AGE_Section_M.pdf

PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M FA2486-18-R-0006

Page M - 2

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

52.217-05 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

EGLIN-M01 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance, Technical Capability, Technical Risk and Price/Cost. 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. Contract, if any, shall be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements 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 or exceed our requirements affordably. The Past Performance factor is more important than the Technical factor. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

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 superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance of the higher price Offeror, outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team's assessment of the evaluation factors and sub factors IAW the latest guidance (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.

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.

1.1 Definitions

In accordance with FAR 15.001 and for the purpose of this evaluation the following terms will be utilized in the evaluation of your proposal:

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.

Page M - 3

Strength

An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

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

Significant Weakness The proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1.2 Factors and Subfactors

FACTOR 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Management of Personnel Subfactor 2: Quality Control FACTOR 2: Cost/Price FACTOR 3: Past Performance

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Government Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the technical capability using a combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining the technical rating using the ratings in Table M1.

Table M1 Combined Technical Risk Methods Color

Rating Adjectival

Rating

Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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.

Page M - 4

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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table M2 below.

Table M2 Technical Risk Ratings Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

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 Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) 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 organizational chart identifying key personnel positions was provided with a matrix showing proposed manning by shift and number of personnel per shift for each shop ensuring operations will be completely satisfied.

b. Has the offeror provided a training plan that ensures all employees are trained to perform the

Page M - 5 tasks outlined in the PWS?

c. Did the offeror submit a plan to fill all key and essential personnel billets by the performance start date?

d. Did the Offeror provide a plan that depicts employees’ proof of qualifications/certifications as per the PWS?

e. Did the Offeror provide the following plans?

1. Strike Plan. Does the plan provide 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. 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?

Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan (QCP)

(1) Offerors shall provide a Quality Control Plan (QCP) IAW PWS Section 15. At a minimum, the QCP shall contain the following:

a. Are a sufficient level of dedicated inspectors experienced in AGE maintenance services consistent with the services required within the PWS?

b. Do inspectors possess, at a minimum, formal experience with on/off equipment AGE maintenance?

c. Are experienced/qualified inspectors available during all normal hours of operation?

d. Is the plan on implementing and sustaining the Self-inspection program clear and concise?

e. Is the plan detailed to conduct root cause analysis process for corrective actions on findings by QC and/or the government? Does the plan state how the proposed fixes will be developed and implemented to ensure no repeat occurrences?

FACTOR 2: COST/PRICE FACTOR

2.0 Price Evaluation. 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 total 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

Page M - 6 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 Confidence as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table M4.

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 M4). 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

Page M - 7 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 M3 below:

TABLE M3 – RELEVANCY RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

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 M4 below.

In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “neutral.”

Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

Page M - 8

4.0 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.

4.1 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.

4.2 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. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

4.3 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

TABLE M4 - 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 - 9 range. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision.

5.0 RESPONSIBILITY

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