Attachment 11 Section M 15 Dec 2019.pdf

PART IV REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M FA2486-19-R-0003

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, https://www.acquisition.gov/content/regulations.

Competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis of approximately equal to cost or price. 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 considered equal. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer proposal being determined 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 Government intends to award one contract but reserves the right to award none.

1.1 Evaluation Process

a. Step 1 – Proposals will be ranked from lowest total evaluated price (TEP) to highest TEP. Then, the Government will evaluate the two (2) lowest proposals under Factor 1 Technical Capability and a rating of either Acceptable or Unacceptable will be assigned;

b. Step 2 –If either of the lowest TEP proposals are deemed to have an Unacceptable rating for the Factor 1 then the Government will continue to review the next lowest TEP proposals until two (2) proposals are deemed to have an Acceptable rating for Factor 1 OR all proposals have been evaluated;

c. Step 3 – The Government will then evaluate the two (2) lowest TEP proposals with Acceptable ratings for Factor 1 under Factor 2 Cost/Price for reasonableness and balanced pricing. If either of the two (2) lowest proposals are found to be unreasonable or unbalanced under Factor 2 then the Government will review the next lowest TEP proposal in Step 2 until two (2) lowest TEP proposals with Acceptable ratings for Factor 1 are found to have reasonable and balance pricing under Factor 2 OR all Acceptable offers have been evaluated.

Then, the lowest TEP with Acceptable rating for Factor 1 and reasonableness and balanced pricing for Factor 2 will be evaluated for past performance confidence under Factor 3 Past Performance. If the lowest TEP proposal with Acceptable rating for Factor 1 and reasonableness and balanced pricing for Factor 2 is found to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment, this proposal 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.

d. Step 4 - If the lowest TEP with Acceptable rating for Factor 1 and reasonableness and balanced pricing for Factor 2 does not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating under Factor 3, then the second technically acceptable lowest TEP proposal with Acceptable rating for Factor 1 and reasonableness and balanced pricing for Factor 2 will be evaluated for performance confidence under Factor

3. If the second lowest TEP with Acceptable rating for Factor 1 and reasonableness and balanced pricing for Factor 2 proposal does not receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating under Factor 3, then the next lowest TEP proposal will enter Step 2 until a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating is received OR all Acceptable and reasonable and balanced offers have been evaluated.

e. Step 5. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision by determining if the best value to the Government is to pay a higher cost for a higher past performance assessment rating. The Government reserves the following rights: to award a contract to the lowest price offeror who has Substantial Confidence Rating, to award to higher price offeror who has Substantial Confidence Rating;

Page M - 3 award a contract to the lowest price offeror who has at least a Satisfactory Confidence Rating or award a contract to the lowest price offeror who has a Neutral Confidence Rating.

f. Step 6 – If the Government chooses to enter into discussions at any point during the evaluation process, discussions will be conducted with those Offerors whose proposals are in the competitive range. After discussions are closed and Final Proposal Revisions received, the process will begin again at Step 1.

1.2 Factors and Subfactors

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

If either of the two subfactors are rated as “unacceptable” then “Factor 1: Technical Capability” will be rated as “unacceptable” and the proposal shall not be evaluated any further.

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 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to performing the Backshop maintenance requirements to affirm the Offeror’s ability to provide and manage a qualified and capable workforce that can accomplish the entire scope, technical complexity and magnitude of Backshop maintenance programs in accordance with the PWS. The Government will evaluate the proposed organizational structure to ensure it includes an adequate reporting chain to facilitate successful daily operations and mission events and identifies the appropriate key personnel positions to include an experienced General Manager/Contract Manager. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s matrix and rationale for staffing to ensure the proposed manning is sufficient per shift for each shop to successfully accomplish day to day operations. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to ensure it is feasible for providing employees’ proof of qualifications/certifications within 15 days of performance start.

Subfactor 2 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (if applicable) The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Proposal is acceptable when the proposal meets and/or contains all of the following:

a. Provided Small Business Subcontracting Plan meets 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).

b. Proposes percentages in Small Business Subcontracting Plan to meet or exceed goals listed in Table L2. For small business categories not proposed to meet, provided substantiated rational that justifies why unable to meet contract’s goals.

c. Provided commitment to use small business concerns.

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

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

Page M - 4

FACTOR 2: COST/PRICE FACTOR

2.0 Price Evaluation. The Government shall rank, all offers by TEP from lowest to highest, including any option prices. The Total Evaluated Price will be the sum total of all Firm-Fixed Priced CLINs for the base, base option, and all option years. CLINs 7101, 7109, 7116, and 7122 are for a six month option to extend. The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposed TEP.

2.1 The Offeror's Volume II - Cost/Price portion of the proposal will not be rated or scored, it will be evaluated for fair and reasonable price (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), and balanced pricing (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, or unbalanced may not be considered for award. Cost/Price will be evaluated for the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs on the basic effort and 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, Global Insight Indices and any other resource available to the Government.

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

2.3 The Offeror's Cost/Price Volume of the proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. 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. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. 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.

The Offeror’s Cost/Price Volume of the proposal not found to be reasonable or balanced will render the Offeror’s proposal un-awardable and that Offeror’s proposal will not be considered any further.

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 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 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

Page M - 5 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 L2) 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.

3.4 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.

3.5 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

Adjectival Rating Description Scope Magnitude Complexities

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

Have provided personnel, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, supervision, logistics, training, technical support to perform backshop maintenance, Temporary 2 (T-2) Modifications, and support tasks such providing Temporary Duty Assignments (TDY), accomplish aircraft phase inspections and functions specified within this Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Annual value of approximately $13M or greater for at least 3 consecutive years

3 or more different types of military airframes

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

Have provided personnel, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, supervision, logistics, training, technical support to perform backshop maintenance, Temporary 2 (T-2) Modifications, and support tasks such providing Temporary Duty Assignments (TDY), accomplish aircraft phase inspections and functions specified within this Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Annual value of effort estimated less than $13M but greater than $10M for at least 2 consecutive years

At least 2 different types of military airframes

Somewhat Relevant

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

Have provided personnel, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, supervision, logistics, training, technical support to perform backshop maintenance, Temporary 2 (T-2) Modifications, and support tasks such providing Temporary Duty Assignments (TDY), accomplish aircraft phase inspections and functions specified within this Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Annual value of effort estimated at less than $10M for at least 2 consecutive years

Only one type of military airframe

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.

Has not provided personnel, equipment, tools, materials, vehicles, supervision, logistics, training, technical support to perform backshop maintenance, Temporary 2 (T-2) Modifications, and support tasks such providing Temporary Duty Assignments (TDY), accomplish aircraft phase inspections and functions specified within this Performance Work Statement (PWS)

Annual value of below $5M for at least 1 year

No experience on any type of military airframes

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.”

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.

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

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. Clarification 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 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.