Maxwell_BOS_-_Section_M.docx

FA3002-13-R-0012

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1.1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection. To be considered for award, the proposal must conform to all solicitation requirements and the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR 9.104-1. 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.

M.1.2. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; therefore, the initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

M.1.2.1. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., 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. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or 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.1.2.2. For the purpose of conducting evaluations, the Government will first rank all proposals by Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and then proceed with the simultaneous evaluation of Technical, Past Performance, Price and Other Contracting Considerations volumes beginning with the lowest priced offeror. If the lowest priced proposal is deemed fair and reasonable and has an acceptable rating for technical and past performance, evaluations may cease and award may be made to that Offeror without entering into discussions as this represents the best value to the Government.

M.1.2.3. If the lowest priced proposal does not have acceptable technical and/or past performance or is not deemed fair and reasonable; the Government will move on to the next lowest priced proposal and evaluate all proposal volumes simultaneously. If this offeror is deemed fair and reasonable and has an acceptable rating for technical and past performance, evaluations may cease and award may be made to that Offeror without entering into discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to evaluate all offerors proposals and also reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established. The Contracting Officer anticipates a high volume of proposals in response to this solicitation. For the purposes of efficiency and IAW FAR 15.306(c), the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to a number that will permit an efficient competition for this LPTA source selection. If the Contracting Officer determines that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of an elimination decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offeror(s) in accordance with FAR 15.503. Offeror(s) excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

M.1.2.4. 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, changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may render the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.2.1. Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following three (3) factors:

Factor 1 – Price (M.3)

Factor 2 – Technical (M.4)

Factor 3 – Past Performance (M.5) Factor 4 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (M.6)

M.2.2. Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability and will not be ranked using non-price factors/subfactors.

M.3. EVALUATION OF PRICE

M.3.1. The Government will evaluate the price and price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal IAW FAR 15.404. Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.3.1.1. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the PCO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.3.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Each Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award decision purposes. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of CLINs X001 – X064 for the base period and all option periods, to include Mobilization CLIN 0072, but will not include not-to-exceed cost reimbursable CLINs X065 – X071.

M.3.3. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government's evaluation of prices proposed for the base and all option periods will suffice to be the Government's evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

M.4. EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

M.4.1. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated utilizing the four (4) technical subfactors listed below. The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate a clear understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Failure to provide a complete proposal may reflect a lack of capability to perform the work requirements and may result in a determination that the Offeror’s proposal is “Unacceptable.” Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Subfactor a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as shown below in TABLE A-1. A rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the technical evaluation.

TABLE A-1 – Technical Ratings

M.4.1.1. Subfactor 1: MOBILIZATION APPROACH - This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s mobilization approach to ensure it facilitates full performance on the first day of contract operations. This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal meets all of the following:

M.4.1.1.1. A detailed strategy to a) recruit, b) train, and c) qualify and/or certify personnel during the 30-day mobilization period results in a 100% staffed and qualified contractor workforce fully performing on the contract start date.

M.4.1.1.2. The plan to acquire and list of Offeror-provided equipment and vehicles (quantity/type) ensures all necessary equipment and vehicles are available for use on the first day of full contract performance and will remain available for the life of the contract.

M.4.1.1.3. A realistic schedule with sound supporting rationale, fully addresses start and completion of each key scheduled event.

M.4.1.2. Subfactor 2: TECHNICAL APPROACH – This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s plan to provide a multi-functional mission support workforce. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following:

M.4.1.2.1. The proposed approaches demonstrate clear understanding of and comprehensive plans to provide: a) All Services, b) Maintenance Foreign Object Damage, c) Transient Maintenance, d) Static Display, e) Resource Management, f) Communications & Information Technology, g) Publishing, h) Installation Management, i) Operations, j) Installation Engineering, k) Emergency Management, l) Airfield Management, m) Supply, n) Transportation, o) Community Services, p) Weather.

M.4.1.2.2. The plan demonstrates the Offeror will be able to quickly adapt to new and/or changing requirements and workload while continuing to meet contract performance standards.

M.4.1.2.3. The proposed approach describes a realistic plan indicating the Offeror has thoroughly considered possible contingency scenarios and will ensure uninterrupted support of critical Maxwell mission assets if the scenarios occur.

M.4.1.3. Subfactor 3: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND STAFFING APPROACH - This Subfactor evaluates the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed staffing by shift, skill classification and work unit for the basic contract period and all option years. The proposal shall demonstrate an organizational structure that the company will employ while performing this effort. It must address lines of authority, details of onsite personnel by skill mix, function and numbers. The proposal shall provide rationale used to develop the organizational structure. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.4.1.3.1. Detailed descriptions of the proposed roles and responsibilities, to include position qualifications/descriptions for each organizational element, are sufficient to meet projected workload/PWS requirement.

M.4.1.3.2. A completed Manpower Matrix (ref: RFP, Section J, Attachment 10) for the base period and each option period adequately supports projected workload/PWS requirement.

