DRAFT_Section_M_-__8_Aug_17.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

8 Aug 17

FA3002-17-R-0003, National Advertising and Event Marketing

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value, subjective (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, Air Force Mandatory Procedures, and the Department of Defense (DoD) 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.

M.1.1. The Government intends to award a contract to the Offeror: 1) who is determined responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented; 2) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and 3) whose proposal is determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to represent the best value to the Government.

M.1.2. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) 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.

M.1.3. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

M.1.4. Rejection of Unreasonable and Unrealistic Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unreasonable or unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Cost-

Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) Requirement contract for the National Advertising and Event Marketing requirement.

M.2.1. Discussions. The Government intends and reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions based on the initial proposal, as received IAW FAR

52.215-1(f)(4). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost and technical standpoint. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Technical/Risk, Past Performance, Cost/Price, or Small

Business Participation proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the Procurement Contracting

Officer (PCO) reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.2.1.1. Discussions will not be held during the oral presentation. The PCO is the only

Government personnel/representative that may ask questions or interact with the Offerors. After completion of the oral presentation, the PCO may request clarification of any points addressed which are unclear. Any such interchange between the Offeror and the Government will be for clarification only and will not constitute discussions within the meaning of FAR 15.306(a). An

Offeror may be asked to return after the formal presentation for clarifications at a designated time by the PCO at the end of the presentation. Proposal revisions as a result of any clarifications will not be accepted or evaluated.

M.2.1.2. 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 will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.2.2. Competitive Range. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If discussions are to be conducted, the PCO shall, with the approval of the SSA, establish the competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency (see FAR

15.306(c)). The criteria used for establishing the competitive range and a written analysis explaining what will be discussed with each offeror shall be documented in a competitive range decision document. If, during discussions, the PCO decides that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the PCO shall obtain SSA approval to eliminate the proposal from consideration for award and update the competitive range decision document.

M.2.3. 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:

Volume I/Factor I: Technical/Risk

Subfactor 1: Strategic Plan (Oral Presentation)

Subfactor 2: Management Plan (Written Proposal)

Subfactor 3: Sample Task (Oral Presentation)

Subfactor 4: Business Practices/Processes (Written Proposal)

Volume II/Factor II: Past Performance

Volume III/Factor III: Cost/Price

Volume IV/Factor IV: Small Business Participation

M.2.3.1. Relevant Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical/Risk is more important than Past Performance and

Cost/Price. Past Performance is equal to Cost/Price. Technical/Risk and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price; Small Business Participation will be rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. All technical subfactors are equal in importance except for Strategic Plan, which is deemed more important than the other three technical subfactors combined. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. An offeror must receive a rating of

“Acceptable” or better to be eligible for award.

M.2.3.2. Subjective (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/risk, and/or past performance 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. However, the

Government may pay more for a higher rated proposal if deemed in the Government’s best interest to do so. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that is rated as having

“Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

M.3. Volume I/Factor I – Technical/Risk. Evaluation of this factor shall focus on meeting the Government's requirements, and any strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal using the color ratings in Table 3 below.

M.3.1. Government will favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies in cost, schedule, and performance that are of benefit to the Government, and can be made contractually binding. To support the Government's determination of an actual benefit, the offeror may discuss any cost advantages that may or may not appear in the cost/price proposal.

M.3.2. The Government will not roll up sub-factor ratings into an overall color rating for the

Technical/Risk rating. Note that if an Offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this will be considered a deficiency in the Offeror's proposal and the proposal may be rendered ineligible for award.

M.3.3. For each subfactor the Government will determine whether those aspects of the proposal are Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable, using the Combined

Technical/Risk Rating Method in Table 3 and the Technical Risk Rating Method in Table 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016, as shown below. The technical ratings will document the evaluation of the quality of the offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement.

M.3.4. All technical subfactors will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD

Source Selection Procedures Technical Ratings Table 3 below. The combined technical/risk rating will consider risk in conjunction with strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The technical reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the threshold performance or capability requirements. The risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. A strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. A weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness means a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. 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.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Table 2B. 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.

