IFT_Section_M_15Oct_15_DRAFT.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive, best value, full tradeoff source selection that will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315.3, and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. The Offeror’s proposal shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration.

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror: 1) who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented; 2) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and 3) who is judged to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror whose proposal provides the greatest value to the Government in meeting, or exceeding, the IFT requirements.

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance, of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed-Price contract for the IFT program.

1.2 Discussions. The CO intends to hold discussions to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value. 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.2.1. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information, or information to determine responsibility) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted with regard to responsibility matters, adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions.

1.3 Competitive Range. In order to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further 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; therefore, it is the intent of the Government to only include the three highest rated proposals in the competitive range. This determination will be made by the SSA after conclusion of the initial evaluations. The SSA reserves the right to include additional proposals above the three highest rated if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government and can still permit an efficient competition. If the SSA 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 this decision will be provided to unsuccessful offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503.

1.4 Site Visits. The Government reserves the right to conduct site visits. If site visits are determined to be necessary, the visits will be conducted only with offerors whose proposals are included in the competitive range. The site visit team may include subject matter experts (SME) in flying training, aircraft maintenance, environmental, services, security and/or contracting. Site visits will last approximately two to three days. Offerors who will receive a site visit will be informed in writing in advance of the time and date the site visit will occur. The intent of the site visit is to allow the SMEs an opportunity to validate information received in the technical proposals. The results will be incorporated as part of the technical evaluation. The site visit team will utilize a common set of criteria to evaluate each offeror’s proposed training facilities. The site visit criteria will include verification of services/facilities proposed under the Technical subfactors, and will be developed and provided to all offerors in the competitive range prior to the site visits.

1.5 Evaluation Factors for Award

Evaluation of offers will be made IAW the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following four factors:

Factor 1: Price Factor 2: Technical

Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Small Business Participation

1.6 Relevant Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical is significantly more important than either Past Performance or Price. Past Performance is more important than Price. Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. All technical subfactors are equal in importance except for Integrated Operations which is deemed more important than the other four factors combined. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

1.7 Full tradeoff, as defined for this acquisition, allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price. The Government’s determination on how much more it will pay for a higher rated proposal with regard to technical, past performance and/or both, will be determined through a subjective assessment after consideration of the level of benefit the Government could expect as compared to the higher price. The Government is not required to pay what the Government perceives to be a substantial amount more for higher rated proposals if it is determined that it is not in the Government’s best interest to do so. The Government may trade up from an “Unknown Confidence” or from a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating. The Government will not award a contract to an offeror that is rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

2.0 FACTOR 1: PRICE

2.1 The Government shall evaluate the price proposal and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of each proposal. The price proposal and TEP will be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness. The Wage Determinations (WD) and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) submitted based on the proposed location(s) will be reviewed to determine that the correct WDs and CBAs for the proposed location(s) were submitted with the proposal.

2.2 Total Evaluated Price. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. For the CLIN (X001) that requires pricing for multiple levels of service through Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs), the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) will be used for the purposes of establishing the TEP. The proposed price for each ELIN other than the BEQ will not be used in establishing the TEP. Each of these ELINs will however be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness.

2.3 Completeness. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, Volume I. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete. Submission of an incomplete Price Model as set forth in Section L, or including pricing information/data elsewhere in the proposal will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of this solicitation and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

2.4 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices 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.

2.5 Reasonableness. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness. If adequate price competition has been determined by the CO not to be present, a cost analysis may be conducted. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.6 The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional six 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.

3.0 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL

3.1 Mobilization, Staffing, Security and Environmental Impact will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as being rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” 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. Explanations of the ratings are in the Technical Ratings Table 1 below.

TECHNICAL RATINGS – Table 1

3.2 Integrated Operations will be evaluated using a best value process and provides for two distinct but related assessments: The Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of this subfactor.

