACTOR 2 – Price.

4.3.1 Overview. Evaluation of completeness, fair and reasonableness, and balance will be performed as described below.

4.3.2 Completeness. For completeness, offerors must provide all unit prices and extended prices for each contract line-item number (CLIN) that requires proposed pricing in the CLIN Schedule spreadsheet. Incomplete proposals (without required prices) shall render an offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

4.3.3 Fair and Reasonableness. Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated to ensure the final, agreed-to price is fair and reasonable. Price reasonableness is normally established through adequate price competition but may also be determined through price analysis techniques in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.4, Contract Pricing, may be required to support the proposed price.

4.3.4 Balance. Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for balance IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), Proposal Analysis Techniques, Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the schedule of the solicitation. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of all prices provided in the CLIN Schedule spreadsheet. The TEP is calculated by the sum of all CLIN prices to include phase-in, base period, all options, and the 6-month option period. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price of the 6-month extension IAW FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

The evaluated price will include consideration of pricing for the extension of services under clause 52.217-8. For each base and option period the government will divide the proposed price for each period by the number of months of performance to arrive at a monthly rate. The final evaluated price will include the proposed price plus 6 months of services at the monthly rate for the base and all option periods. Award will be made based on the contract line-item prices proposed by the Offeror initially or as a result of discussions, if conducted.