M.3.5. Subfactor 1: Strategic Plan (Oral Presentation). This subfactor assesses the

Offeror’s ability to perform as a full-service agency as specified in PWS paragraph 1.4. and

PWS paragraph 3 and have the ability to achieve the objectives in PWS paragraph 1.3. IAW

M2.3.1 all technical subfactors are equal in importance except for Strategic Plan, which is deemed more important than the other three technical subfactors combined. The evaluation will address the Offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to

Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 1: Strategic Plan (Oral Presentation)

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.7. The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to perform as a full-service agency IAW

PWS paragraph 1.4 and 3 and also demonstrate the ability to achieve the objectives stated in

PWS paragraph 1.3. The purpose of the

Strategic Plan is to evaluate the Offeror's marketing philosophy; the Offeror’s comprehension of the Air Force's challenges and opportunities in the commercial marketplace; and the Offeror’s strategic planning abilities.

The Offeror demonstrates the ability to perform as a full-service agency IAW PWS paragraph

1.4. and. 3 and has the ability to achieve the objectives in PWS paragraph 1.3.

L.3.7.1. Present two (2) strategic plans based on Section L, Attachment 1, Strategic

Plans, to demonstrate your comprehension and the ability to meet the objectives as stated in the PWS paragraph 1.3. Offerors shall present a full-service strategic plan for a $75M and a

$40M campaign to include messaging strategy, media choices (rationale and schedule), proposed creative, experiential marketing plan, and metrics for evaluating success of the campaign. The Offeror’s two (2) strategic plans clearly demonstrate a keen understanding of Air Force core values, fosters a favorable public image that reflects awareness of sensitivities to cultural issues, and produces a respected corporate reputation.

The Offeror’s two (2) strategic plans demonstrate a comprehension and ability to present a full-service strategic plan for a $75M and a $40M campaign to include messaging strategy, media choices (rationale and schedule), proposed creative, experiential marketing plan, and metrics for evaluating success of the campaign that demonstrates your comprehension and the ability to meet the objectives as stated in the PWS paragraph 1.3.

The Offeror’s two (2) strategic plans also clearly demonstrate a keen understanding of Air

Force core values, fosters a favorable public image that reflects awareness of sensitivities to cultural issues, and produces a respected corporate reputation.

L.3.7.2. The Offeror shall present a media plan and supporting creative concepts to create brand awareness and generate leads for recruiters. A combination of eight (8) 24 X 36 inch storyboards may be presented to demonstrate the Offeror’s creative ability and style.

The Offeror demonstrates a media plan and supporting creative concepts that creates brand awareness and generates leads for recruiters.

Storyboards are of good quality, illustration is easy to comprehend and demonstrates the

Offeror’s creative ability and style.

L.3.7.3. List Air Force challenges and opportunities in meeting commercial marketing objectives. Describe significant trends/conditions affecting the commercial market and incorporate the PWS objectives, as identified in PWS paragraph 1.3, into the strategic plan.

The Offeror provides a list of Air Force challenges and opportunities in meeting commercial marketing objectives. The Offeror also provides plans that articulate specific, insightful, appropriate market trends affecting audience behavior, consumption habits, preferences, etc. and adopts strategies in consideration of those trends/conditions to meet the objectives in PWS paragraph 1.3.

L.3.7.4. Utilize a wide assortment of Key

Performance Indicators and provide expected outcomes and validation for pre- and post-execution of the proposed marketing strategy.

The Offeror utilizes a wide assortment of Key

Performance Indicators and provides expected outcomes and validations for pre- and post-execution of the proposed marketing strategy.

L.3.7.5. The Offeror shall demonstrate and reference how Marketing Mix Modeling tactics would be developed/used, and compare and contrast the strategies, tactics, messaging, media choices, and outcomes for both strategic strategies required in paragraph L.3.7.1 for a

$75M and a $40M campaign.

The Offeror demonstrates and references how

Marketing Mix Modeling tactics would be developed/used to predict and optimize media plans and resource allocation and also demonstrates the ability to compare and contrast the proposed strategies, tactics, messaging, media choices, and outcomes for both strategic strategies required in paragraph

L.3.7.1 for a $75M and a $40M campaign.

L.3.7.6. Offeror shall present agency and/or team member experience; present samples of creative works, and National/International awards received to demonstrate how they will leverage them to achieve the objectives stated in the PWS and meet the Government’s need for a full-service agency.

The offeror demonstrated how experience, sample creative works, and

National/International awards received will be leveraged to achieve objectives stated in the

PWS to meet the Government’s need for a full-service agency.

M.3.6. Subfactor 2: Management Plan (Written Proposal). This subfactor assesses the offeror's organizational structure/resources and management approaches to meet the requirements identified in PWS paragraph 2.0 and 3.0. The evaluation will address the Offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 2: Management Plan (Written Proposal)

Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.8.1. The Offeror shall address its organizational structure/resources and management approaches to meet the requirements identified in PWS paragraph 2 and 3.

