Backshop_Section_M_FINAL.pdf

PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M FA2486-16-R-0139

Page M - 2

EGLIN-M01 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive 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) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. While the Government intends to award a contract without discussions, discussions or negotiations may be conducted. Offerors may be required to participate in telephone discussions or in face-to-face, oral discussions at Eglin Source Selection Facility, 210 West D Avenue, Building 373, Eglin AFB FL. Offerors are cautioned to follow the detailed instructions fully and carefully, as the Government reserves the right to make an award based on initial offers received, without discussion of such offers. The Offeror's initial proposal should reflect their best effort.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1.1 Factors and Subfactors

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Initially, the Government Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, using the definitions in Table M1. If either of the two subfactors are rated as “unacceptable” the overall “Factor 1: Technical Capability” will be rated as “unacceptable.”

Table M1 – Technical Capability Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Management of Personnel

(1) The Offeror showed the ability to provide a qualified and capable workforce that can accomplish the entire scope, technical complexity and magnitude of Backshop Maintenance Programs in accordance with the PWS.

a. The Offeror provided a clearly defined organizational structure to include reporting chain for daily operations and mission events. Also, an organization chart identifying key personnel positions was provided with a matrix showing proposed manning by shift and number of personnel per shift for

Page M - 3 each shop ensuring operations will be completely satisfied.

b. The Offeror provided a plan to provide employees’ proof of qualifications/certifications as per the PWS for all employees within 15 days of performance start.

c. The Offeror provided the following plans:

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

2. Contingency Plan. Includes Crash Recovery, Hydrazine response and the Maintenance

Operations Center support IAW PWS.

a. Has the Offeror identified provisions made for the acquisition of essential personnel and resources, if necessary, for continuity of operations for up to 30 days or until normal operations can be resumed?

b. Has the Offeror identified the challenges associated with maintaining essential contractor services during an extended event, such as a national security crisis, natural disaster or a pandemic?

c. Has the Offeror submitted a plan to fill all key and essential personnel billets by the performance start date?

d. Has the Offeror submitted a plan for performance of contractual duties at alternate duty locations in the event the installation is closed to non-essential or non-military personnel?

e. Hs the Offeror submitted a contingency response notification plan for notifying and mobilizing key and essential personnel in the event of an emergency, contingency, spill or disaster?

f. Has the Offeror submitted a plan detailing how it intends to communicate roles, responsibilities and expectations of its employees during an emergency, national crisis, or other event?

Subfactor 2: Quality Control (QC)

(1) Offeror provided a Quality Control Plan (QCP) IAW PWS Section 13. The QCP contains an adequate approach for the following:

a. Training QC personnel and rotation strategy as per section 13.1.2 of the PWS.

b. An organizational chart for your QC office to include responsibilities per inspector.

c. How QC augmentees will be assigned and managed.

d. Root cause analysis process for corrective actions on findings by QC and/or the Government and how the proposed fix will ensure no repeat occurrences.

Page M - 4

e. An aircraft phase inspection process that satisfies all of the aircraft phase inspection requirement of the PWS.

f. A clear and concise plan on conducting/implementing and sustaining the Self-inspection program.

FACTOR 2: COST/PRICE FACTOR

2.0 Price Evaluation. Next, the Government shall rank, from lowest to highest, all technically acceptable offers by price, including any option prices. The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.1 The Offeror's cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored, it will be evaluated for reasonableness.

Cost/Price will be evaluated for the basic effort plus all options. The evaluated cost/price may include adjustments to offset any competitive advantage from the use of additional Government Furnished Equipment, Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Facilities (not furnished to all Offerors) or other Government costs associated with the proposed approach. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) Indices and any other resource available to the Government.

2.2 For this solicitation the Government will utilize a Total Evaluated Cost/Price to evaluate each Offeror's cost/price proposal. The Total Evaluated Cost/Price represents a sum total of all of the CLINs/Option CLINs (including Government provided CLIN/Option CLIN amounts).

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

2.4 The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE

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

3.1 Scope

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

Page M - 5

Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table M3.

3.2 The Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this Request for Proposal.

3.3 The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced Offeror if the lowest priced Offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower (See Table M3). In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

3.4 Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

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

3.5 Recency Assessment

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

3.6 Relevancy Assessment

In determining relevancy for individual past performance submissions, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, joint venture partner, or major subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will determine relevancy when assessing recent contracts according to Table M2 below:

TABLE M2 – RELEVANCY RATINGS

VERY RELEVANT

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

RELEVANT

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

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

Page M - 6

NOT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.7 Performance Confidence Assessment

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence and No Confidence, as defined in Table M3 below.

Offerors with no recent and relevant past performance history, or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence.”

3.8 If the lowest priced evaluated technically acceptable offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, that Offeror represents the best value for the Government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other Offerors.

3.9 If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment or until all

TABLE M3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Page M - 7

Offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value trade-off award decision.

FACTOR 4 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

4.0 The Government will evaluate Volume IV of the Offeror’s proposal on an acceptable/unacceptable based on Table M4 below. The Government will not assign a higher rating to an Offeror whose Small Business Participation proposal exceeds the acceptability standards set forth below.

Table M4 – Small Business Participation

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.1 The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Proposal is acceptable when the proposal contains all of the following:

1. Provided Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9, DFARS 252.219-7003, (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the Offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan), and AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1).

2. Provided percentages in Small Business Subcontracting Plan to meet or exceed goals listed in Table L3. For small business categories not proposed to meet, provided substantiated rational explaining why unable to meet contract’s goals.

3. Provided commitment to use small business concerns.

4. Provided complexity and variety of work small business concerns are to perform.

5. Provided participation of small businesses in terms of percentage and dollar value of total contract dollars and subcontract dollars.

Failing to meet any one of the above standards will result in an unacceptable rating under Factor 4 – Small Business Participation and will render the Offeror’s proposal un-awardable.

5.0 SOLICITATIONS REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale to any exceptions taken.

5.1 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.

Page M - 8

5.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Clarification conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

5.3 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 and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision.

6.0 RESPONSIBILITY

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