ATTACHMENT M Evaluation Factors For Award.pdf

FA248623RA001

Attachment M Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government intends to award the first task order for the period of performance of 27 Feb 2023 – 26 Feb 2024 concurrent with the basic IDIQ award. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be 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 technical superiority and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price/cost difference. 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.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph below.

Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. The Offeror's initial proposal should reflect their best effort.

1.1 Definitions

In accordance with FAR 15.001 and for the purpose of this evaluation the following terms will be utilized in the evaluation of your proposal:

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

The proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

1.2 Factors and Subfactors and Relative Importance

FACTOR 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Management of Personnel Subfactor 2: Quality Control Subfactor 3: Mission Essential Services Plan FACTOR 2: Cost/Price FACTOR 3: Past Performance

1.3 Relative Importance

The Past Performance factor is more important than the Technical Capability factor. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

1.4 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.

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

1.0 Government Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the technical capability using a combined Technical/Risk Rating.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining the technical rating using the ratings in Table M1. Any proposal containing a deficiency is Unacceptable. Otherwise, in assigning the rating, the Government will start with the description corresponding to highest rating (Blue/Outstanding). If the proposal meets all elements of that description (approach, understanding, strengths, and risk), the proposal will be assigned that rating. Otherwise, the Government will look to the next lower rating. The process will repeat until all elements of the description are met; at which point, the proposal will be assigned the rating that corresponds to that description.

Table M1 Combined Technical Risk Methods Color

Rating Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The descriptions in Table M1 include risk assessments of low, moderate, high, and unacceptable. The Government will use Table M2 below to choose the risk assessment that best corresponds to the risk posed by the offeror’s proposal to meeting the evaluation criteria.

Table M2 Technical Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost or degradation of 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, increased cost 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.

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor 1: Management of Personnel

(1) This subfactor is met when the Offeror sufficiently demonstrates the ability to provide a qualified and capable workforce that can accomplish the entire scope, technical complexity and magnitude of Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Programs in accordance with the PWS. At a minimum the offeror shall adequately demonstrate:

a. A clearly defined organizational structure to include reporting chain for daily operations and mission events. Also, an organizational chart identifying key personnel positions was provided with a matrix showing proposed manning by shift and number of personnel per shift for each shop ensuring operations will be completely satisfied.

b. A training plan that ensures all employees are trained to perform the tasks outlined in the PWS

c. A plan to fill all key and essential personnel billets by the performance start date

d. A plan that depicts employees’ proof of qualifications/certifications as per the PWS and

e. The ability to operate during strikes and contingencies through the submission of Strike and Contingency Plans:

1. Strike Plan. The plan adequately demonstrates how the contractor will mitigate labor force strike, and how the Offeror will ensure continued performance in the event of a labor force strike.

2. Contingency Plan. The Offeror adequately demonstrated provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed.

Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan (QCP)

(1) This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) IAW PWS Section 15 adequately demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to provide quality control for the entire scope, technical complexity and magnitude of Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) Programs in accordance with the PWS. At a minimum, the QCP shall adequately address the following:

a. Level of dedicated inspectors experienced in AGE maintenance services consistent with the services required within the PWS;

b. Formal experience of inspectors with on/off equipment AGE maintenance;

c. Availability of experienced/qualified inspectors during all normal hours of operation;

d. Plan for the implementation of and sustaining the self-inspection program; and

e. Plan to conduct a root cause analysis process for corrective actions on findings by QC and/or the government and how the proposed fixes will be developed and implemented to ensure no repeat occurrences.

Subfactor 3 Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan

(1) Offerors shall provide a Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan in accordance with DFARS Provision 252.237- 7024, Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan at a minimum adequately addresses:

a. The identification of provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed;

b. Challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a pandemic that occurs in repeated waves;

c. The time lapse associated with the initiation of the acquisition of essential personnel and resources and their actual availability on site;

d. The components, processes, and requirements for the identification, training, and preparedness of personnel who are capable of relocating to alternate facilities or performing work from home;

e. Any established alert and notification procedures for mobilizing identified “essential contractor service” personnel; and

f. The approach for communicating expectations to contractor employees regarding their roles and responsibilities during a crisis.

FACTOR 2: COST/PRICE FACTOR

2.0 Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s pricing for the anticipated task orders for reasonableness.

This will be the total evaluated price (TEP). The Total Evaluated Cost/Price represents a sum total of all of the Base Year and Option CLINs (including Government provided CLIN/Option CLIN amounts). An offeror whose TEP is unreasonable is ineligible for award. If the Government enters discussions, any offeror included in the competitive range whose TEP appears unreasonable will be so informed through an Evaluation Notice.

The Government shall review the offeror’s Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FBLR) for reasonableness and realism. Realism will be evaluated by comparing the unburdened rate against the current Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) Wage determination to ensure that covered personnel will be paid minimum CBA wages and benefits. Realism will not be evaluated on positions determined not to be covered by the CBA. Reasonableness will be determined by a comparison of FBLR received in response to the solicitation or other methods as defined in paragraph 2.3 below.

2.1 The Offeror's cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored; it will be evaluated for reasonableness and realism in the case of the labor rates as specified above in 2.0. Price/Cost for the performance of the basic effort (Attachment 1, Performance Work Statement) for each fiscal year period of performance for the base and option ordering period. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) Indices and any other resource available to the Government.

2.2 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government is only obligated to issue task orders for the minimum amount stated.

2.3 The Offeror's Cost/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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

3.0 The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on the information provided by the Offeror and data independently obtained from other Government sources.

3.1 Scope

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table M4.

3.2 In assessing confidence and assigning an overall confidence rating, the Government will give greater weight to prior efforts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this Request for Proposal.

3.3 Reserved

3.4 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element (within the Past Performance Information Sheets (Attachment L4) or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarification conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3.5 Recency Assessment

Recent past performance is defined as ongoing contracts with a performance history, and contracts completed within three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

3.6 Relevancy Assessment

In determining relevancy for individual past performance submissions, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will determine relevancy when assessing recent contracts according to Table M3 below:

TABLE M3 – RELEVANCY RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.7 Performance Confidence Assessment

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence and No Confidence, as defined in Table M4 below.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.” Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

4.0 COMPLETED CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION, SOLICITATIONS REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND

CONDITIONS

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 to any exceptions taken. Offerors must complete and return all documentation as specified in Section L Volume

IV.

4.1 Number of Contracts to be awarded

The Government intends to award one IDIQ contract; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, the prices submitted and the availability of funds. The Government intends to award the first task order for the period of performance of 27 Feb 2023 – 26 Feb 2024 concurrent with the basic IDIQ award.

4.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and, in the format, specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

4.3 Discussions with Offerors

TABLE M4 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract based only on initial proposals without establishing a competitive range and conducting discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, the Government will establish a competitive range and conduct discussions with all Offerors included in the competitive range. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision.

5.0 RESPONSIBILITY

A Responsibility Determination will be made IAW FAR Subpart 9.1 to the prospective awardee.