L.3.8.2. The Offeror shall address their proposed organizational structure for meeting the Air Force's requirements. The proposal shall include details on specific locations, departments, and disciplines for both the

Offeror and the proposed subcontractors/ teaming partners; the personnel positions to be staffed within those departments/disciplines (identify number of personnel and titles for each); and the estimated time dedicated to the Air Force contract for each position.

The Offeror provides an organizational structure

(including teaming partners and/or subcontractors, if applicable) that displays the specific locations, departments, disciplines, and personnel proposed to meet the requirements identified in PWS paragraph 2 and 3. The

Offeror provides the personnel positions to be staffed within those departments/disciplines, the estimated time dedicated to the Air Force contract for each position to demonstrate the ability managing a contract of this scope and magnitude.

L.3.8.3. Include the proposed approach to assign and coordinate work between the prime and any subcontractors/ teaming partners. Include an illustration of how the work will be assigned within the Offeror's corporate entity and among the proposed subcontractors/teaming partners.

Present a process that is scalable for large projects involving multiple subs/departments and accomplish work without negative impact to cost, schedule or performance.

The Offeror provides a streamlined process for rapid information exchange between the

AF and their staff to expedite workflow.

Process allows for agile communication to speed decision making at appropriate levels.

The Offeror provides a clear process for assigning teams to projects and for coordinating work across the firm and any subs/ teaming partners.

The Offeror demonstrates a process that is scalable for large projects involving multiple subs/departments and accomplish work without negative impact to cost, schedule or performance.

The Offeror demonstrates a streamlined process for rapid information exchange between the AF and their staff to expedite workflow. Process allows for agile communication to speed decision making at appropriate levels.

L.3.8.4. The Offeror shall provide a detailed technical approach to attract, recruit, and hire qualified personnel for a minimum of one year and demonstrates the ability to ensure coverage of personnel when on leave, illness, or due to a no notice departure from the company. The detailed technical approach shall include the Offeror’s approach to meet the requirements in PWS paragraph

2.

The Offeror provides an adequate technical approach and understanding to attract, recruit, hire, and retain qualified personnel for a minimum of one year and demonstrates the ability to ensure coverage of personnel when on leave, illness, or due to a no notice departure from the company. Provides a detailed technical approach and understanding to meet the requirements in PWS paragraph 2.

M.3.7. Subfactor 3: Sample Task (Oral Presentations). This subfactor assesses the

Offeror’s ability to target specific market segments and to meet the objectives in PWS paragraph

1.3 per “Using Technology and “Big Data” to Target Specific Market Segments” (Section L, Attachment 2). The oral presentation shall demonstrate the offeror's ability to present a creative and innovative solution to the sample task. The evaluation will address the Offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 3: Sample Task (Oral Presentations)

Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.9. The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to target specific market segments per the attached Sample Task: “Using

Technology and “Big Data” to Target

Specific Market Segments” (Section L, Attachment 2) and meet the objectives in

PWS 1.3. The oral presentation shall demonstrate the Offeror's ability to present a creative and innovative solution for the

Sample Task.

The Offeror shall demonstrate its ability to target specific market segments per the attached

Sample Task: “Using Technology and “Big

Data” to Target Specific Market Segments”

(Section L, Attachment 2) and meet the objectives in PWS 1.3. The oral presentation shall demonstrate the Offeror's ability to present a creative and innovative solution for the Sample

Task.

L.3.9.1. Create and deliver an innovative advertising campaign that employs technology to target specific market segments with compelling messages.

The Offeror created and delivered an innovative advertising campaign that employs technology to target specific market segments with compelling messages.

L.3.9.2. Identify and prioritize the specific target audience(s).

The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the target market by appropriately identifying and prioritizing the target audience(s).

L.3.9.3. Create messages for the target audience(s).

The Offeror demonstrates an understanding of the target market by appropriately creating messages for the target audience(s).

L.3.9.4. Present media plans and schedules for purchase and placement of advertisement that are appropriate and in an effective format.

The Offeror’s proposed media plans and schedules for purchase and placement of advertising is appropriate and in an effective format.

L.3.9.5. Provide supporting research and metrics for pre- and post-execution validation of the proposed marketing strategy.

The Offeror provides complete and meaningful metrics to validate the effectiveness of the proposed marketing strategy.

L.3.9.6. Present no more than six (6) total 24

X 36 inch storyboards for the sample task that are compelling, create brand awareness, and ensure audience delivery.

