DRAFT Section M.pdf

M. Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection

Procedures and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS)

Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection using the Subjective Tradeoff source selection process. The Government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible, responsive Offeror (IAW FAR Part 9) whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M-1.2 The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this solicitation and intends to select only one contractor for this acquisition and all associated task orders. After award of the IDIQ, task orders will be issued based on fully loaded labor rates incorporated into the contract. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract or any task orders depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in M-2.

M-1.3 To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.

M-1.4 The Government reserves the right to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1 but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may include proposals with “Unacceptable” ratings at the sole discretion of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the

Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. If required, the competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR

15.306(c)(2). Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

M-1.5 If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices (ENs) to

Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation ENs and final proposal revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.6 Final Proposal Revision (FPR). FPRs will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-2.1 Factor Evaluation

Proposals will be evaluated using four evaluation factors: (1) Pass/Fail Factors, (2) Technical Capability, (3)

Past Performance, and (4) Price. Technical Capability, the most important, and then Past Performance and Price, which are of equal importance to each other. The greater the equality of technical proposals the more important Past Performance and Price become in selecting the best value for the Government.

M-2.1.1 Pass / Fail. The Government will evaluate all items in this factor as either PASS or FAIL. The

Offeror’s proposal must receive a PASS rating for all within this factor of the proposal evaluation process.

A rating of FAIL will render the proposal ineligible for award and the Government may not evaluate the remaining factors.

M2.1.2 Full Trade-Off. The Government will evaluate Factors 2, 3, and 4 for proposals that meet Factor 1 requirements. Factor 2, Technical Capability, is the most important factor with Subfactors A and B being of highest and equal importance with Subfactor C being of lessor importance. Price and Pas Performance are of equal importance.

M-2.2 Pass/Fail (Factor I)

M-2.2.1 Subfactor A: Facility Security Clearance

The Government will assess the Offeror’s Facility Security Clearance on a PASS/FAIL basis. To receive a rating of PASS for Facility Security Clearance, the Government will validate the Offeror’s evidence that they possess a valid DoD facility clearance equal to the highest classification specified on the DD Form

254 attached to this solicitation for the Prime, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture. The Offeror must possess a valid DoD facility clearance equal to the highest classification specified on the DD Form 254 at the time of receipt of proposals. The Government will not sponsor Offerors for facility clearances.

If the Offeror does not provide evidence of a valid DoD security clearance, the Offeror will receive a rating of FAIL for this factor.

Facility Security Clearance

Color Rating Description

Green Pass Proposal includes evidence of Facility Security Clearance is equal to the highest classification specified on the DD Form 254 and Government has validated clearance level at the time of proposal submission.

Red Fail

Proposal does not include evidence of Facility Security Clearance equal to the highest classification specified on the DD Form 254 and/or upon Government validation the Offeror does not meet security classification level at time of proposal submission.

M-2.2.2 Subfactor B: Small Business Plan

M-2.2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the submitted documentation to ensure that all required information has been provided and to verify compliance with requirements.

Small Business Participation

Color Rating Description

Green Pass Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives and provides at least 10% of the proposed total estimated amount of the contract to small business concerns.

Red Fail Proposal does not meet small business objectives requirements.

M-2.2.2.2 Small Business Participation (Applicable to both Large and Small Business Contractors) As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror’s proposal for how at least ten (10%) of the proposed total estimated amount of the contract will address small business concerns and how the approach addresses the use of Small Business Concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns, Hub Zone Small Business Concerns, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns.

M-2.2.2.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Applicable to Large Business Contractors) As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror’s commitment to use small business in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which specific companies are named in the proposal, and whether documented commitments are included in their proposal. An offeror can submit either an approved commercial plan or a negotiated DoD Comprehensive Test Program subcontracting plan or an individual subcontracting plan. The proposed subcontracting goals shall include proposed goals for Women-Owned Small Businesses; Small Disadvantaged Businesses;

HUBZone Small Businesses and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. [Note: DoD goals are currently 5% each for Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Businesses and 3% each for HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses.] The Successful Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be incorporated in the contract. The awarded Contractor will submit how they’ve performed compared to their goals every 6 months via the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and the Government will document performance accordingly. Failure to meet or make positive progress toward meeting small business subcontracting goals may negatively impact a Contractor’s performance ratings; and may serve as justification for removal from the contract.

