Attachment M-01 Section M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 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.

A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered approximately equal to cost/price. 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. 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.

Factor 1: Technical Capability Program Management (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Factor 2: Past Performance* Factor 3: Cost/Price* *Relative Importance of Factors - The relative importance of each factor is as follows:

Past Performance is approximately equal to Cost/Price.

1.2. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.3. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. Offeror responses to evaluation notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment M-01 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 increase the risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.4. 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 capacity to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2. Technical Factor

2.1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the factors and subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) and all attachments and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks.

2.2. Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating: Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirements. The term “technical” as used herein, refers to factors other than past performance and cost/price. The Government will not search for data to solve problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals as “Acceptable/Unacceptable”. The rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” will be based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards along with meeting the evaluation criteria standards to include technical risk.

Technical risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document whether it is acceptable or unacceptable. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating for the Technical Capability Factor. A finding of “Unacceptable” for the factor will render the proposal Technically Unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

2.3. Technical Factor: Program Management. The proposals shall be evaluated against whether the proposed program management approach provides:

2.3.1. Subfactor 1. Organization. Offeror’s proposal includes an organizational chart and staffing plan that demonstrate a sound organizational structure that defines responsibilities of all organizational elements. Offeror’s organizational chart defines a hierarchical structure of positions proposed by the offeror to include supervisory functional roles and relationships. Offeror’s staffing plan provides overall proposed staffing levels (rolled up by labor category title), broken down by work area and function. Offeror’s proposal demonstrates compliance with the Key Personnel requirements identified in the ABOS PWS.

2.3.2. Subfactor 2. Resource Management. Offeror’s proposal includes a filled-out ABOS Staffing Matrix (see RFP Attachment L-04) which defines adequate staffing levels and skills to accomplish program requirements in alignment with the PWS that enables organizing, managing, and coordinating of resources.

Staffing Matrix differs from staffing plan by providing a breakdown of proposed labor for each category by CLIN. Total proposed staffing identified in the staffing plan for each labor category matches the Staffing Matrix breakdown for each category. Offeror’s Staffing Matrix identifies any variance in labor hours by labor category and performance year. Offeror’s proposal includes a narrative explanation for variance in labor hours across performance years. Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach to managing personnel in a manner conducive to executing a fluctuating workload driven by quick-response requirements of the PWS that represents an acceptable level of risk. The proposal provides an acceptable approach to manage any variance between staffed Full Time Equivalents captured under FFP CLINs and labor called up via work orders under CPFF CLINs (Reference Attachment 19 – ABOS Workload Indicators).

2.3.3. Subfactor 3. Transition Plan. The offeror provides an outline for transition (separate from the detailed transition plan required post-award IAW the

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL 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.

ABOS PWS) which demonstrates the ability to achieve full performance within 90 days from start of the transition period (IAW PWS para. 1.11).

2.3.4. Subfactor 4 – Foreign National Workforce. Provide an acceptable approach to manage a foreign national workforce in a foreign remote environment, and interface with Host Nation representatives (IAW PWS paragraph 1.10.).

3. Volume II – Factor 2 Past Performance

3.1 General: Past performance information will be evaluated for the offeror and any member of the offeror’s team for which a FACTS sheet is submitted. The Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

3.2. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e., a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the Government will evaluate an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself.

The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.2.1. Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the Government will base evaluations on the total dollar value and total period of performance for each order in the series. Caution:

The Government will not evaluate a series that does not have the same continuous technical scope that demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.3. Past Performance Assessment: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. (Note: To be rated other than neutral for Performance Confidence Assessment there must be at least one citation submitted from the offeror.) The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to provide support that meets the requirements of the ABOS PWS, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent, relevant and overall quality of past performance information that pertains to the product or services outlined in the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation will consider the recency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, general trends in the offeror’s performance, the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of any corrective actions taken, and the offeror's overall performance record.

