2b_-_Final_Draft_Section_M_Draft_27_Aug_15.docx

FA2487-15-R-0121

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (Feb 1998)," this solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this address: http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

M-1.0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 06 April 2015. These regulations are available electronically at the FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

Award will be made to the offeror(s) who is/are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), whose proposal conforms to the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the best value to the Government. The best value is represented by the most advantageous offer, price and other factors considered, by providing the best mix of technical quality, business aspects, risks, and price. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection evaluation team's (SSET) evaluations of the Specific Criteria, Cost/Price Criteria and General Considerations (described below).

While the Government 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.

M-1.1 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions with offerors within the competitive range, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors are advised to give an offer suitable for an award decision in the initial proposal. The Government does not intend to use non-government advisors or evaluators in this source selection. 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 Final Proposal Revision (FPR) shall be considered in making the source selection decision. If FPRs are required, the Government will determine if oral presentations or written proposals are required.

If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to make approximately 5 awards; however, the Government reserves the right to change the total number of contracts awarded. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will consider the Government's expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best-value proposals. NAICS Code 336419 is used as a basis for size determination.

M-2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors shall be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for best value based on mix of technical quality, business aspects, risks, past performance and price. Proposals will be ranked by weighted scoring for all factors and subfactors.

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor A. SOW Capabilities Subfactor B. Staffing/Qualifications/Experience Subfactor C. Subcontracts Utilization and Management/Small Business Participation with Small Business Plan Subfactor D: Delivery Order Management Process/Sample Delivery Order Subfactor E: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Cost/Price

M-3.0 FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

First, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a weighted point scale basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Deficient” shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, shall 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.

See paragraph M-3.1, Technical compliance factor, for details on the evaluation of the technical proposal. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Evaluation criteria for Table 1 is defined in full at Attachment M-1.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weakne ses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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.

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.

more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

M-3.1 SUBFACTOR A: STATEMENT OF WORK CAPABILITIES (PROGRAM MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS) Note: This subfactor will be evaluated based on the oral presentation presented by the offeror.

No oral presentation shall exceed 60 minutes and any/all presentation materials not presented within the time limit will be excluded from evaluation and will not be considered as part of the offeror’s oral evaluation.

a. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s Technical and Management approaches to meet the the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements defined in paragraph 3.0 through 3.14 and 3.16 through 3.32. This shall be evaluated relative to the offeror’s knowledge and ability to provide all facets of the following technical requirements.

b. The proposals shall be evaluated against Subfactor A. Offerors shall provide direct (organic or in-house) capability to perform Program Management plus at least two of the four remaining technical areas listed in section M-3.1. The remainder of the technical areas shall be satisfied through strategies the offeror deems suitable; for example subcontracts or partnering. The offeror shall provide information on how the remaining requirements shall be satisfied.

M-3.1.1 DESIGN/REDESIGN

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

· Offeror employs standard and relevant guidance, documents, and products that shall include: System Engineering Plan (SEP), design reviews demonstrating functional allocation, problem definition and analysis plan, data validation, model population and construction, hypothesis testing, analysis, associated M&S tool set, capability decomposition, requirements exploration and synthesis, and candidate solution set analysis that evidence processes for accomplishing trade space and capabilities studies, measure design progress, effectiveness and suitability modeling, deficiency resolution, traceability of requirements, configuration management, design reviews, training, technical data, and drawing packages that evidence processes for accomplishing Design/Redesign and Engineering Development for C4I and Munitions Systems.

M-3.1.2 HARDWARE

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

· Offeror employs standard and relevant guidance, documents, and products that shall include: compatibility, interoperability, and integration of all interfaces (electrical/electronic and mechanical hardware, firmware and software) between the system and its operating environment, fabrication of complex systems, manufacture planning, tracking, production and quality controls and assessments that evidence processes for accomplishing Hardware Development, Fabrication, Manufacturing and Integration into C4I and Munitions Systems.

