AFPSL Recompete Section M 20191217.docx

Solicitation Number FA2263-20-R-0002 RFP Attachment

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 01 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. First and foremost, an offeror’s technical proposal must earn a rating of acceptable or higher in order for past performance and price to be evaluated. Tradeoffs will be made among Technical, Past Performance, and Price for those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past Performance is more important than Price.

1.2 A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. 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 the Government’s 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 superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Air Force Primary Standards Laboratory (AFPSL) Program.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

1.6 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) beyond what this solicitation offers.

1.7 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals at the time of the determination. If the CO 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 CO, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.8 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306. 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 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 response are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.9 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 factors or subfactors. 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Staffing Approach Subfactor 2: Recruitment, Training, and Retention Subfactor 3: Quality Plan Subfactor 4: Calibration Technical Orders Quality Plan Subfactor 5: Measurement Area Assurance Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Technical Subfactor 1 and Technical Subfactor 2 are of equal importance, and are significantly more important than other subfactors. Remaining Subfactors are listing in order of importance. Technical is significantly more important than Past Performance and Price. Past Performance is more important than Price.

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals using an adjectival rating system, assigning one of the ratings described in Table 2.2A for each Subfactor. Technical risk will be evaluated using an adjectival rating system, assigning one of the ratings described in Table 2.2B for each Subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and; therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 2.2A - TECHNICAL RATINGS

TABLE 2.2B – TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Staffing Approach

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal has a sound approach for the quantity, knowledge, skills, abilities, and experience of personnel required for each organizational unit (considering AFPSL calibrations and technical order authoring functions) in accordance with PWS and work load requirements, contractor proposed organizational structure and assigned responsibilities, and plans to retain qualified personnel, identified organizational and key personnel responsibilities in the quality plan consistent with the proposed organizational structure and PWS requirements, with a Low to Moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 2: Recruitment, Training, and Retention

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror provides a sound recruiting plan to include approach to meeting competition of local labor market/national labor category; a sound and reasonable initial training, upgrade training, continuous training, and cross-training plans; a sound and reasonable plan to retain qualified personnel to include approach to meeting competition of local labor market/national labor category.

Subfactor 3: Quality Plan

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal has a quality plan which demonstrates the offeror fully understands the TO 00-20-14 and ISO/IEC17025 calibration laboratory quality standards.

Subfactor 4: Calibration Technical Orders Quality Plan

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal has:

1) an executable technical order production/quality plan to include schedule, authoring, and quality assessment.

2) described a proactive process for effectively validating newly authored and/or rewrites of technical orders.

Subfactor 5: Measurement Area Assurance

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal documents and demonstrates competence when the offeror substantiates their ability to do the following:

1) Processes to validate measurement uncertainty and ensure traceability

2) Processes for recording, maintaining and analyzing historical data

3) Statistical processes and analysis that will be utilized to validate measurement uncertainties

4) Process to validate measurement uncertainties against other DoD services and industry

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2.3.1 - Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 2.3.1- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

2.3.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. The past performance team will consider the following areas when determining relevancy: scope and complexity of calibration and metrology services, and scope and complexity of technical writing services. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (Performance Relevancy Assessments, Table 2.3.2.2):

TABLE 2.3.2.2 - PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENTS

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program-Disadvantaged Status and Reporting.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. 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 have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

2.3.3.1 More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose Price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.4.2 Reasonableness

The offeror’s 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. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items IAW FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP is the sum of the price proposed for the basic period of performance and the price proposed for all option periods of performance.

(1) On the basic period of performance, the evaluated price will include the estimated price proposed for CLINs 0001-0038.

(2) For the option years, they will be evaluated in the same manner as the basic period of performance and will be included in the total evaluated price. Offeror’s are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

(3) The sum of all CLINs (Basic Period and Options) will represent the total evaluated price

2.4.5 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capacity to meet the requirements of the solicitation

4 REVIEWS AND VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.