M.4.1.3.3. Rationale to include productive hour calculations, which supports and corresponds with proposed staffing (ref: RFP Section J, Attachment 10).

M.4.1.3.4. Approach will provide continuous coverage of “critical one-deep” positions and ensure fully trained and/or certified personnel will staff the “critical one-deep” positions at all times.

M.4.1.3.5. The strategy for continuous recruitment and retention ensures an experienced labor force will be fully trained and in place for the duration of the contract.

M.4.1.3.6. The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (located in the Technical Library) is sufficient to meet projected workload/PWS requirement in terms of quantity of personnel assigned to each functional area.

M.4.1.3.7. A thorough description (if applicable) of subcontractor teaming arrangements or joint ventures satisfactorily addresses organizational relationships and responsibility divisions between the prime contractor and subcontractor(s). The cross-reference matrix clearly indicates which PWS areas particular contractors are performing.

M.4.1.4. Subfactor 4: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT/QUALITY CONTROL APPROACH – This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to performance management/quality control to meet the Government’s requirements identified in the PWS. The proposal shall demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to meet PWS requirements without introducing unacceptable risk to the program or mission. This requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal meets all of the following:

M.4.1.4.1. Internal QC strategy defines clear processes to effectively: a) identify, b) assess c) track, d) document deficiencies, trends and risks, e) develop and implement corrective actions and, f) analyze corrective action effectiveness.

M.4.1.4.2. The Quality Control organization evaluates compliance, documents deficiencies, monitors corrective actions, ensures timely problem resolution, and addresses how problem recurrence problems will be prevented.

M.4.1.4.3. Performance management approach ensures effective QC and customer relations through efficient processes, performance measurement, analysis, and data management.

M.5. EVALUATION OF PAST PERFORMANCE

M.5.1. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

M.5.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance of services that meet the solicitation requirements and how well the Offeror performed on the past/present efforts. 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.

M.5.2.1. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 20% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.5.2.2. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of the past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management, or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of the instant acquisition.

M.5.2.3. The offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for: Recency, Relevancy and Performance Quality. The Government will only evaluate Performance Quality on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant.

M.5.3. Recency Assessment. To be considered recent, performance must have occurred within the three (3) years immediately preceding the solicitation release date. Furthermore, there must be a minimum of three (3) months performance within the recency window and only performance occurring inside of the 3-year window will be considered. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M.5.4. Relevancy Assessment. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving requirements that are essentially the same, similar, or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity (including contract type) to the effort described in the solicitation requirements. In a single contract or in a combination of up to six (6) contracts, scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity will be determined by the similarity to the Offerors’ experience in the following functional areas: All Services (PWS - Section 2), Maintenance Foreign Object Damage (PWS - Section 3), Transient Maintenance, Static Display, Resource Management, Communications and Information Technology, Publishing, Installation Management, Operations, Installation Engineering, Emergency Management, Airfield Management, Supply, Transportation, Community Services, and Weather. Relevancy will be assigned a rating of ”Relevant” or “Not Relevant” based on an Offeror’s present/past performance demonstrated ability to perform these fifteen (15) functional areas. In determining the relevancy of past performance efforts, the Government may consider an Offeror’s contracts in the aggregate should the Offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an Offeror’s six (6) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in whole or in part) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a relevant rating. In this situation, work performed in aggregate will be considered in the assignment of an overall relevancy rating. The Government will use the past performance relevancy ratings and descriptions as outlined in Table A-2 below.

TABLE A-2 – Relevancy Ratings

M.5.5. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will determine how well the offeror performed on past contracts that are both recent and relevant, and, based on an integrated assessment, assign a rating of “Acceptable or “Unacceptable” as described in Table A-3 below.

TABLE A-3 - Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a) (2) (iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of Acceptability/Unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

M.5.5.1. Performance Quality Assessment. The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of recent and relevant past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Multiple ratings of less than “Satisfactory” in Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) may result in a performance quality assessment rating of “Unacceptable.” Offerors may be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address in accordance with FAR 15.306.

M.5.5.2. 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.

M.6. EVALUATION OF SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

M.6.1. The Government’s evaluation team shall evaluate the small business subcontracting plan, as applicable, on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below. A small business subcontracting plan evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

TABLE 4 - SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN ASSESSMENT

M.6.2. The Small Business Subcontracting plan is acceptable when the plan effectively describes how the Offeror will maximize participation of small business (SB), women owned small business (WOSB), historical underutilized small business (HUBzone), veteran owned small business (VOSB), service disabled veteran owned small business (SDVOSB), and small disadvantaged businesses (SDB). The standard has been met when:

M.6.2.1. A large business prime Offeror provides a clear detailed, logical and realistic plan for maximizing participation of the categories listed above. The plan shall:

M.6.2.2. Provide specific small business concern goals expressed as dollars (total contract value and subcontracting dollars), percentage of total contract value, and percentage of planned subcontract dollars for the base and all option years and be in conformance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II, DFARS 52.219-7003, and AFFARS 5319.704.

M.6.2.3. Address the requirements listed in the small business subcontracting checklist and complete the checklist provided.