M-2.2.3 Subfactor C: Transition Plan

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. The plan’s milestone chart is logical, achievable, falls within the mandated 120-day period, and includes the IDIQ and task orders. The plan addresses the incorporation of program management functions and GFE and materials.

ii. The plan provides an organizational structure to include an appropriate number of personnel and functional assignments to effectively accomplish the transition tasks.

iii. The plan explains how the Offeror will hire qualified personnel to perform contract tasks and responsibilities upon commencement of contract performance period.

iv. The plan provides an approach and process to acquire and integrate open actions

(maintenance actions, requisitions etc.) upon commencement of contract performance period to ensure continuity and timely completion of open items.

v. The plan provides an approach for interfacing with the incumbent contractor in support of transition tasks.

vi. Task Order Transition Plan proposal provides sufficient detail and planning to demonstrate capacity to assume responsibilities with little or no impact to mission along with a communication plan to ensure Government stakeholders are fully informed of status throughout the transition period.

vii. Provides a plan for the transfer of work control that delineates the method for processing and assigning tasks during the phase-in/phase-out periods that demonstrates capacity for successful transitions for each location.

viii. Plan includes strategies/planning that will ensure minimized mission impacts due to interruptions or delays to work-in-progress.

Transition Plan

Color Rating Description

Green Pass Proposal indicates an adequate approach and demonstrates capacity to successfully transition and execute the contract.

Red Fail Proposal does not provide an adequate approach and/or demonstrate capacity to successfully transition and execute the contract.

M-2.2.4 Subfactor D: QMS AS9110 Certification

Each proposal assessed under paragraph M-2.2.2 will be assigned a color rating as defined in the DoD

Source Selection Procedures and as shown below.

AS9110 Certification

Color Rating Description

Green Pass AS9110 registration/certification documentation for prime contractor provided.

Red Fail AS9110 registration/certification documentation not provided.

M-2.3 Factor 2: Technical Capability

M-2.3.1 Factor Evaluation

M-2.3.1.1 Subfactor Evaluation. There are three (3) subfactors under the Technical Capability evaluation factor. Subfactor A - Divert Aircraft Support & Maintenance, Subfactor B - Agile Aircraft Support &

Maintenance and Subfactor C - Task Orders. Subfactors A and B are of equal importance with Subfactor

C being of lessor importance. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal.

M-2.3.1.2 Technical and Risk Rating. The Technical proposals will be measured against combined technical/risk evaluation criteria at the subfactor level. Technical subfactor ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each subfactor shall be assigned a color rating, shown below, as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to an overall color rating for Technical Capability. Each subfactor will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, or deficiencies. These findings will determine the overall rating for each subfactor.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, 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 or significant 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 is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Evaluation Terms and Definitions

Terms Definition

Significant Strength An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

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. See FAR 15.001.

M-2.3.2 Technical Subfactors

M-2.3.2.1 Subfactor A: Divert Aircraft Support & Maintenance. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates an approach for providing Maintenance Recovery Team (MRT) and/or TDY support for aircraft repairs and regeneration at alternate locations within the area of responsibility (AOR) IAW the PWS.

ii. Demonstrates specific methods and innovations for providing MRT support while maintaining operations support for combat line generation.

M-2.3.2.2 Subfactor B: Agile Aircraft Maintenance Support. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates an approach for providing responsive and flexible support that allows for rapid directing, redirecting and mission prioritization as prescribed in the PWS.

i. Demonstrates specific methods and any innovations for supporting short notice agile taskings while maintaining combat line support.

ii. Demonstrates an approach to coordinate with US Embassy Country Teams and current and potential host nation partners that ensures compliance with applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations and provides for preparatory planning.

M-2.3.2.3 Subfactor C: Task Orders 1-7

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Demonstrates reasonable assumptions in proposal generation.

ii. Demonstrates understanding potential scheduling impacts with an acceptable plan for ensuring mission success.

iii. Proposed acceptable labor categories and quantities to support task order PWS requirements (Appendix L), notional schedule and shift allocation, and justification provided was acceptable for the staffing levels proposed.

iv. Ensured VISA requirements are met (if applicable).

v. Provided a copy of DBA insurance (if applicable).

vi. Demonstrates understanding of labor laws, vehicles required, and agile maintenance support required for OCONUS locations.

M-2.4 Factor 3: Past Performance

M-2.4.1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance record to determine confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s recent and relevant demonstrated record of contract performance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost and schedule.

M-2.4.2. Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each past performance reference provided and any additional sources found by the Government (past performance reference/Other Source).

Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a reference is determined recent, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period.

M-2.4.3. Relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will evaluate relevancy and assign a relevancy rating for each recent PPI contract reference in accordance with the following criteria:

Relevancy Rating

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Past or present performance effort: Managed an organizational-level DoD MQ-1, MQ-9, or RQ-4 Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) maintenance contract at CONUS, and either OCONUS or forward-deployed locations IAW AS9100/9110 or ISO 9001 quality management systems..

Relevant

Past or present performance effort: Managed an organizational-level U.S. Federal RPA or U.S.

military aircraft maintenance contract at CONUS and OCONUS locations IAW AS9100/9110 or ISO9001 quality management systems. LRE past performance effort: Managed RPA contract operations providing aircrew to support U.S. Federal operations.

Somewhat Relevant

Past or present performance effort: Managed an organizational, intermediate, or depot level aircraft maintenance contract at CONUS or OCONUS locations utilizing a quality management system. LRE past performance effort: Managed contract operations providing aircrew to support Federal operations.