The Offeror presents storyboards and media plans that are determined by the evaluation team to be compelling and effective to create brand awareness and ensure audience delivery.

M.3.8. Subfactor 4: Business Practices/Processes (Written Proposal). This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate advertising practices and processes that will be used to achieve customer's desired outcomes (PWS paragraph 1.). The evaluation will address the

Offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 4: Business Practices/Processes (Written Proposal)

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.10.1. List any tools or processes used to provide cost estimates for the proposed work, track work assignments, and manage funds within each delivery order and total budget.

The Offeror provides accurate and timely processes for providing cost estimates for proposed work, the tracking of work assignments; managing the status of funds within each task order and the overall budget allocations for a cost reimbursable contract.

L.3.10.2. List any tools or processes employed to integrate and orchestrate a large volume of marketing communications, programs and tasks.

The Offeror demonstrates a dynamic approach that integrates and orchestrates a large volume of marketing communications, programs and tasks.

L.3.10.3. List tools and processes for development, optimization, review, approval and measurement of media plans and execution (mass media, direct marketing, public relations, interactive, and promotions/event marketing) to support the objectives of the requirement as identified in

PWS paragraph 1.3.

The Offeror provides a process for development, optimization, review, approval and measurement of media plans and execution that meets the objectives of the PWS (paragraph

1.3).

L.3.10.4. List tools and process for development, review, approval and measurement of creative concepts to support the objectives of the PWS, paragraph 1.3.

The Offeror provides a process for the development, review, approval and measurement of creative concepts and executions that meets the objectives of the PWS

(paragraph 1.3).

L.3.10.5. Provide an overview of any additional processes, resources and tools the

Offeror will employ to support the objectives of the PWS, paragraph 1.3.

The Offeror provides an overview of any additional processes, resources or tools needed to support for objectives listed in the PWS

(paragraph 1.3).

L.3.10.6. Provide a detailed QCP that identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which are likely to result in a successful outcome within proposed cost and schedule.

The QCP will become a part of the contract.

L.3.10.6.1. Demonstrate the offeror’s ability to meet the Government’s performance objectives in a timely and consistent manner.

L.3.10.6.2. Identify process for initiating corrective actions to mitigate and correct performance deficiencies.

L.3.10.6.3. Clearly demonstrate Offeror responsibility for quality control and not shared responsibility with the Government.

The Offeror provides a detailed QCP that identifies processes, procedures, and metrics which are likely to result in a successful outcome within proposed cost and schedule.

The Offeror demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the Government’s performance objectives in a timely and consistent manner.

The Offeror identifies process for initiating corrective actions to mitigate and correct performance deficiencies.

The Offeror clearly demonstrates Offeror responsibility for quality control and not shared responsibility with the Government.

M.4. Volume II/Factor II – Past Performance. The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

M.4.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance for services the solicitation requires and the quality of performance 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. Other sources include, but not limited to: Past Performance

Questionnaire (PPQ), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting

System (eSRS), interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources.

M.4.1.1. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform on this requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

M.4.1.2. The past performance evaluation may consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company 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.4.2. The Offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for: Recency, Relevancy and

Quality of Service. The Government will only evaluate Quality of Service on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant. Each proposal will receive an overall integrated

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on the aggregate of all the following elements: Recency, Relevancy and Quality of Service.

M.4.2.1. Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must have been performed within five (5) years of the date this solicitation is issued and included at least six (6) months of performance. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

M.4.2.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation.

M.4.2.2.1. In determining relevancy, the Government will consider the Offeror’s role in the effort accomplished by the prime, subcontractor, and/or teaming partner on previous/current contracts compared to this solicitation. The submitted combination of contracts will be evaluated and assigned individual relevancy ratings.

M.4.2.2.2. The relevancy rating will be integrated in the overall Performance Confidence

Assessment Rating. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not

Relevant as defined in Table 4 below.

M.4.2.3. Quality of Service Assessment. The quality of service assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of 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 a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation area or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse past performance information received for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

TABLE 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.4.2.3.1.The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

M.4.3. Performance Confidence Assessment. As a result of the relevancy of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Neutral Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably

(neutral). A Satisfactory or Substantial Confidence record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. The

Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that is rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

M.4.3.1. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence

Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

M.5. Volume III/Factor III – Cost/Price

M.5.1. 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 if it is fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced. 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 15.404-1.

