ATTACHMENT 9 - Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part and 15; and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 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 acceptable 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 Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactor will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in Attachment 1.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

The technical volume shall not exceed 80 pages. The page limit does not include the title page, table of contents, any list of acronyms or definitions, submitted resumes, nor the lesson in the form of a written lesson plan, (or the html course package.) submitted under subfactor 1. 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 subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1: Course Curriculum Development and Support: This subfactor is met when the offeror successfully demonstrates its capabilities to design Language, Region, Expertise Culture, and Negotiation (LRECN) curriculum and supporting products as described in PWS paragraphs 6.2. Curriculum Development and 6.3 Curriculum Media/Technology Development/Support, meeting the minimum requirements below.

· The offeror’s Curriculum Development and Design submission must demonstrate the design and development of a deliverable lesson in the form of a written lesson plan containing an educationally effective, complete, accurate, and balanced distance learning multi-objective lesson, that is anthropological in nature, for a college undergraduate lower-level course focused on the knowledge and comprehension levels of learning to deliver 1.0 contact hour on the topic “cultural relativism” to include the following learning objectives:

1. Define cultural relativism.

1. Describe impediments to cultural relativism.

1. Describe behaviors that support and enable cultural relativism.

1. Compare and contrast ethnocentrism and cultural relativism in terms of benefits and pitfalls of each.

The lesson in the form of a written lesson plan will cover each of the learning objectives above using current, relevant examples and research from appropriate LRECN fields of study. The lesson plan will include learning/knowledge checks throughout to encourage interaction with the lesson content. The lesson plan will conclude with a scenario-based learning exercise, presenting a series of situations/scenarios illustrative of the first 3 course objectives (a minimum of 6 scenarios, 2 per objective.) Each situation will present the student with a challenging problem scenario and a selection of (a minimum of 4) responses from which to choose. Each response shall be supported by a rationale for why it is a correct or incorrect answer within the context of the lesson materials. The series of situations need not be logically sequential, but each shall robustly address its learning objective (i.e. the problems and responses shall meaningfully challenge the student’s understanding of the lesson content and the rationales shall be supported by the lesson content.)

· Based on the lesson presented in the written lesson plan described above, the offeror’s Media/Technology Support Integration submission must demonstrate development and delivery of the lesson for a distance learning audience in a self-contained, stand-alone HTML based course package contained in a standard zip format compatible for deployment/delivery on industry standard learning management systems (LMS) (e.g. Blackboard Learn, Canvas, Desire 2 Learn, etc.). No narration is required. The course package should be text based and present a balance of graphic elements (e.g. images, charts, diagrams, or video) as appropriate to the subject matter. The course package must encourage interaction with the lesson content by incorporating a variety of learning/knowledge checks throughout the lesson and conclude with a scenario-based learning exercise. The course package must be optimized for delivery via NIPRNET to service members deployed to areas with limited bandwidth and heightened network security. The delivery media must include practicable instructions for use by an individual with limited technical expertise to deploy/configure the course package across a variety of commercial off the shelf (COTS) learning management systems (LMS) (e.g. Canvas, Blackboard Learn, Desire 2 Learn, etc.). Electronic delivery via a downloadable file from an internet resource is preferred. Physical delivery via optical disc media is acceptable. If physical media is used the offeror will submit 2 copies. Note: The lesson content of this course package will be evaluated for consistency with that of the content of the lesson in the form of a written lesson plan.

Subfactor 2: Personnel and Capabilities Management Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s Management Plan clearly describe its approach/process to ensure functional continuity and capability to address all requirements described in the PWS. At a minimum, the Management Plan shall include the following:

· Key Personnel – Resumes will be evaluated to ensure offeror provides qualified individuals who could reasonably fill positions designated as key personnel (PWS paragraphs 10.3. and 10.5.). Provide at least three Curriculum Vitae (CV) resume for viable Adjunct Instructor candidates who could credibly be expected to participate under this contract; one each in the following areas: Cross-Cultural Competence, and Nuclear Deterrence. All resumes should be annotated to indicate those the Government can expect to fill positions and those which are merely representative of the kinds of personnel the vendor believes it can provide.

· Adequately address approach and process to prevent gaps in functional activities that could result from personnel issues, such as retirements, resignations, illness, etc. to meet the minimum requirements at PWS paragraph 10.5.