Not Relevant Past or present performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-2.4.4. Quality. For each recent and relevant reference/Other Source evaluated, the Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine the quality of recent and relevant PPI. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of its performance. The

Government may confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in the proposals and may obtain additional performance data from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through, but not limited to, the following: 1) Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS); 2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); 3) Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other data bases; 4) Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) channels; and 5) Interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

M-2.4.5. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Past Performance Team will consider offerors’ past performance as an entire team (where primes propose with subcontractors or in partnerships) or on an individual basis for Contractors proposing on their own. Each offeror will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime Contractor, and subcontractors, joint ventures, and/or teaming partners. An offeror’s overall confidence assessment will be impacted by past performance findings to include the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity of the offeror’s team. More recent performance that demonstrates a trend and/or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the

DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

Performance Confidence Rating Rating Definition

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.

M-2.4.6. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR

15.306(b)(4), communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-2.4.7. Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor as depicted in M-2.3.5.

M-2.4.8. Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful offeror.

M-2.5. Factor 4: Price. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, balanced and realistic price.

M-2.5.1. An offeror’s proposed price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

The total evaluated price consists of the sum proposed price for all task orders issued with the RFP, and as updated via any amendments through award, to include all options, 50% of the last option period (for the individual task orders) for the six-month extension of services option IAW FAR 52.217-8.

M-2.5.2. Part A – IDIQ Price Matrix

M-2.5.2.1. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 as outlined below. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offeror’s fully loaded labor rates proposed in the IDIQ price matrix located in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables, comparison of all priced task order for all period of performance and comparison of the total proposed surge pricing at deployed locations. Proposed fully loaded labor rates and pre-priced surge pricing FFP rates will be used to price task order requirements at contract award and serve as the ceiling rate for additional task orders and task order modifications throughout the life of this contract. The pricing table for CONUS locations will serve as the baseline for negotiations for adding sites that were not included in the price matrix at contract award.

M-2.5.2.2. The preferred and intended price analysis technique will be the evaluation of offeror’s pre-priced fully loaded labor rates (as proposed in the IDIQ price matrix located in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables for all contract performance periods), comparison of proposed prices for all task orders for all periods of performance, and comparison of the total proposed pricing for surge requirements for deployed locations in response to the solicitation. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.5.3. Part B – Task Order Pricing

M-2.5.3.1. A cost/price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 as outlined below.

Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ total evaluated prices. The total evaluated price consists of the sum total proposed price of task orders issued with the RFP, and as updated via any amendments through award, to include all options and offeror provided estimates for the cost reimbursable CLINs as well as the sum total of the proposed pricing for the surge deployment requirements. Task order pricing shall be consistent with the offeror’s fully loaded labor rates proposed in the IDIQ price matrix provided in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables, to include all priced options. Adjustments to the manpower requirements identified in the manning matrix provided in Volume I are permitted but shall be justified based on the proposed technical solution for the unique task order requirements and must be clearly identified in the proposed price. Evaluation of options at the task order level shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Performance award fee/incentive will be excluded from the overall evaluated price as the Government determines the available pool amount.

M-2.5.3.2. Evaluation of Firm Fixed Price portions of the requirement will include comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation, which is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.5.3.3. Evaluation of the Cost Reimbursable portions of the requirement will include a comparison of proposed costs in response to the solicitation and a review of the offeror’s basis for cost estimating, as well as the application of any proposed indirect cost rates. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.5.3.4. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer with unbalanced pricing; see FAR 15.404- 1(g). An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates for other labor categories (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same labor categories as proposed by other offerors). The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed costs/prices from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. If any of the proposals are deemed unreasonable, incomplete, unbalanced or unrealistic, that Offeror will no longer be considered for award.

M-2.5.3.5. Price Realism. Price realism will be assessed by evaluating proposed prices/costs to ensure they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirement, and are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance/technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative techniques is the basis for an apparently low price, the nature of these techniques and their impact on the cost or price shall be explained. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the Offeror.

M-2.5.4. Part C – Proposal Documentation

M-2.5.4.1. General Responsibility Determination – The contractor must comply with the requirements of FAR 9.104-1.

M-2.5.4.2. Supplemental Responsibility Determination - DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254). DD Form 254 requirements will be assessed for contractor responsibility IAW FAR Part 9. The Government will use the Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) to verify offeror and subcontractor(s) clearance information. The Government is not obligated to hold discussions nor delay the decision brief awaiting an offeror or subcontractor to comply with DD Form 254 classification requirement(s). Contractor responsibility includes:

1. Offeror and subcontractor(s) having the highest classification specification required on the DD Form 254 attached to this solicitation; and

2. If applicable, the offeror submitting a request for authorization to subcontract COMSEC work for each subcontractor.

3. Resolution of all FOCI issues, if any (see Section L-11.4.2).