M-3.1.3 SOFTWARE

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

· Offeror employs standard and relevant guidance, documents, and products that shall include: Computer Aided Software Engineering (CASE) methods and tools, inspections, and peer reviews; identification and management of Hardware Configuration Items (HWCI) and Computer Software Configuration Items (CSCI); planning, estimating, coding, and recording software development efforts; data collection, storage, manipulation, filtering, feature extraction, control systems, data processing, data display, data archiving, scientific/engineering/technical analysis, and formatting and conversion; compatibility, interoperability, and integration of all interfaces (electrical/electronic and mechanical hardware, firmware and software); that evidence processes for accomplishing Software Development and Integration into C4I and Munitions Systems.

M-3.1.4 TESTING

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

· Offeror employs standard and relevant guidance, documents, and products that shall include: system performance validations and verifications to include high dynamic environments, EMI/EMC and complete all failure and hazards analysis, test planning, prepare and support test events, analyze and document test results, and determine operational effectiveness, suitability, survivability, and safety for intended uses that evidence processes for accomplishing Demonstration and Tests.

M-3.1.5 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

· Offeror employs standard and relevant guidance, documents, and products that shall include: planning, estimating, budgeting, cost and schedule management, resources allocation, make trade-offs, implement subcontract management and a quality management system, conduct risk management for individual projects, and manage special handling items (HAZMAT, Explosives, STINFO, Classified) that evidence processes for accomplishing Program Management.

M-3.2 SUBFACTOR B: STAFFING, QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

Note: This subfactor will be evaluated based on the oral presentation presented by the offeror.

No oral presentation shall exceed 60 minutes and any/all presentation materials not presented within the time limit will be excluded from evaluation and will not be considered as part of the offeror’s oral evaluation.

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

· The offeror’s proposal satisfactorily demonstrates a complete understanding of SOW paragraph 3.15 and shall provide recent/relevant experience in performing Program Management, and each of the Technical Requirements under paragraph M-3.1. Experience shall meet a recency period of within the past five years from the proposal due date. Each experience example shall relate to an entity (e.g. prime, subcontractor, etc.) that the contractor proposes to perform the particular type of effort under this contract. Experience shall be relevant to C4I or munition system support.

M-3.3 SUBFACTOR C: SUBFACTOR C: SUBCONTRACTS UTILIZATION AND MANAGEMENT AND SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION WITH SMALL BUSINESS PLAN

Note: This subfactor will be evaluated based on the oral and written presentation presented by the offeror. No oral presentation shall exceed 60 minutes and any/all presentation materials not presented within the time limit will be excluded from evaluation and will not be considered as part of the offeror’s oral evaluation. In addition, this subfactor shall evaluate the written small business plan submitted by the offeror.

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

The offeror will satisfactorily demonstrate proposed subcontracts utilization and management approach including his proposed use of subcontractors to meet knowledge and technical criteria, processes for oversight of subcontractors, and organization and staffing necessities to meet subcontracts management requirements and provide relevant experience.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror proposes acceptable use of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns in the performance of the proposed contract. The extent of the commitment to such firms, including the proposed percentages of the acquisition, the probability that the offeror shall satisfy the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and achieve the levels of Small Business Participation identified in the proposal shall be considered. All offerors shall be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition and the probability of the offeror credibly achieving the minimum goals established by DOD.

A large business offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternate II, FAR 19.704, FAR 19.705, DFARS 219.704 and AFFARS Subpart 5319.7. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement is mandatory for award and the plan shall be incorporated into any resultant contract.

This subfactor shall be evaluated as acceptable when:

· The offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-9.

· The offeror proposes to meet or exceed goals shown in Table L-6.3 or provides substantiated rationale for proposed goals which are lower than those in the table.

· The offeror provides methodology (e.g., use of SB industry days, databases, tools, etc.) for meeting the offeror’s proposed goals.

For the purposes of this evaluation, where the prime offeror (or joint venture partner/teaming arrangement) is a small business, a small business subcontracting plan is not required. Small businesses shall be deemed acceptable under Subfactor C.