· Must demonstrate experience and ability to provide subject matter expertise with requisite education background to address requirements per PWS paragraph 6.9 Subject Matter Expertise / Research and subparagraphs. The plan must include discussion of how it will provide subject matter experts with relevant LRECN expertise to develop course materials and educational products.

· Must demonstrate experience and ability to provide niche LRECN and Counter proliferation / consequence management expertise (to include peer review expertise) to meet the minimum requirements of PWS paragraph 10.4.s; and to research areas of interest to meet the minimum requirements of PWS paragraphs 6.9.2.3 Research Issues of Interest within five working days of the Government’s identifying a need for such expertise in accordance with PWS paragraph 6.9 Subject Matter Expertise / Research. In addition, the plan must address the offeror’s ability to provide research assistance oversight to students and faculty to meet the minimum requirements at PWS paragraph 6.9.2.5 and subparagraphs.

· Must demonstrate experience and ability to provide adjunct faculty with requisite education background to address the minimum requirements at PWS paragraph 6.13. and subparagraphs. The plan must include discussion of how it will provide one faculty member with cross-cultural competence expertise to instruct, advise, and grade students’ coursework and provide research (on-site or off-site as required by the government) expertise during relevant active teaching periods.

· Must demonstrate experience and ability to provide language program and participant support per PWS paragraph 6.6. and subparagraphs. The plan must include a discussion of how the offeror will assist the Client with identifying language requirements and gaps in the language participant inventory (PWS paragraph 6.6.1.3); monitoring language test scores and other progress checks and advising Airmen of strategies and practices to help them meet program education and training expectations (PWS paragraph 6.6.1.4); placing participants in courses consistent with participants’ proficiency levels (PWS paragraph 6.6.4.3); and overseeing and guiding Airmen’s preparations for immersion travel (PWS paragraph 6.6.5 and subparagraphs).

· Must demonstrate experience and ability to provide LEADeR system and database management per PWS paragraph 6.7. and subparagraphs. The plan must include a discussion of how the offeror will code/modify software, develop test scripts, and implement testing protocols (PWS paragraph 6.7.1); facilitate upload of pertinent data from AF-level personnel data management systems (PWS paragraph 6.7.3); implement and maintain network security measures to safeguard the privacy and security of participant records in accordance with Air Force guidelines (PWS paragraph 6.7.4); and recommend changes to LEADeR and track / manage Client change requests in the interest of process improvement and utilization of the latest technologies (PWS paragraph 6.7.8).

Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation Plan: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s subcontracting plan contain all of the elements required by FAR 19.704(a), and the percentages listed below are met. NOTE: A small business offeror will receive a rating of “Not Applicable” for this subfactor. Of the total amount the offeror plans to subcontract for this contract, minimum percentages shall be as follows:

21% to small business

NOTE: Applicable only to the apparent successful offeror: If a subcontracting plan acceptable to the Contracting Officer is not negotiated within the time limits prescribed by the contracting activity and such failure arises out of cause within the control and with the fault or negligence of the offeror, the offeror shall be ineligible for an award. The Contracting Officer shall notify the contractor in writing of the reasons for determining a subcontracting plan unacceptable early enough in the negotiation process to allow the contractor to modify the plan within the time limits prescribed.

PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR.

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 Section L, 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, or subcontractors 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 three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

(B) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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 support for Client research, program development, instruction, program event support, acquisition management, and management consulting activities Services > $5 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Curriculum development, curriculum media/technology development support, and student management and oversight of on-line courses.

· 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 all of the following:

· The effort involves providing support for Client research, program development, instruction, program event support, acquisition management, and management consulting activities Services > $4 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Curriculum development, curriculum media/technology development support, and student management and oversight of on-line courses.

· 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 all of the following:

· The effort involves providing support for Client research, program development, instruction, program event support, acquisition management, and management consulting activities Services > $3 million over the life of the contract.

· Performance must include the following services: Curriculum development, curriculum media/technology development support, and student management and oversight of on-line courses.

· 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, and/or subcontractors 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, or joint ventures of 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 PWS 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 3.

Table 3. Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Table 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR:

The Government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

(A) Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of all Labor Hour CLINs (X001 to X014) for the base period and all option periods. CLINs X015 and X016; are Cost Reimbursable CLINs and will not be evaluated in the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(B) Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the Government to exercise the Options.

(C) In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears 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 Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(D) 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.

(End of provision)