19. Section M 26 April 2021.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SSP Attachment 4

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

FA252121R0005

(Note: Solicitation provisions pertaining to Section L are incorporated in the Solicitation document.)

M-I. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) acquisition and will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), DoD Source Selection

Procedures, 31 March 2016, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS), and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 1 October 2019. These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, 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 lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the services of Fire Protection, Emergency Management, and Emergency

Medical Services (FEMS) IV. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.1.2 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted 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.

M-II. EVALUATION FACTORS:

2.1 Factor 1 - Technical Capability Proposal

2.1.1 Evaluation Factor and Subfactors

Factor 1: Technical Capability Proposal

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Management of Personnel

Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation

2.1.1.1 The above evaluation factor and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. Technical acceptability will be determined at the subfactor level.

2.1.1.1.1 Technical Capability Rating: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and therefore unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will 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.

Table 2.1.1.1.1 - Technical Capability Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2.1.2 The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.1.3 Subfactor 1: Program Management. The subfactor will be rated acceptable when it demonstrates a sound, rational, effective and efficient program management approach and when the application of the proposed methodology demonstrates:

2.1.3.1 Organization:

2.1.3.1.1 Offeror demonstrates the ability to effectively integrate fire protection, emergency management and emergency medical service response IAW SOW Paragraph 1.1.

2.1.3.1.2 The organizational structure clearly provides identifiable positions and key personnel, reporting chain, clear lines of authority for execution of daily operations, and mission events.

2.1.3.1.3 Offeror provides the position description of the Fire Emergency

Service (FES) section managers and included a brief description of the qualifications (DOD/IFSAC/Pro-Board certificates are sufficient for FES personnel).

2.1.3.1.4 Offeror provides position descriptions of the Emergency

Management (EM) key personnel to include their qualifications and the functions assigned to them. Offeror demonstrates satisfactory capability explaining how the contractor will interface with team members, other range contractors, Patrick Space Force Base (PSFB) Office of Emergency

Management (OEM), Brevard County OEM, Local Emergency Planning

Council, Kennedy Space Center,and FEMS IV Program Management

Directorate IAW SOW Paragraph 1.

2.1.3.1.5 Offeror provides position descriptions of the Emergency

Medical Services (EMS) key personnel including an EMS Director that demonstrated acceptable qualifications and the EMS functions assigned to them IAW SOW Paragraph 1 and Section 1.9.8.

2.1.3.2 Contractor/Government Property:

2.1.3.2.1 Offeror provides a list of contractor provided vehicles and equipment with descriptions, types and quantities that will enable them to perform the SOW requirements specified in paragraph 5.2.2, to include ambulances for transport services 24/7/365.

2.1.3.2.2 The property management plan demonstrates an acceptable approach of managing government property IAW SOW paragraph 5.2.2.

The plan included an approach for assuming management of all

Government Furnished Property/Equipment (GFP/E) inventory prior to full contractor performance.

2.1.3.3 Phase-In:

2.1.3.3.1 Offeror demonstrates an acceptable plan to Phase-In resources and provide trained personnel with the appropriate security clearances within a 60-day Phase-In period IAW SOW Paragraph 4.1.

2.1.3.3.2 The plan provides an acceptable approach for an effective transition with the outgoing contractor, ensuring no disruption of services during the Phase-In period. The approach ensures a trained and certified workforce with the appropriate security clearances is ready prior to assumption of full responsibilities of contract requirements. The approach also included personnel Phase-In by time and labor category, and how the

“full” staffing level will be attained within the 60-days. The plan addressed employee training/orientation activities and acceptable plan for obtaining necessary security clearances prior to assumption of full responsibilities of contract requirements.

2.1.4 Subfactor 2: Management of Personnel. The subfactor will be rated acceptable when it demonstrates a sound, rational, effective, and efficient approach to management of personnel, and when the application of the proposed methodology demonstrates:

2.1.4.1 Offeror demonstrates the ability to establish staffing levels with the necessary skill-mix for execution of staffing day-to-day operations and mission events which facilitate meeting response times over the life of the contract IAW the SOW Paragraph 1.9.

2.1.4.2 Offeror provides a detailed explanation and/or matrix showing the proposed number of shifts, and number of personnel per shift, for staffing each of the three fire districts at the acceptable level of service. Includes proper Aircraft

Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF), EMS, Hazmat full response structural response levels, confined space response, technical and high angle rescue response IAW paragraph 1.9 of the SOW to meet response times (24/7) to all areas of Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS).

2.1.4.3 Offeror demonstrates the ability to maintain a qualified EOC Manager and EM Analyst for 24 hour operations for extended periods up to 7 days IAW

SOW Paragraph 1.14.

2.1.4.4 Offeror demonstrates an overall training approach (initial and recurring) that addresses contractor and subcontractor employees and ensures the workforce is technically qualified IAW SOW Paragraph 1.10.

2.1.4.5 Offeror demonstrates the ability to adhere to all required medical standards of care on medical responses in accordance with Brevard County protocols and Florida State Statutes IAW SOW Paragraph 1.9.8.

2.1.4.6 Offeror demonstrates the ability to prepare and maintain a Quality

Control Plan to meet the Compliance Checklist, solicitation Attachment 15, SOW

1.6.1, 1.9, and 1.10.

