Attachment_M-01_Section_M,_Amendment_0002.pdf

FA2521-19-R-A017 0002, Attachment M-01

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

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-I. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. 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 in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

1.2. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the Ascension Island Mission Services. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

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 FPRs are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-II. EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume 1 – Factor 1 –Technical

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factor and subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings

Combined) Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Non-Mission Support Services Subfactor 3: Mission Support Services

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance, when combined are approximately equal to Cost or Price in accordance with FAR 15.304(e).

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Ratings: The Technical evaluation provides for a combined technical/risk rating.

2.2.1. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The Combined Technical/Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described Table 2.1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Method, excerpted below. The risk rating definitions are described in Table 2.2 – Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. The technical 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/Risk factor combined. 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.

Technical capability will consist of three subfactors (as shown above), to be evaluated separately. All three subfactors are equal in importance. The possible ratings for all subfactors include outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal and unacceptable.

Table 2.1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method 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.

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.

Table 2.2. Technical Risk Rating Method 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.

2.2.2. Subfactor 1 – Program Management: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach to program management. The standard is met when:

2.2.2.1. The organization chart and staffing plan describes an acceptable approach which demonstrates a thorough understanding of necessary workforce size, roles, qualifications, the staffing/skill (job classification)/shift summary matrix, key personnel experience management of subcontractors (if any), and a solution that mitigates the risk associated with turn over or any proposed one deep critical positions.

2.2.2.2. The offeror provides a detailed and acceptable phase-in/transition plan that complies with the requirements in the PWS, minimizes any impact of transitioning from legacy contracts, and is fully capable of performing the entire PWS within 90 days from transition start.

2.2.2.3. The offeror provides a detailed and acceptable approach to manage a foreign national workforce in a foreign remote environment and interface with Host Nation representatives.

2.2.2.4. The offeror provides a detailed and acceptable quality control program approach that implements procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services.

2.2.3. Subfactor 2 – Non-Mission Support Services: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach for successfully accomplishing non-mission support. The standard is met when:

2.2.3.1. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable, detailed, and knowledgeable approach to perform civil engineering services to extend facility lifespan and assist with identifying and forecasting critical infrastructure and equipment replacement.

2.2.3.2. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable, detailed, and knowledgeable approach to perform base airfield services which maximizes airfield availability and safety of flight.

2.2.3.3. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable, detailed, and knowledgeable approach to perform bioenvironmental, medical, and public health services which provide a wide range of capabilities to prevent and treat diseases, illnesses and medical emergencies.

2.2.3.4. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable, detailed, and knowledgeable approach to perform communication and network services at a remote location with limited SATCOM bandwidth.

2.2.4. Subfactor 3 – Mission Support Services: This subfactor evaluates the proposed approach for successfully accomplishing mission support. The standard is met when:

2.2.4.1. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable and detailed approach to perform 24/7 space object tracking mission, as well as, concurrent telemetry operations.

2.2.4.2. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable and detailed approach to perform maintenance and calibration functions for radar and telemetry systems to successfully meet the service summary item objective #14 Availability Operational (Ao) threshold of 90%.

2.2.4.3. The offeror demonstrates an acceptable and detailed approach to restore mission systems to Fully Mission Capable (FMC) status after a system becomes inoperable or experiences a catastrophic failure.

M-III. EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume 2 - Factor 2 – Past Performance:

3.1. Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

3.1.1. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 3.1 Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 3.1 Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival 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.

3.1.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror, Major Subcontractors, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture Partners’ recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor for those requirements that they are proposed to perform. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

3.1.2.1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.1.2.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information performed by the Offeror, Major Subcontractors, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture Partners obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor for those requirements that they are proposed to perform. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including Major Subcontractors, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture Partners. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, major subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance provided from sources other than the Offeror, Major Subcontractors, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture Partners or for work that they are not proposed to perform will not be evaluated. The Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The relevancy of the work performed on past and present efforts will be assessed for the areas described in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 – Relevancy. Present/past performance citation is similar to the scope, magnitude and complexities when each subfactor of Program Management, Non-Mission Support Services, and Mission Support Services has been met in that relevancy area.

3.1.2.3. Quality of Services Assessment. The Government will consider information from customers on how well the offeror performed on past contract citations.

