Section_M_Final_28_May_2015.pdf

PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EGLIN-M01 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (MAY 2015)

1.0. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS).

These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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.

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 priced 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.

1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one 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.

1.2. Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP)

The Government will evaluate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of any Government Furnished Property (GFP) not included on the GFP list provided at Section J Attachment 9. The Government may make adjustments to the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price in accordance with FAR 45.2 if the Government determines that the Offeror has gained a competitive advantage from its proposed use of GFP.

1.3. Discussions with Offerors

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 (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If you desire to change or supplement the information you provided during discussions, then you must submit a new proposal. The new proposal must include change pages that trace all changes to your initial proposal. Unsupported or untraced changes in your new proposal may cause your FPR to be unacceptable.

SECTION M FA2486-16-R-0002

Page M-2

1.4. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The Government will award to the Offeror it determines provides the best overall proposal, based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 - Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach/Technical Approach Risk Subfactor 2 – Management Approach/Management Approach Risk Subfactor 3 – Transition/Transition Risk

Factor 2 - Past Performance

Factor 3 - Cost/Price

1.5. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The Government will evaluate and rate each Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk subfactor individually. The Government will not combine the three subfactors to establish a separate, overarching evaluation rating for Factor 1 (Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk).

The relative importance of the three Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk subfactors, Past Performance, and Cost/Price is as follows: Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactor 1 (Technical Approach/Technical Approach Risk) is most important, Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactor 2 (Management Approach/Management Approach Risk) is second-most important, Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactor 3 (Transition/Transition Risk) is third-most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is fourth-most important, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the Technical Approach/Technical Approach Risk Subfactor, Management Approach/Management Approach Risk Subfactor, and Transition/Transition Risk Subfactor as well as Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price, however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the source selection.

2.0. Mission Capability Subfactors and Risks

Using the three (3) Subfactors in paragraph 1.4 above, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s responses to the submission requirements in Section L. The Government will then determine a color/adjectival rating for each Subfactor according to Table 1 below:

Table 1. Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactors 1, 2, & 3 Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Page M-3

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactor 1: Technical Approach/Technical Approach Risk The Government will specifically evaluate the Offeror’s responses to the submission requirements in Section L, Subsection 2.4 as follows:

Section L, Subsections 2.4.a, 2.4.b, and 2.4.c:

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s approaches, strategies, analyses and processes meet or exceed the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will also assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Section L, Subsection 2.4.d:

The Government will evaluate both the benefits of the Offeror’s variations from the Government Staffing Estimate (GSE) and their impacts on mission stability. The Government will also assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Section L, Subsections 2.4.e and 2.4.f:

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s approach meets or exceeds the requirements of PWS Section 4.5. The Government will also evaluate how well the approach ensures that qualified individuals fill the highly specialized positions during transition and throughout the life of the contract.

Additionally, the Government will assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Section L, Subsections 2.4.g and 2.4.h:

The Government will evaluate the quality, extent, and results of the Offeror’s culture of continuous improvement, and the Offeror’s proposed innovative solutions that provide lasting benefits to the E- OMS Program.

Page M-4

Section L, Subsection 2.4.i:

Regarding Scenario Part 1, the Government will evaluate how well the Offeror addresses the following:

The Offeror’s approach to implementing the 20% reduction; the Offeror’s characterization of the impacts of this approach on overall mission throughput; the Offeror’s identified performance risks of this approach. Regarding Scenario Part 2, the Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s program management plan provides for stewarding the major changes for Year 3 through Year 10.