3.2.1 Technical Rating. The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Integrated Operations subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures Technical Ratings Table 2 below. The ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of minimum PWS requirements. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. This Subfactor rating will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TECHNICAL RATINGS – Table 2

demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

3.2.2 Technical Risk Rating. The Government will make an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.2.3 The Government will assign a Technical Risk rating described in the Technical Risk Ratings Table 3 below, for the Integrated Operations Subfactor. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the IFT requirement. Ratings are only assigned at the subfactor level. The Technical Subfactor risk rating for Integrated Operations will not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the Technical Factor. For any identified Offeror risks, the Government will consider the Offeror’s identified risk and the Offeror’s proposed mitigation in the evaluation. Identified risks by the Offeror will be part of the Government’s assessment; Offeror silence on risk does not constitute the absence of risk.

Technical Risk Ratings – Table 3

3.3 Subfactor 1: Mobilization

The proposal for Mobilization should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding and ability to plan, coordinate, and implement a program of this scale during the six-month mobilization period. The mobilization milestones will be evaluated to determine the rationale and feasibility of an offeror’s proposal. The offeror’s methods of acquiring airplanes, facilities, Primary/ Auxiliary fields, flying training areas and routes, supplies and equipment; hiring and training personnel; and developing courseware, curriculum, and programs will be evaluated for practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness.

3.4 Subfactor 2: Staffing

The proposal for Staffing should demonstrate the offeror’s proposed personnel structure and administration of their labor force. The Government will evaluate offeror’s proposed methods to recruit, train, and retain a qualified labor force that will execute the IFT requirement. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed labor mix, back filling plan, surge plan, and cross utilization to determine rationale and feasibility.

3.4.1 Quality Control. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s quality control plan (QCP) to assess the offeror’s ability to identify and prevent deficiencies in the quality of services performed before the level of performance becomes unacceptable. The QCP clearly identifies that it is the contractor and not the Government that is responsible for quality control. The Government will evaluate proposals to ensure offeror has a clear understanding of the primary areas of importance pertaining to quality control located in the PWS Services Summary section. Key evaluation areas include: areas of inspection, inspection process and frequency; identification, notification and resolution of deficiencies; response to routine, urgent and emergency discrepancy notices; timely response and resolution of corrective action; and follow-up process to ensure non-recurrence.

3.4.2 The Government will evaluate the proposed quality control program for Offeror understanding, practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness.

3.4.3 Example(s) were provided that adequately demonstrates that the offeror has experience with implementing quality control to meet contractual requirements.

3.5 Subfactor 3: Security

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for providing a physical security system to ensure the approach achieves the necessary levels of protection for a flying training program of this scope and scale. The offeror’s security program will also be evaluated based on the specific threat level at proposed training location(s) to ensure the offeror’s approach satisfactorily achieves the necessary levels of protection for those locations and mitigates threats.

3.6 Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations

3.6.1 Measure of Merit. Measures of Merit for this subfactor are measurements that provide the Offeror the ability to demonstrate a strength in a given area. However, the evaluation of this subfactor does not limit the evaluation team from assigning a strength in other areas not specifically mentioned in a Measure of Merit.

Measure of Merit:

An overall Measure of Merit may be given for all combined elements of this subfactor if those combined elements demonstrate an exceptional approach to foster a more proficient, safe and effective means of training.

3.6.2 Flight Training. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to meet the PWS flight training requirements in a UFT-like environment. The proposal must also demonstrate effective measures for handling fluctuations in student loads. The Government will assess the offeror’s approach based on feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness. Flow-chart provided accurately depicts a viable concept to implement academic, ground and flying training models and clearly shows that the offeror understands the requirement.

3.6.3 Airfields and Operations. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s concept of operations for utilizing proposed primary and auxiliary airfields as well as flight training areas and routes to include validation of the completed letters of agreement. The emergency response services at each of the proposed airfields will also be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the proposed concepts and emergency response for rationale, feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, effectiveness and safety.

3.6.3.1 Measure of Merit:

Merit may be given if the proposal demonstrates airfields and flying training areas with unused flying capacity, good visual references, landmarks and radar or factors that clearly demonstrate increased flight safety.

