CDSS_II_Section_M_-_14_Nov.pdf

Amendment 01

FA3002-17-R-0001, Candidate Development Support Services (CDSS) II

Attachment 3

Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award. This source selection will follow a Lowest Price

Technically Acceptable source selection process IAW FAR 15.101-2, in which award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price that is fair, balanced, and reasonable. This source selection 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.

1.1 A proposal may be excluded from further consideration for award of the contract if the proposal omits information, statements, or certifications that Section L, Section M, or one of the FAR, DFARS, or AFFARS clauses in the RFP requires. 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) whose proposal is determined by the SSA to be the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror who is responsible and whose price is otherwise determined to be fair, reasonable, and balanced. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

1.2 By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors.

1.3 The Government will conduct a price evaluation of all technically acceptable proposals submitted. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified by the proposed unit price for each Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line

Item Number (CLIN) and then totaling all CLINs.

1.4 Price reasonableness will be determined using one or more price analysis techniques which include, but are not limited to, a comparison of proposed prices submitted by the competition, comparison to the IGE, or any other techniques deemed appropriate by the

Contracting Officer.

1.5 The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the PCO will review this determination and if, in the PCO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested, and certification under FAR

15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; offerors may be required to submit cost data to the extent necessary for the PCO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

1.6 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Firm

Fixed-Price contract for the CDSS II program.

1.7 Discussions. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain

Attachment 3 the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to offerors or Respondents. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical or Price proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the PCO reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

1.7.1 If discussions are held, 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.

1.8 Competitive Range. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. In order to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. If the SSA 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 SSA 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. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. 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(a)(1).

2.0 Evaluation Criteria. The evaluation criteria is divided into two factors: Technical

Capability and Price. Technical Capability will be assessed in three subfactors: (1) Management

Approach; (2) Staffing Approach; and (3) Quality Control Plan as either “Acceptable or

Unacceptable” based on demonstrated technical expertise and approach to meeting the requirements of the PWS. For all technically acceptable proposals, the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) of the proposal will be evaluated for price fairness, reasonableness, and balance. If the price is determined to be fair, reasonable, and balanced, then the proposal of a responsible contractor will be eligible for award and award may then be made to the lowest price technically acceptable offer.

3.0 Factor 1: Technical Capability. The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. An offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated for a clear understanding of all the requirements listed in the PWS (RFP Attachment 1). An offeror’s technical approach must describe a reasonable well-thought-out approach for meeting and accomplishing all the requirements of the

PWS.The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. At a minimum, the offeror’s technical approach shall address the following:

3.1 Subfactor 1: Management Approach. The offeror shall provide a detailed

Management Approach that will successfully accomplish the requirements of the solicitation, which include providing expert guidance on safety, nutrition, physical fitness workout plans, Attachment 3 mental resiliency, and use of proper exercise techniques to ensure candidates for Pararescue

(PJ)/Combat Rescue Officer (CRO), Combat Control (CCT)/Special Tactics Officer (STO), Special Operations Weather (SOWT), Tactical Air Control Party (TACP)/Air Liaison Officer

(13L), Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician (EOD) and Survival, Evasion, Resistance and

Escape (SERE) career fields reach their full potential in preparation for the Physical Ability and

Stamina Test (PAST). Standard:

3.1.1 The offeror proposed an acceptable approach for securing locations to administer the

PAST for the duration of the period of performance. The locations proposed for testing allow for all elements of the PAST to be started within the required timeframes outlined in the PWS and the PWS attachments. The locations proposed are sufficient and well distributed throughout the various field locations to accommodate all geographic regions and meet the standards outlined in the PWS and subsequent attachments. Contractor provided the name, address and location of the facilities to be used for administering the PAST. The primary location to administer the PAST must be a non-military installation.

3.1.2 The offeror proposed an acceptable approach to administering, recording and reporting candidate PAST evaluation results to identified Government representatives.

3.1.3 The offeror proposed an acceptable approach to providing physical fitness, nutritional, and developmental plans for the candidates.

3.2 Subfactor 2: Staffing Approach. The offeror shall provide a detailed staffing plan that describes how the contractor will fill positions in a timely manner while maintaining a personnel support structure with the requisite education, skills, and expertise to perform tasks in accordance with the PWS. Standard:

3.2.1 The proposed staffing plan and number of personnel that will be located within each recruiting zone as identified in Paragraph 4.4 of the PWS is adequate to perform the requirements in the PWS. The proposed staffing plan has a minimum of one developer per recruiting squadron (RCS). The proposed staffing plan does not have a developer assigned as the primary to more than one RCS IAW Paragraph 1.2.4 of the PWS.

3.2.2 The offeror proposed adequate personnel qualifications to meet the requirements set forth in Paragraph 5 of the PWS and demonstrated a plan to ensure that:

3.2.2.1 One each of experienced SO/CS personnel in SOWT, EOD, and SERE are on staff.

3.2.2.2 At least one experienced SO/CS personnel in either PJ or CRO is on staff.

3.2.2.3 At least one experienced SO/CS personnel in either CCT or STO is on staff .

3.2.2.4 At least one experienced SO/CS personnel in either TACP or 13L is on staff.

3.2.3 The proposed staffing plan outlines an acceptable approach minimizing staff turnover and impact on continued performance of PWS requirements.

Attachment 3

3.3 Subfactor 3: Quality Control Plan. The contractor shall provide a detailed Quality

Control Plan (QCP) that identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which are likely to result in a successful outcome within proposed cost and schedule. Standard:

3.3.1 The proposed QCP demonstrated the contractor’s ability to meet the Government’s performance objectives in a timely and consistent manner.

3.3.2 The proposed QCP identified an acceptable process for initiating corrective actions to mitigate and correct performance deficiencies.

3.3.3 The proposed QCP clearly demonstrated contractor responsibility for quality control and not shared responsibility with the government.

3.4 Technical Capability Factor Rating. The Technical Capability Factor will receive one of the adjectival ratings defined in, Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, below. The sub-factor ratings will be used to determine an overall rating for the factor. An offer rated as Technically Unacceptable in any sub-factor will result in an overall rating of

Unacceptable and will not be eligible for award.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable 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.

4.0 Factor 2: Price Evaluation. Following an evaluation of Technical Acceptability, the

Government will rank all Technically Acceptable offers by the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) submitted at Section B of this solicitation. The Government will use this information to evaluate an offeror’s proposal for price fairness, reasonableness, and balance.

4.1 Price will not be rated or scored, but will be evaluated through the use of price analysis. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques include, but are not limited to, a comparison of proposed prices submitted by the competition, comparison to the IGE, or any other techniques deemed appropriate by the PCO. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. An offeror who submits a price proposal that is determined to be unreasonable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will not be eligible for award and will be eliminated from the competition.

4.2 Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable TEP, the price of one or more of the price elements is significantly over or understated, as indicated by the application of price

Attachment 3 analysis techniques. The burden of proof for balance of proposed prices rests with the offeror.

An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.3 An offeror who submits a price proposal at Section B that fails to provide a price for all firm-fixed priced (FFP) CLINs will be determined to be incomplete and will not be awardable.

4.4 An offeror who fails to identify the applicable Service Contract Labor Standard Wage

Determination(s) and/or propose prices based on them will be determined unacceptable.

5.0 Past Performance. The PCO will review past performance to support a determination of contractor’s responsibility or nonresponsibility. The PCO may use any sources available in making the determination, to include, but not limited to PPIRS or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials; and the

Defense Contract Management Agency.