Section L, Subsection 2.4.j:

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed management information system/data service center system operation has the necessary technical security rigor, compatibility, and flexibility to operate within the DoD Global Information Grid NIPRNet accreditation boundary. The Government will also assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactor 2: Management Approach/ Management Approach Risk The Government will specifically evaluate the Offeror’s responses to the submission requirements in Section L, Subsection 2.5 as follows:

Section L, Subsection 2.5.a:

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s organizational structure will facilitate performance of the PWS. The Government will also evaluate how well, based on the contents of the resumes submitted in response to Section L, Subsection 2.5.a, the Offeror’s General Manager and PWS Major Mission Area managers (if any) will facilitate performance of the PWS. The Government will also assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Section L, Subsection 2.5.b and 2.5.c:

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s management approach and staffing strategies, and processes will facilitate performance of the PWS and will ensure mission stability. The Government will also assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactor 3: Transition/Transition Risk The Government will specifically evaluate the Offeror’s responses to the submission requirements in Section L, Subsection 2.6 as follows:

Section L, Subsections 2.6.a and 2.6.b:

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s general approach ensures that the Offeror fills, during transition, 100% of its proposed positions with qualified staff. The Government will also evaluate how well the Offeror’s specific strategy, processes and approach for filling the positions, identified in clause B01 Contract Type: Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (MAY 2015), including the most highly specialized positions, ensure that the Offeror fills, during transition, 100% of these positions with qualified staff. The Government will additionally assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Page M-5

Section L, Subsection 2.6.c:

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s approach facilitates the transfer of work in progress from the incumbent contractors during the transition periods with minimum disruption. The Government will also assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

Section L, Subsection 2.6.d:

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s approach ensures, during the transition periods, that each individual filling a contract position will obtain security clearances and other approvals required to access classified information and computer systems necessary for contract performance. The Government will also assess the risk of unsuccessful performance.

3.0. Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Government's confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

3.1. Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent, relevant and quality record of performance in supplying the 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 quality of performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactors and Cost/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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Rating 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), commercial sources, and information reasonably at hand in the evaluation of past performance.

The Government will initially assess each of the contracts identified in the Offerors’ past performance proposals for Recency. The Government may also consider contracts not identified by the Offeror but found via other sources. Contracts not meeting the Recency definition in paragraph 3.1.1. will not be further assessed for Relevancy or Performance Quality.

The Government will then assess each of the contracts meeting the Recency definition for Relevancy.

Contracts not meeting the Relevancy definition in paragraph 3.1.2. will not be further assessed for Performance Quality.

The Government will then assess each of the contracts meeting both the Recency definition and the Relevancy definition for Performance Quality and will assign each of these contracts a Performance Quality rating in accordance with Table 3 in paragraph 3.1.3.

Page M-6

After assessing each of the contracts meeting both the Recency definition and the Relevancy definition for Performance Quality, the Government will assign a Performance Confidence Rating to the Offeror in accordance with paragraph 3.1.4.

3.1.1. Recency Assessment

In determining recency for individual contracts, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

3.1.2. Relevancy Assessment

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or 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 2 below:

3.1.3. 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, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactors and Cost/ 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, regardless of its source. 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 ParticipationProgram—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

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), Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involves a majority of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involves a minority or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Page M-7 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 may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

The Government will use the quality levels when assessing recent, relevant contracts according to Table 3 below:

Table 3. Performance Quality Assessment Rating/Color Description BLUE (B)/EXCEPTIONAL During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded many of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at a superior level. Performance was accomplished with very few minor problems, and the contractor took immediate and effective corrective actions for those problems that did occur.

PURPLE (P)/VERY GOOD During the entire period, the contractor met and exceeded some of the requirements of the contract and consistently performed very well.

Performance was accomplished with some minor problems, and the contractor took timely and effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

GREEN (G) /

SATISFACTORY

During the entire period, the contractor met the requirements of the contract and consistently performed at an acceptable level. Performance was accomplished with some problems, and the contractor took effective corrective action for those problems that did occur.

YELLOW (Y) / MARGINAL During the entire period, the contractor did not meet a few of the requirements of the contract and intervention by the Government was required to continue performance. There were instances where performance was at a less than acceptable level; performance was accomplished with some problems and some corrective actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

RED (R) /

UNSATISFACTORY

During the entire period, the contractor did not meet many requirements of the contract and performance was at an unacceptable level. There were a number of serious problems that required extensive oversight and involvement by the Government, and corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent.

NOT APPLICABLE (N/A) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect, or information was not available.