M.5.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Cost/Price proposals to determine completeness and to determine if the proposed costs/prices are fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced. The Government will calculate a TEP for each Offeror using the sum of the Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Section L, Attachments 6, 6a, and 7. The burden of proof for cost realism and price reasonableness rests with the Offeror.

M.5.2.1. 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. 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.5.3. Completeness. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, paragraph L.1.7. 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.

M.5.4. Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze each offeror’s proposed CLIN unit prices IAW FAR 15.404 to determine whether they are mathematically and materially balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price or cost analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in the payment of unreasonably high prices. Therefore, an offer may be rejected and ineligible for award if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.5.5. Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s prices and data other than certified cost or pricing data submitted in the Volume III Cost/Price Proposal, as required by

Section L, for price fair and reasonableness, pursuant to one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 based upon each offeror’s proposed approach. Price is considered to be reasonable when it represents a price that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prevailing market prices. For additional information, see

FAR 31.201-3.

M.5.5.1. 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 9.5-year Ordering Period 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 Provisional Billing Rates.

M.5.5.2. Realism. IAW FAR 15.404-1(d), a cost realism and MPC analysis will be performed on the CPFF and CR CLINS in Section L, Attachments 6, 6a, and 7 to determine the probable cost of performance and to protect against unrealistically low prices and the risks to contract performance that potentially may result. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed;

reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s Volume I Technical/Risk Proposal.

M.5.5.3. For the CPFF Strategic Plan and Sample Task only, a separate Most Probable Cost estimate will be accomplished by the Government to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort, based on the Offeror's understanding of the work and the Offeror's ability to perform the contract. Per FAR 15.404-1(d)(2), the

Government's Most Probable Cost will be determined by adjusting each Offeror's Strategic Plans and Sample Task cost/price proposal, when and where applicable, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the Government's cost realism analysis. The Government's probable cost may differ from the Offeror's proposed cost and will reflect the Government's best estimate of the cost of any contract that would most likely result from the Offeror's proposal. The sample task may be awarded, all or in part, at the time of award of the basic contract. An offeror’s proposal may be ineligible for award if proposed prices are determined to be unreasonably high, unrealistically low, or unbalanced.

M.5.5.4. A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed Cost and the MPC will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirement and could lead to the Offeror’s proposal being considered ineligible for award.

M.5.6. Price Discrepancies. In the event of a price discrepancy between the electronic version and the hard copy submission of the Volume III Cost/Price Proposal, the hard copy shall take precedence. For evaluation purposes, the following will be utilized in resolving arithmetic discrepancies found on Section L, Attachments 6, 6a, and 7 as submitted by the offeror:

(a) Discrepancy between unit price (stated as a whole dollar value) and extended price, the unit price will govern and be used to calculate the extended price.

M.5.7. Accounting System. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion.

However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who has an adequate accounting system as determined by DCAA for accumulating and reporting allowable incurred costs under cost-reimbursement type contracts IAW FAR 16.301-3.

M.5.8. Pre-award Survey. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is determined responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1. For Offerors that have not previously worked with Government contracting, the Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be utilized to determine each

Offeror’s financial capability to meet the requirements of this solicitation.

M.6. Volume IV/Factor IV: Small Business Participation

M.6.1. IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the extent of participation of small businesses will be evaluated on a best effort basis and rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Contracting

Officer will evaluate the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

The requirements of this factor are met when the Offeror adequately illustrates efforts taken to identify sources and opportunities, or provides adequate justification that sources or opportunities do not exist.

M.6.2. Applicability for Small Business Offerors. Small business Offerors may include their own efforts when addressing the names, products and/or services and estimated total dollars planned to be provided by small business concerns.

Section M Attachments Attachment 1 - Small Business Subcontracting Plan Checklist

Section M, Attachment 1, Subcontracting Plan Checklist

FA3002-17-R-0003, National Advertising and Event Marketing

Individual Subcontracting Plan Checklist and Review Solicitation/Contract Number: Date:

Contractor:

Buyer/PCO:

Office Symbol & Phone:

If the contractor is participating in the Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan Test Program, individual plans are NOT required.

The cumulative value of the basic contract and options is used to determine whether a subcontracting plan is required.

Options require separate goals. See FAR 52.219-9(c) and 19.704(c).

If there is a Master Subcontracting Plan in effect for this contractor, items 4 through 11 below do not apply. Note: Master plans are effective for three years after approval by the contracting officer, but contractors must maintain and update the plans as necessary.

Changes must be approved by the contracting officer. See FAR 19.704(b).

