Draft_Section_M_-28_Oct_14.docx

For Official Use Only – Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 SSP Attachment 5

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 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 offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability/Technical Risk and Price/Cost. The resulting contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the FAR, 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 AF 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 capability and risk of the higher price 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the Cape Launch Operations and Infrastructure Support. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3 Discussions: 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) will be considered in making the source selection decision. 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-2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Factor 1 - Technical Capability Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Rating: The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Capability Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. The offeror's technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The Technical Capability rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement. The Technical Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Technical Capability evaluations shall utilize the ratings listed in Table 2(a) and Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings listed in Table 2(b). The subfactors for Technical Capability and Technical Risk are equal in importance. When combined, the Technical Capability and Technical Risk factors are equal in importance to the Price/Cost Factor.

Technical Capability Rating: Each Technical Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described Table 2.1(a) – Technical Capability Ratings. The rating focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Capability factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, for performance in excess of Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, which may be used as a tradeoff for a higher cost proposal.

Table 2.1(a) Technical Capability Ratings

Technical Risk Rating: Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Each Technical Capability subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2.1(b) – Technical Risk Ratings. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government will consider a lower risk rating as a tradeoff for a higher cost proposal.

Table 2.1(b) Technical Risk Ratings

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Subfactor 3: Mission Support Subfactor 4: Engineering Support

Factor 2: Technical Risk (Assessed for each Technical Capability subfactor)

Factor 3: Price/Cost

2.1.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to program management. The requirement is met when:

2.1.1.1. The offeror demonstrates an understanding of the dynamic nature of launch operations (e.g. constant changes, delays, scrubs) and the impact on Facilities, Systems, Equipment, and Utilities (F/S/E/U) readiness to support the mission. Additionally, the proposed approach demonstrates the offeror’s flexibility and efficiency in reacting to new situations requiring the timely reallocation or reduction of resources.

2.1.1.2. The offeror demonstrates a management approach to enable the planning, organizing, managing, and coordinating of resources to successfully execute PWS requirements. The methodology supports stewardship, flexibility, innovation, and best practices to result in services and processes that meet PWS requirements with minimal government involvement.

2.1.1.3. The offeror demonstrates a transition which minimizes any impact of transitioning from legacy contracts and is fully capable of performing the entire PWS within 90 days from transition start.

2.1.2. Subfactor 2: Operations and Maintenance: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach for Operations and Maintenance. The requirement is met when:

2.1.2.1. The proposed approach demonstrates the capability to update MAXIMO as well as the frequency at which updates will occur.

2.1.2.2. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable approach for executing asset corrosion control for F/S/E/U.

2.1.2.3. The proposed approach demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of operating and maintaining large utility distribution systems including power, water, and wastewater.

2.1.3. Subfactor 3: Mission Support: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach for accomplishing mission support.

2.1.3.1. The requirement is met when the offeror demonstrates the following:

2.1.3.1.1. The proposed approach demonstrates how UDS process requirements will be met including the flow of the various products in response to range user programs.

2.1.3.1.2. The proposed approach demonstrates the offeror’s ability to provide munitions and flight hardware supportability and allows for immediate and real-time responsiveness to all customers.

2.1.3.1.3. The proposed approach demonstrates the ability to provide engineering, installation, operations & maintenance, configuration support for all communication systems identified in PWS Appendix B. The approach provides immediate and real-time responsiveness to all customers. The proposal includes an adequate approach to configuration of a mission control network supporting mission/launch requirements and developing mission documentation.

2.1.3.2. The proposed approach demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of operations and maintenance of wharf facilities and infrastructure, naval port crane requirements, shore services and minor repairs to docked water vessels.

2.1.4. Subfactor 4: Engineering Support: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach for Engineering Support. The requirement is met when:

2.1.4.1. The EMP outline adequately addresses, at a minimum, all work categories (Appendix E), Facility Tiers (Appendix C), Common Output Level Standard (COLS) (Appendix D), and demonstrates consistency with other sections of the EMP. The proposed approach demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of and ability to develop and implement an effective Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) program for all F/S/E/U. The sample RCM plans demonstrate the interface between engineering and O&M sections as well as an understanding of RCM for various types of systems.

2.1.4.2. The offeror demonstrates an understanding of the various work categories completed for the Work Classifications Worksheet at Attachment L-03.

2.1.4.3. The offeror’s approach demonstrates an understanding of configuration management processes and addresses documentation of drawings, documents, and software.

2.2. Factor 3 – Price/Cost: The offeror’s price/cost proposal will be evaluated to determine that the proposal is complete, balanced , reasonable, and offers downward pricing from FY 17 through FY21. This information will then be used in the tradeoff analysis to make a best value determination.

2.2.1. Complete Proposal: The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted price/cost volume. The price/cost volume shall adequately describe the offeror’s proposed accounting system, how the proposed cost was derived, and how the offeror will prevent fixed-price costs from charging under Cost line items. The proposal shall include completed versions of the TEP Worksheet (Attachment L-04) with supporting cost detail and the Labor Hour Listing (Attachment L-05). Failure to provide required narrative description, applicable worksheets or supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

2.2.2. Reasonable: The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. To be considered acceptable, the offeror’s total evaluated price must show a decline in total price for each Government fiscal year.

2.2.3. Balanced: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.2.4. Total Evaluated Price: The offeror’s price/cost proposal will be evaluated for award purposes using the total price proposed for fixed-price CLINs and the Most Probable Cost (MPC) for cost type CLINs for all 6 years plus 50% of the FY21 CLIN value (for purposes of evaluating the potential cost of an extension under 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services).

The offeror's proposed estimated costs for Cost CLINs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. A cost realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). The analysis will consist of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror's proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed under the cost reimbursable and CPFF CLINs; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(1). A MPC will be assessed. 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 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. If the Government determines an offeror's proposal to be unrealistic, the MPC will be included as part of the TEP and shall be used in the evaluation to determine best value. The combination of the proposed price (Fixed Price CLINS) and the MPC (Cost CLINs) will form the TEP.

2.2.5. Options: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-3 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-4 SOLICITATIONS 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

M-5 PAST PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Offerors past performance information will be used as a basis for the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility. Offerors must be deemed responsible to receive contract award IAW FAR 9.104.