M-3.4 SUBFACTOR D: DELIVERY ORDER MANAGEMENT PROCESS/SAMPLE DELIVERY ORDER

Note: This subfactor will be evaluated based on the oral and written presentation presented by the offeror. No oral presentation shall exceed 60 minutes and any/all presentation materials not presented within the time limit will be excluded from evaluation and will not be considered as part of the offeror’s oral evaluation. In addition, this subfactor shall evaluate the written sample delivery order response by the offeror.

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

The offeror will satisfactorily demonstrate his delivery order management approach including his proposed delivery order process from RFP receipt, to proposal, followed by the delivery order execution process and closeout and provide relevant experience. The offeror will describe his corporate commitment and methodology to manage immediate tasking, and respond to changing delivery order requirements, including availability of resources to meet changing capacity requirements, and reporting of contractually required documentation.

In the evaluation of the sample delivery order, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the requirement, technical approach, schedule/labor realism, and overall cost/price reasonableness. The offeror's proposal shall describe the technical approach and solution, perceived teaming arrangements/subcontractor involvement, technical risk, and data deliveries.

M-3.5 SUBFACTOR E: ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST MITIGATION PLAN

The offeror shall demonstrate how the mandatory OCI clause for CIMTIC IV will be successfully implemented by the offeror. The offeror shall disclose business activities of itself, its affiliates, its team members, and affiliates of its team members which may create at least the appearance that any element of the offeror’s team might be motivated to use the Government customer’s information improperly and provide evidence of facts and circumstances which it believes ameliorates concerns related to the appearance and/or presence of such motive. The offeror may submit proposed approaches to mitigating the effects of any apparent or actual conflicts of interest arising out of the business activities disclosed. This is a pass/fail subfactor. Failure to mitigate all OCI concerns will result in a deficient proposal.

M-4.0 FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Note: This subfactor will be evaluated based on the written past performance data provided by the offeror, individual survays received, and government data bases. There is a 30 page limitation.

Offeror has met the measure of merit for these criteria by demonstrating the following:

The offeror shall present past performance data containing information in accordance with the format contained in Section L, Attachment 1. This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 20 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or performance if the partner is considered critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

The first aspect will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to CIMTIC IV. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s contract history that would give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will satisfy the current procurement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance will be rated for Relevancy using the Table below:

Table

scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the Table below:

Table

performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

M-4.0 FACTOR III – COST/PRICE

Reasonableness shall be evaluated once an offeror’s proposal has been determined technically acceptable.

Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal shall be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Reasonableness shall be determined by comparing the offeror’s individual Labor Categories (as shown in Attachment L-2) and TEP (as shown in Attachment L-1) to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) and the TEPs of other offerors. Offerors whose TEP and/or individual labor categories, determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award.

Offeror’s Burdened Labor Rate (BLR) build-up shall be calculated for each labor category identified in Attachment 2, Template L-2 as follows: Base Labor Rate plus all applied rate amounts. Fees shall be negotiated at the Delivery Order (DO) level.

Offeror’s TEP shall be calculated as follows: For each Labor Category in Attachment 2, Template L-1, the BLR shall be multiplied by the number of Sample Hours to generate a Subtotal dollar amount. The calculated BLR (from Attachment 2, Template L-2) shall be transposed to the BLR column (in Attachment 2, Template L-1) and multiplied by the number of Sample Hours (shown in Attachment 2, Template L-1) to generate a Subtotal dollar amount. The Subtotal dollar amounts from each Labor Category shall be summed to generate the offeror’s TEP. Offerors’ TEPs shall be ranked from lowest to highest.

M-5.0 MINIMUM DELIVERY ORDER SUBMISSION

The Government intends to award a minimum DO of $1,000. The awardees shall be responsible for delivering meeting minutes (covering the post-award conference) no later than thirty (30) days after the post-award conference.

M-6.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors shall 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. Upon Government’s request, offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale.

Attachment M-1 Subfactor A and Subfactor B Evaluation & Grading Criteria

SECTION M - FA2487-15-R-0121

PAGE M- 17 of 17 image1.emf image2.emf image3.emf image4.emf image5.emf image6.emf image7.emf image8.emf image9.emf image10.emf