Is this a commercial plan? Yes No See Far 19.704(d).

The PCO/buyer will review the subcontracting plan and coordinate as required with the contractor and the cognizant contract administration office.

After review, the PCO/buyer will complete/sign the checklist and provide the original checklist and a copy of the subcontracting plan to the local Air

Force Small Business Office (SB). The SB will review the plan and obtain advice and recommendation from the SBA Procurement Center

Representative (PCR). After review and coordination, the SB will notify the PCO/buyer of the results of the review before the start of negotiations.

Y=acceptable; U=not acceptable; N=not included; NI=needs improvement; N/A=does not apply

Does Plan Include: PCO SB SBA Reference

1. Total Subcontracting Dollars:

(Insert proposed goals)

Total Contract Value:

% Sub

Contract

% Total

Contract

FAR 52.219-9(d)(2), 19.704(a)(2), 19.705

Total $ to SB

Total $ to SDB (includes 8a)

Total $ to WOSB

$ to Service Disabled VOSB

Total $ to Veteran OSB

Total $ to HUBZone SB

For current DOD goals, see http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm

2. Goals listed as a Percentage of Total subcontract value.

Goals listed as a Percentage of Total contract value.

FAR 52.219-9(d)(1), 19.704(a)(1), 19.705

AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1)

3. A description of the principal supplies/services to be subcontracted with sufficient detail to evaluate whether or not SB can do the work.

(Include large business, nonprofit, and not-for-profit work.)

FAR 52.219-9(d)(3), 19.704(a)(3), 19.705

4. A description of the method used to develop goals.

FAR 52.219-9(d)(4), 19.704(a)(4), 19.705

5. A description of the method used to locate potential suppliers. FAR 52.219-9(d)(5), 19.704(a)(5), 19.705

6. Do the goals include indirect costs?

FAR 52.219-9(d)(6), 19.704(a)(6), 19.705

If indirect costs are included in the goals, does the plan include a description of the cost allocation method?

FAR 52.219-9(d)(6), 19.704(a)(6), 19.705

7. Name and duties of contractor’s subcontracting plan administrator. FAR 52.219-9(d)(7), 19.704(a)(7), 19.705

8. Description of the efforts the offeror will make to assure that SBs have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts.

FAR 52.219-9(d)(8), 19.704(a)(8), 19.705

9. Flow Down assurances. FAR 52.219-9(d)(9), 19.704(a)(9), 19.705

Appropriate subcontract clauses will be used. FAR 52.219-9(d)(9), 19.704(a)(9), 19.705

Subcontractors will be required to submit a similar plan. FAR 52.219-9(d)(9), 19.704(a)(9), 19.705 http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm

Section M, Attachment 1, Subcontracting Plan Checklist

FA3002-17-R-0003, National Advertising and Event Marketing

Does Plan Include: PCO SB SBA Reference

10. Assurance prime contractor will submit required reports and cooperate in studies and surveys.

FAR 52.219-9(d)(10), 19.704(a)(10), 19.705

11. Recitation of types of records maintained to show compliance with plan.

FAR 52.219-9(d)(11), 19.704(a)(11), 19.705

12. If the SDB goal for the basic contract is less than 5%, is approval one level above contracting officer attached?

DFARS 219.705-4

13. For modifications, is approval attached if the SDB goal is less than 5%?

(If

SDB goal was below 5% for the basic contract and the reasons have not changed, a new approval is not required)

DFARS 219.705-4

14. Has information and coordination from the ACO been obtained? FAR 19.706, DFARS 219.706(a)(i)

Central Contractor Registration (CCR): To enhance small business outreach, the contractor should be encouraged to use the

SBA Dynamic Small Business Search tool at the CCR web site: http://www.ccr.gov/.

Buyer/PCO Comments:

Buyer/PCO Signature and Date:

SB Comments:

Air Force Small Business Office Signature and Date:

SBA PCR Comments:

If box is checked, SBA does not have a copy of the current Master Subcontracting Plan on File. Please provide one.

SBA Procurement Center Representative Signature and Date:

SBA will internally report this subcontracting plan, as submitted, as acceptable not acceptable modified on _____________ to be acceptable before award.

SBA may contact the PCO/buyer regarding status of the subcontracting plan at time of award.

Please remember the post-award responsibilities of the Contracting Officer, which are listed in FAR 19.705-6.

The Procurement Center Representative can provide the addresses of the appropriate Area Directors.

(Ver. 7/31/2008) http://www.ccr.gov/