Draft Evaluation Factors.pdf

52.212-2 Addendum

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

MROi On-Site Functional Office Support (OSFOS)

2 Mar 2022

52.212-2 ADDENDUM – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 12 for commercial acquisitions The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). 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 government will award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Award will be based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors:

(1) TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

(2) PRICE

Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the Offeror’s specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

The Government intends to evaluate the proposals and make award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offeror(s) submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

(A) Basis for Award

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals based upon the rating structure below. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of interchanges, will be considered for award. The Offeror is reminded that the

Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without interchanges. The government reserves the right to have interchanges with none, one, some or all offerors. The proposals will be evaluated against the Technical Subfactors and all requirements found in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Technical factors are significantly more important than Price.

(B) FACTOR ONE – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

1. Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Technical Volume must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The offeror’s proposal shall NOT simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate the PWS language for the Technical Volume.

Percentage of Points Possible

0% 50% 75% 100%

Sub-factor 1:

Depot Maintenance Operations Experience

Total Possible Points: 60

Could not demonstrate an understanding of the layout of

ALC

organizations, nor how the business was operated.

Provided a description of at least 3 ALC Maintenance Groups (MXG) within the ALC, and the basic maintenance operations and included description of at least basic financial cost accumulation factors (labor and material.

Described how the company interacted within any of those organizations.

Provided a description of an ALC, all the MXGs within, and included description of at least advanced financial cost accumulation factors (labor and material), budget, and indirect costs.

Described in detail how the company interacted within any depot organizations within the last 3 years. Provided specifics on which organization and included Govt POCs.

Provided a detailed description of AFSC business operations to include expert financial cost accounting, budget, depot maintenance and wholesale supply interactions, and full understanding of all MXGs within AFSC, and all ALCs including GSUs. Described their specific experience interacting with at least two separate ALCs within the last 3 years.

Provided specifics on which organizations and included Govt POCs.

Sub-factor 2:

System Implementation Experience

Total Possible Points: 40

Could not provide an understanding of critical activities required to replace an existing IT system. Nor provide any experience in implementing an IT system in the past 5 years.

Provided a sound process for implementing any IT system.

Included specific system replacement experience and results, within the past five years.

Provided a sound process for implementing an IT system, described results of the implementation, and demonstrated understanding of applicability and lessons learned to be applied to the AF depot implementation.

Experience included leading or supporting one depot IT effort, or multiple non-AF IT efforts, and included at least one business process change.

All experience must be within the last 5 years.

Provided a sound plan for implementing an AF depot specific system covering all activities, and included lessons learned and thorough understanding of applicability to the MROi implementation, and included more than one business process change that affected multiple levels of organizations.

Experience included leading or supporting multiple IT efforts. All experience must be within the last 5 years.

Sub-factor 3:

Experience with AF Depot Information Technology (IT) Systems (3)

Total Possible Points: 20

Provided either no input or inputs not relevant to any of the systems in PWS Appendix B.

Demonstrated understanding of:

1 of the systems being subsumed;

and 3 systems planned for interface (1 Mx and 1 FM system), with required detail related to usage and functionality.

Demonstrated understanding of:

2 or more of the systems being subsumed; and 3 or more systems planned for interface (at least 1 Mx and 1 FM system) with required details related to usage and functionality.

Provide demonstrated recent relevant experience which included at least 1 AFSC-wide system listed in Appendix B.

Demonstrated understanding of: 3 or more of the systems being subsumed and 4 systems planned for interface (at least 1 Mx and 1 FM system) including required details related to usage and functionality.

Demonstrated an understanding of the interrelationships of system suites.

Provide demonstrated recent and relevant experience included at least 1 AFSC-wide and 1 site unique system, or two AFSC-wide systems listed in Appendix B

Sub-factor 4:

Agile Development Experience

Total Possible Points: 8

Provided no agile experience.

Has assisted with an Agile development effort. Provided details on which agile roles were performed or supported.

Demonstrated experience leading 1 Agile development or assisting with 1 Agile development effort with different organizations.

Provided details on agile roles performed and supported by the offeror.

Demonstrated ability to provide at least two people with 1 year of

Demonstrated leading a government Agile development effort, or assisted with 2 or more government Agile development efforts with different organizations.

Provided details on agile roles performed by the offeror, and demonstrated clear understanding of agile efforts and key roles and agile experience each to support 2 of the 3 ALCs.

lessons learned.

Demonstrated ability to provide at least 3 resources with 1 year of agile experience.

2 The Technical Proposals will be evaluated using the table above for the degree to which they meet the requirements of the following sub-factor criteria:

a. Sub-factor 1: Air Force (AF) Depot Maintenance Operations Experience In support of PWS paragraph 3.5, the offeror demonstrates clear understanding of AF

Sustainment Center (AFSC) depot operations in addition to providing experience. The business operations of an AF depot’s maintenance operations, to include financial accounting of those maintenance activities are described for at least 3 ALC MXGs. The offeror demonstrates clear and complete understanding of the entire hierarchical organizational structure. The offeror describes their specific experience by detailing roles, outcomes, and specific project involvement relative to depot operations. Incomplete descriptions and copying words from the PWS are unacceptable.

b. Sub-factor 2: System Implementation Experience In support of paragraphs 3.3 and 3.8, the offeror demonstrates an understanding of the process steps and critical activities required to replace an existing AF depot system with a new system. The description should include business process transformation, across multiple organizations, in addition to steps from pre-replacement and preparation, through implementation, and ending with factors that must be monitored post-implementation. The offeror must describe specific system replacement experience within the last five years.

c. Sub-factor 3: Experience with AF Depot IT Systems In support of paragraphs 3.2 and 3.7, the offeror demonstrates a detailed working knowledge of: at least one of the systems MROi is subsuming; and at least three (3) of the systems MROi will interface (at least one 1 Maintenance System and 1 Financial System) listed in PWS Appendix B. The offeror included specific information of the functions performed by the systems, the user base and detailed user roles, information exchanges with other systems, and the specific role the offeror performed relative to the systems, i.e., development, implementation, sustainment, support, help desk, project management. The offeror provides up to three examples of detailed experience in supporting any of the systems in PWS Appendix B.

d. Sub-factor 4: Agile Development Experience In support of paragraphs 3.6 and 3.10, the offeror demonstrates recent past experience (within

3 years) supporting an Agile development program and ability to provide personnel for each of the three ALCs with at least one year of Agile experience immediately upon contract award. The offeror must describe the specific agile roles fulfilled by their team.

(C) FACTOR TWO – PRICE

1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) price reasonableness, (2) Balance and (3) Total

Evaluated Price.

a. Price Reasonableness The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

b. Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with clause 52.212-1 of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions (i.e. not all CLINs filled in) will NOT be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition (if edits to this factor are needed, I can/will finalize before release.

d. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed prices for the base period of all CLINs and the six month option (including FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services listed on the TEP Worksheet. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. A no bid or an omitted CLIN price may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted CLIN price may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed CLIN prices are contractually binding as prices/Not-to-Exceed prices for issuance of task orders.

(D) SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

(End of Provision)