For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services, the work performed, will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality of services assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality of services assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

3.1.3. Assigning Performance Confidence Assessments Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality of services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence

Program Management Non-Mission Support Services Mission Support Services

Magnitude of at least $15M annually or greater on a single Base

Operations Support contract

Operated a Base Service Contract which includes civil engineering, facility maintenance, dining hall, fire protection, airfield operations, and motor pool functions

Provided radar operations and maintenance

And And And

Managed foreign laborers Perform OCONUS Logistic Operations (supply, shipping, procurement)

Telemetry operations and maintenance

And Staff greater than 80 employees

Program Management Non-Mission Support Services Mission Support Services

Magnitude at least $10M annually on a single Base Operations Support contract

Provided at least three of the following:

civil engineering, facility maintenance, dining hall, fire protection, airfield operations, or motor pool functions

Provided radar operations and maintenance

And And

Staff greater than 80 employees Perform OCONUS or CONUS Logistic

Operations (supply, shipping, procurement)

Program Management Non-Mission Support Services Mission Support Services

Managed a contract of at least $5M annually on a single Base Operations

Support contract

Provided at least two of the following:

civil engineering, facility maintenance, dining hall, fire protection, airfield operations, or motor pool functions

Operate and Maintain mission equipment on a DoD test range operations and maintenance contract providing services of at least $1M annually

Very Relevant

Relevant

Somewhat Relevant

NOT RELEVANT: did not meet any of the above very relevant, relevant, and somewhat relevant definitions assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 3.1 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

3.2. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contract citations deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

Table 3.4 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Adjectival 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.

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 or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Communication 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.

M-IV. EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume 3 - Factor 3 – Cost/Price:

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated to determine that the proposal is complete, reasonable, realistic and balanced. This information will then be used in the tradeoff analysis to make a best value determination.

The cost volume will be evaluated in two parts. The Preliminary Cost/Price Data Proposal will be evaluated to assist in determining the initial competitive range, and the Complete Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated to make a best value determination.

4.1. Complete Proposal: The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted cost/price volume. The cost/price volume shall address all Section L Paragraph 4.1.

Volume 3 requirements (both the Preliminary Cost/Price and Complete Cost/Price proposals).

The proposal shall include completed versions of the Cost/Price Workbook with supporting cost detail and the Labor Rate Listings. Failure to provide required narrative description, applicable worksheets or supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

4.2. Due With Initial Submission: Preliminary Cost/Price Proposal:

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume 3, Cost/Price Proposal for completeness (paragraph 4.1 above), reasonableness (paragraph 4.2.1.) and balance (paragraph 4.2.2.) to assist with determining the competitive range.

4.2.1. Reasonableness: 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.

4.2.2. Balanced: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs and separately priced line items IAW 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.

4.3. Due With Initial EN Submission: Complete Cost/Price Proposal:

For offerors in the competitive range, the Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume 3, Cost/Price Proposal for completeness (paragraph 4.1 above), reasonableness, balance and cost realism. This information will then be used in the tradeoff analysis to make a best value determination. A total evaluated price will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 4.3.4. The cost/price volume shall adequately describe the offeror’s proposed accounting system, how the proposed cost was derived, and measures to prevent cost mischarging. The proposal shall include completed versions of the Cost/Price Workbook with supporting cost detail and the Labor Rate Listings. Failure to provide required narrative description, applicable worksheets or supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

4.3.1. Reasonableness: 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.

4.3.2. Balanced: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs and separately priced line items IAW 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.

4.3.3. Cost Mischarging Prevention Plan: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed method of preventing the improper allocation of cost between fixed price and cost CLINs or movement of direct labor costs to indirect cost pools, to include subcontractor methods (if applicable). To be acceptable, the offeror’s prevention measures must demonstrate established procedures for proper cost allocation, ability to provide documentation of the work performed (to include labor category and employee identification) for labor hours charged to cost CLINs and provide an internal audit process for identifying and correcting incorrect labor charges. Failure to present an acceptable plan may cause the offer to be rejected.

4.3.4. Total Evaluated Price: The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes using the total price proposed for fixed-price CLINs and the Probable Cost (PC) for cost type CLINs for all five years plus 50% of the FY25 CLIN value (for purposes of evaluating the potential cost of an extension under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services).

The offeror's proposed estimated costs for Cost CLINs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes.

For FFP CLIN X014 (Project CLIN) an estimated value will be evaluated as part of the TEP only; however, after award the Government will not be liable for the estimated amount of the Project CLIN and will only be liable for projects separately negotiated. Do not apply any indirect rates to this amount. Any profit/fee will be factored separately when a project is negotiated.

4.3.5. Cost Realism: 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 PC will be assessed. The PC reflects the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the offeror's proposal. The PC 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 PC 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 PC (Cost CLINs) will form the TEP.

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

4.3.7. Professional Employee Compensation Plan: The professional employee compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this professional employee compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

M-IV. EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume 4 – Administrative Documents

5.1. Solicitation 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. Should an Offeror taken any exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the Offeror must clearly identify any such exception(s) and explain why the offeror is taking said exception(s).

5.2. 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.

5.3. 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.

5.4. Mission-Essential Contractor Services

The Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and DFARS 252.237-7024 will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and the PWS.