2.1.4.7 Offeror provides an acceptable strike/staffing contingency plan, which demonstrates a comprehensive approach for continuing contract performance in the event of a labor strike or staffing shortfall IAW SOW Paragraph 1.1.

2.1.5 Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation. The subfactor will be rated acceptable when it illustrates sound, rational, effective and efficient small business participation utilization.

2.1.5.1 All offerors (both other than small businesses (large) and small businesses) will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use small business(es) as defined by 13 CFR 121 in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein. The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror meets/does not meet the requirements as set forth in Section L and is acceptable or unacceptable.

2.1.5.2 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD): The offeror’s proposal was submitted using the format and tables as specified in

Section L and was provided labeled “Volume I, Subfactor 3 – Small Business

Participation”.

2.1.5.2.1 Prime Offeror’s Size: The offeror’s proposal identified the applicable size and applicable socioeconomic categories for the PRIME offeror only, using the NAICS specified in this solicitation.

2.1.5.2.2 Associated MQR Participation: The offeror’s proposal provided minimum quantitative small business participation in terms of the percentage and dollar value of the total acquisition value (proposed total contract value) for each business category as specified in Section L, Table 2.1.3.3 and Government Minimum Quantitative Requirement

(MQR) Percentages specified in Table 2.1.3.3 below:

Table 2.1.5.2.2 Government Small Business MQR Percentages

Business Size MQR Sub Percentage Base Period

MQR Sub Percentage

All Option Periods (Independently)

Small Business 12% 12%

Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

8% 8%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

1% 1%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

1% 1%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

3% 3%

AbilityOne (Non-Profit) Small Business1

.01% .01%

Note 1: DFARS 219.703 - Eligibility requirements for participating in the program. Qualified nonprofit agencies for the blind and other severely disabled, that have been approved by the

Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled under the Javits-

Wagner-O’Day Act (41 U.S.C. 46-48), are eligible to participate in the program as a result of 10

U.S.C. 2410d and Section 9077 of Pub. L. 102-396 and similar sections in subsequent Defense appropriations acts. Under this authority, subcontracts awarded to such entities may be counted toward the prime contractor’s small total small business goal.

2.1.5.2.3 Small Business Concerns (SBC): The offeror’s proposal provided all required information and back up documentation as specified in Section L, Paragraph 2.1.3.4 and Table 2.1.3.4 to demonstrate which

Small Business Concern(s) as defined in FAR Part 19 are specifically identified to satisfy requirements of the solicitation for the entire performance period.

2.1.5.2.4 Description of Efforts: The proposal demonstrates the extent to which the offeror provides a description of efforts to assure that small business concerns, to include all socio-economic small business categories and nonprofit agencies that are associated with the AbilityOne Program will have equal opportunity to compete for subcontracts under any resulting contract.

2.1.5.2.5 Extent of Commitment: The proposal demonstrates the extent of the offeror plans to develop additional subcontracting opportunities for small, small disadvantaged and other socio-economic categories, and nonprofit agencies that are associated with the AbilityOne Program over the life of the contract and to correct any participation deficiencies during the course of contract performance.

2.1.5.3 Performance Data: The proposal demonstrates the understanding of the type of performance data that will be accumulated and provided regarding support of small business and socio-economic business categories during the period of contract performance. The proposal demonstrates a quarterly status reporting document as specified in Section L, Paragraph 2.1.3.8 Subcontracting Plan.

2.1.5.4 Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small

Business Program objectives. The offeror’s Small Business Participation shall be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable as it pertains to Paragraph 2.1.5. An

Unacceptable rating makes the proposal unawardable.

2.1.5.5 Subcontracting Plan: The subcontracting plan will not be evaluated as part of the source selection determination; however, Other Than Small

Business (Large) offeror shall provide the Small Business Subcontracting Plan at time of proposal. The contracting officer shall determine whether the plan is acceptable based on the negotiation of each of the 15 elements of the plan (see

FAR 19.704) prior to contract award. Subcontracting Plans shall be submitted as part of Volume III, Administrative Documents and Completed Solicitation

Documents.

1036748857C Highlight

1036748857C Highlight

1036748857C Highlight

1036748857C Highlight

1036748857C Highlight

2.2 Factor 2 - Price: The price shall be complete, reasonable, and balanced. The Government reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from competition if unreasonable. Proposals determined not to be complete, reasonable, balanced, and/or balanced will result in the offeror being deemed unacceptable for award.

2.2.1 Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable and/or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

2.2.1.1 Complete: The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted price volume. Any proposal which fails to conform to the requirements or specification in the solicitation may be considered ineligible for award.

Proposals should be complete and clear and not require additional explanation of information. The Government may make a final determination as to whether a proposal is acceptable or unacceptable based solely on the proposal as presented and submitted.

2.2.1.2 Reasonable: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Reasonableness will be based on an evaluation of the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be the total/sum of all proposed prices for separately priced line items CLINS 1001-

1005, 2001-2005, 3001-3005, 4001-4005, 5001-5005, 6001-6005 (option to extend services). For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. The evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(c), as determined appropriate, may also be performed in further determining the reasonableness of the proposal.

2.2.1.3 Balanced: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with the respect to separately priced line items. An offer may be rejected if the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.