3.3.1. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

3.3.2. Adverse Past Performance. Adverse is defined as Past Performance Information (PPI) that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse PPI to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3.4. Recency Definition: An assessment of the PPI will be made to determine if it is recent. For the purpose of this source selection, recent present/past performance is defined as contracts performed within 5 years from the issuance of this solicitation, so long as the effort has/had been on-going for at least a 365-day period. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.5. Relevancy Definition: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed to be performed under ABOS. Relevancy will be rated for all citations based on the criteria identified in Table 2, Relevancy Rating Method. e.g., An offeror who submits three citations – Citation A demonstrates relevancy criteria #1 and #2, Citation B demonstrates relevancy criteria #2 and #3, and Citation C demonstrates relevancy criteria #4 and #5 – this offeror would demonstrate performance in total 5 separate relevancy criteria, leading to a relevancy rating of Relevant. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevance.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method* Very Relevant To be considered very relevant, Past Performance (PP) experience is demonstrated in 7 or more of the 8 criteria below.

Relevant To be considered relevant, Past Performance (PP) experience is demonstrated in 4 to 6 of the 8 criteria below.

Somewhat Relevant To be considered somewhat relevant, Past Performance (PP) experience is demonstrated in 2 to 3 of the 8 criteria below.

Not Relevant To be considered not relevant, Past Performance (PP) experience is demonstrated in 0 to 1 of the 8 criteria below.

1. Experience providing Facilities, Systems, Equipment and Utilities (F/S/E/U) O&M support and experience operating and maintaining redundant complex utility systems including electrical, water and wastewater treatment systems.

2. Experience managing and operating a Medical Clinic to include a CLOA or DoDDI 6440.02 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Program (CLIP) accredited Laboratory.

3. Experience providing Air & Sea lift support to include Air Criteria - Air Traffic Control, Airfield Management/Operations support. Sea Criteria – Coordinate for Logistics to scheduling, loading and preparing cargo shipment.

4. Experience operating and implementing a crash recovery fire station to include EMS operations.

5. Experience in operating and maintaining Classified and Unclassified Communications systems to include Administrative Communications and Outside Cable Plant.

6. Experience managing and operating Lodging and Dining services.

7. Experience managing a workforce of more than 100 personnel with varying skill mixes.

8. Experience performing to contract requirements and managing a foreign national workforce in a foreign remote environment or OCONUS location.

* All eight categories are of equal importance.

3.6. Performance Confidence Assessment: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3, will be assigned as a whole to the Past Performance factor of the offeror’s proposal. (Note: To be rated other than neutral for Performance Confidence Assessment there must be at least one recent and relevant citation submitted from the offeror. Additionally: If the Government does not receive PPQs for an offeror, the Government may rate the offeror as Neutral or not as highly as a result of having less past performance information on the offeror.) More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown 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. Past performance of the offeror will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of a subcontractor.

TABLE 3 - 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.

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.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

3.6.1. No Performance Record: Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

4. Volume III – Factor 3 Cost/Price

4.1. General: Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price.

Offerors whose cost/price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4.1.1. Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the consistency of information throughout the cost workbook. For example, but not limited to, labor rates proposed at the CLIN level shall be consistent with those proposed on the Labor Rates Listing.

4.1.2. Reasonableness. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm if it is reasonable. 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see

FAR 31.201-3.

4.1.3. Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed costs for cost CLINs only. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical Factor.

4.1.3.1. Probable Cost (PC). 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 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and shall be used in the evaluation to determine best value.

4.1.4. Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs, and separately and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404.

4.1.5. TEP. The TEP is the sum of the proposed price (Fixed Price CLINs) and the PC (Cost CLINs) for all years, including options. More specifically, the TEP will be the total sum of all CLIN worksheets in the Cost/Price workbook with the cost-type CLINs adjusted to reflect probable cost for all 9 years plus 50% of Ordering Year (OY) 9 for OY10 (6 months). The 6-month option to extend shall be calculated equal to OY10, for purposes of evaluating the potential cost of an extension under 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. For FFP CLIN X008 (Project CLIN) 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 Projects CLIN and will only be liable for the use of projects when task orders are separately negotiated. Do not apply any indirect rates to this amount. Any profit/fee will be factored separately when a project is negotiated.

FA2521-22-R-0011, Attachment M-01 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

4.2. 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.

5. Volume IV – Administrative Volume

5.1. Contractor Responsibility: 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.

5.2. 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 take any exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offerors must clearly identify any such exception(s) to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale to explain why it is taking said exception(s).

5.3. Mission Essential Services Plan: 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.

5.4. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI): The offeror’s mitigation plan shall describe how it will adequately mitigate PWS paragraphs 2.5.8.1. and 2.5.11.6. and any other potential OCIs. Failure to submit an adequate plan or include a statement of assurance that no plan is required, may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.