4MS-Draft_Section_M-20160630.pdf

RFP FA2550-16-R-8004, Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award Section M

4th Mission Support (MS) for the 50th Space Wing

RFP FA2550-16-R-8004

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award. This source selection is utilizing a Best Value source selection strategy in accordance with the FAR §15.101-2, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) §215.3, the DOD Source Selection Procedures, the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) §5315.3, and Air Force Mandatory Procedure (MP) MP5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR §15.306. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR §9.104, as supplemented; meet all requirements of the RFP; and conform to all required terms and conditions. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, this source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.0 Evaluation Process. Technical Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability based upon offeror’s responses to the Factors, Subfactors and Scenarios contained in Section L of this solicitation. Failure of a Subfactor may render an unacceptable rating for the Factor. Any unacceptable Factor rating may render the proposal unacceptable. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness, affordability and balance.

3.0 Number of Contracts to Be Awarded. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the 4MS acquisition.

3.1 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government may eliminate from the competitive range any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence, or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks associated with the requirements of the solicitation.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

4.1 Technical Proposal. During the evaluation process, the Government will base its evaluation on the responses to the associated Factors/Subfactors contained in Section L. Each of the offeror’s responses to the scenarios and technical criteria will be evaluated against the descriptions provided in Section L.

4.2 EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS

Proposals will be evaluated using three Factors: (1) Technical Scenarios, (2) Technical Approach and (3) Cost/Price. There are eight (8) subfactors under the Technical Scenario’s. There are two (2) subfactors under the Technical Approach (A) Staffing Plan, (B) PWS Technical Approach. Evaluation factors/subfactors other than cost/price, when combined, are more important than cost/price. This is a highly technical requirement and technical ability is paramount to the success of the contract.

The technical rating reflects whether the Offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements of the PWS. The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals by assigning one of the ratings described in Section M, Tables 4 A, B or C for each subfactor. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” or “Fail” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Any subfactor evaluated at “Marginal” may result in removal from the competitive range.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, and within the Government’s budget will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this contract effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the established Factors/subfactors. All evaluation factors/subfactors other than Price are more important than Price.

Table 4A Technical Scenarios and Staffing Plan Pass/Fail Table

RATING DESCRIPTION

Pass Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

4.3.1 Technical Proposal List of Evaluation Factors

4.3.1.1 - FACTOR 1 – Technical Scenarios (PASS/Fail) See attachment L-1 (Note: Scenarios will be provided fifteen days prior to proposal submission to simulate a “real world” event.)

The offeror shall respond to all Scenarios presented in Attachment L-1. The responses shall include sufficient detail to demonstrate both an understanding of, and an effective systematic approach toward resolving, clarifying, troubleshooting, testing, and/or identifying products and/or procedures to effectively and efficiently respond to the issues/questions presented in the scenarios. The responses shall include the methodology, logic and/or details that would be used for accomplishing/satisfying the issues identified in the technical scenarios/subfactors.

4.3.1.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Milstar/AEHF Operational Communications Tactical Support (Supt) Services (Pass/Fail) (Scenario 1)

4.3.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Milstar/AEHF Operational Communications Strategic Supt Services (Pass/Fail) (Scenario 2)

4.3.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Milstar/AEHF Operational Communications Operational Tool and Technical Supt Services (Pass/Fail) (Scenario 3)

4.3.1.1.4 Subfactor 4: Milstar/AEHF Operational Communications In-depth Tool Supt and Structured Query Language Query Services (Pass/Fail) (Scenario 4)

4.3.1.1.5 Subfactor 5: SATCOM System Expert Operations Supt/PBWO (Pass/Fail) (Scenario 5)

4.3.1.1.6 Subfactor 6 - 7: Milstar/AEHF COMSEC Operations Crypto Planning (Pass/Fail) (Scenario 6 & 7)

4.3.1.1.7 Subfactor 8: Milstar and AEHF System Technical Services Training (Pass/Fail) (Scenario 8)

4.3.1.2 - FACTOR 2 – Technical Approach - Understanding, Innovation & Efficiencies

4.3.1.2.1 Subfactor 1: Staffing Plan (Pass/Fail) See Attachment L-3

Skill mix and cross-utilization of personnel.

This subfactor will be evaluated on an acceptable submission that demonstrates an effective approach to sufficient staffing to perform the requirements in the PWS.

4.3.1.2.2 Subfactor 2: PWS Technical Approach (Separate Technical Rating Method & Separate Risk Rating Method)

The government will evaluate the offeror's proposed approach to determine their understanding of the 4MS PWS Section 1.2 requirements to include any innovation and efficiencies. The government will rate offeror’s proposal utilizing two separate rating methods, Technical Rating method (Table 4B) and Technical Risk Rating method using Table 4C below.

Table 4B. Technical Rating Method Color

Rating Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Table 4C. 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.

FACTOR 3 – Cost Price (Reasonable, Affordable & Balanced)

5.0 Price Evaluation. Price will be evaluated using, the techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 and FAR §22.1103 to ensure the Government receives a fair and reasonable price. The Price evaluation assesses each offeror’s proposed total price for the phase-in, basic contract and all options, as applicable and evaluates each offeror’s proposal for reasonableness. An assessment that the proposal is not reasonable will result in the offeror being considered unacceptable for award. The burden of proof for price reasonableness rests with the offeror. Price reasonableness will be evaluated with the following information:

5.1 Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent to the Government a price that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price competition. For additional information see FAR §31.201-3 and FAR §22.1103.

5.2 Total Evaluated Price. The total evaluated price will be evaluated as the sum of the proposed prices for all CLINs identified in section B, except CLIN 6001-Phase-In. However, CLIN 6001 will be evaluated IAW paragraphs 5.1 for reasonableness. Pursuant to FAR Clause §52.217-8”Option to Extend Services”, offerors shall price at fifty percent (50%) of the last option period price to evaluate the option to extend services for CLIN(s) 5001-5004. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.