3.6.4 Management Plan. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed concept or comprehensive scheduling of all requirements of the PWS to ensure the Offeror has adequate understanding of the requirement. The Offeror’s concept of comprehensive schedules for all operations, fleet size, CFI manning, and surge plans will be evaluated for rationale, feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

3.6.4.1 The experience provided demonstrates the offeror's experience with scheduling operations that incorporates ground and flight operations, maintenance, academic courses, and ground training. The experience must show the offeror's ability to fluctuate and adapt to different student loads.

3.6.4.2 Measure of Merit:

Merit may be given if the offeror demonstrates experience scheduling flying operations for more than 250 students per year.

Merit may be given if the Offeror's proposal demonstrates scheduling concepts that maximize student time management.

3.6.5 Aircraft Description. The aircraft proposed must meet all minimum aircraft specifications described in the PWS.

3.6.5.1 Measure of Merit:

Merit may be given for aircraft that exceed the minimum PWS requirements. Exceeded requirements must demonstrate added benefit to the IFT program such as, but not inclusive of, cost savings for fuel, increased reliability and safety, avionics, other aircraft capabilities and/or enhances student learning and preparedness for UFT. All exceeded requirements must be practical for a flying training environment.

3.6.6 Maintenance. The Government will evaluate the offerors’ maintenance of aircraft and sortie generation plan. The Government will assess how well proposed aircraft and maintenance/ sortie generation plans are able to meet student training requirements and ensure that the fleet size is adequate to meet requirements for IFT.

3.6.6.1 Measure of Merit:

Merit may be given if the offeror demonstrates experience with maintaining a fleet of 20 or more aircraft.

3.6.7 Training Facilities and Equipment. The Government will evaluate the offerors’ plan to provide facilities and equipment to support their proposed operations concept. The proposed plan will be assessed according to PWS and commercial standards for rationale, feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

3.6.8 Lodging and Food Service. Lodging and Food Service. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s plan/ methodology to house and feed students. The proposed plan/ methodology will be assessed according to PWS and commercial standards for rationale, feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

3.6.8.1 Measure of Merit:

Merit may be given if the offeror demonstrates experience providing lodging and/or food service for more than 250 students per year.

3.7 Subfactor 5: Environmental Impact

3.7.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s EII for comprehensiveness and insight concerning effects that the flight training program would have on the proposed area(s) of operation. The offeror’s plan to minimize the effects the IFT program may have on the proposed training location(s) will be evaluated for reasonableness and attainability. The EII will be evaluated to ensure it effectively addresses program start up as well as the planned growth period and sustainment efforts of the mature program.

The Air Force will review the offeror’s EII for the following:

1. Do descriptions of the proposed actions and locations provide the necessary framework and context to explain and mitigate potential environmental impacts?

2. Have the relevant areas of potential environmental impact been identified and explained or eliminated as applicable?

3. Have reasonable mitigation measures been considered where possible, with proposed implementation actions explained?

4. Are analyses and conclusions supported by the facts provided?

3.7.2 The Government will independently evaluate and verify the accuracy of the EII documentation.

3.7.3 The Government reserves the right to eliminate proposals from further consideration if, in the sole discretion of the Government, the information provided in the EII and subsequent discussions (if applicable) is incomplete or not sufficiently supported to demonstrate minimized environmental impacts, or if the proposed operations appear likely to significantly negatively impact the quality of the human environment and would, therefore, require the completion of an EIS prior to awarding the contract. Conclusory statements that are unsupported by fact or a source for the assertion will be found technically unacceptable.

3.7.4 A contingent award will be made to the best value offeror on the condition that an applicable Categorical Exclusion (CATEX) exists or an EA completed by the Government results in a FONSI or mitigated FONSI. If the EA demonstrates that the proposed action will have a significant environmental impact that cannot be mitigated, that offeror’s proposal will be removed from further consideration and a contingent award will be made to the second best value offeror. This process may be repeated until an applicable CATEX is found or an EA results in a FONSI outright or through implementation of mitigation measures resulting in a mitigated FONSI. A completed EA and signed FONSI will be required prior to final (non-contingent) contract award.

4.0 Factor 4: Past Performance *Reserved*

5.0 Factor 5: Small Business Participation *Reserved*