3.1.4. Performance Confidence Ratings

As a result of the quality assessments of the recent, relevant contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability/Mission Capability Risk Subfactors

Page M-8 and Cost/Price Factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance confidence. 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.

More recent performance may 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.

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments according to Table 4 below:

4.0. Factor 3 – Cost/Price

4.1. Criteria for Evaluation

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored but will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism (Cost CLINs only), unbalanced pricing and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The proposals will be analyzed to determine whether they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the information provided by the Offeror. A Most Probable Cost (MPC) will be assessed by the Government for the basic award, option period, award term options, and option to extend services. The MPC reflects the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror's proposal. The MPC is determined

Table 4. 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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

Page M-9 by adjusting the Offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the result of the realism analysis. The Offeror’s proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. Unrealistically low or high proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or has made an unrealistic proposal. Although an MPC will be calculated and used for evaluation purposes only, the Offeror's proposed prices will be placed on contract.

4.2. Options

Evaluation of options and award terms shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or award terms.

4.3. Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR

15.404. The Government will evaluate the TEP for reasonableness. 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. The TEP calculation is further addressed in paragraph 4.8 below. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and15.404-1(b)(2)(i), adequate price competition normally establishes a price fair and reasonable. However, the Government reserves the right to assess reasonableness based on any of the cost or price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Additionally, although adequate price competition is expected, if only one offer is received in response to this solicitation the responding Offeror will be required to provide certified cost or pricing data in accordance with Table 15-2, at FAR 15.408 and DFARs Clause 252.215-7009 for all CLINs except the MGTF CLINs, Contractor Acquired Property (CAP) CLINs, Travel CLINs, Overtime CLINs, and Directive Manning CLINs because those values will be provided by the Government.

4.4. Materially Unbalanced Pricing

The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between contract line items. Materially unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of price balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.5. Realism

This evaluation will include the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements, pursuant to FAR 15.404. All Cost CLINs will be assessed for realism. Firm Fixed CLINs will not be assessed for realism. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that an unrealistic price poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.6. Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (FAR 52.222-46) Recompetition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished to professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance. It is therefore in the Government’s best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated. As part of their proposals, Offerors shall submit a total compensation plan

Page M-10 setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government considers all non-Area Wage Determination (AWD) employees performing work on the contract to be professional employees. The Government will evaluate the plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.

This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

4.7. GFP/GFI

If an Offeror proposes to use Government Furnished Property (GFP) or Information (GFI), not being provided under this contract, the Government will assess the associated values applied by the contractor to ensure a fair rental value (FRV) has been applied to eliminate any cost/price advantage associated with its use. FRV will be determined by taking the items’ estimated acquisition value from FedLog and using the formula found in FAR 52.245-9(e)(ii) with the rental period defined as total time item is in Offeror’s possession. An example of how the formula works is as follows:

Item Acquisition Value Rental Time X $100,000 8.5 months

(Acquisition Value x 2%) = Monthly FRV $100,000 x 2% = $2,000 (Monthly FRV) (Monthly FRV x Rental Time) = Assessed FRV $2,000 x 8.5 = $17,000 (Assessed FRV)

In the event the assessed FRV is higher than the acquisition value, the lower value will be

Page M-11 used as GFP/GFI adjustment number. The Offeror shall ensure that the use of GFP/GFI does not interfere with other authorized Government programs.

4.8. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated using Section L, Attachment 9. The table below depicts the TEP calculation.

1 Most Probable Cost (Section L, Attch 9) Sum of all CLIN costs as adjusted based on the results of the Government cost realism analysis IAW paragraph 4.1 above.

2 Government Furnished Element Adjustment

Approprite adjustments IAW paragraph 4.7

3 Contractor’s Proposed Fee The sum of all proposed fixed fees, base fees and the award fee pool.

Total Evaluated Price The sum of 1 – 3 above.

5.0. 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. Failure to submit a Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan in accordance with Section L. Para 5.2.5 will render an offeror's proposal ineligibile for award. Failure to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with Section L. Para 5.2.6 will render an offeror's proposal ineligibile for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

Page M-12