Section_M_-13Jun18_(FBO_Draft).pdf

Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

M. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value, subjective tradeoff source selection, in which competing offeror’s Technical Proposal will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations.

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, Environmental Impact Analysis Process – Statement of Assurance, 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, 3) whose

Technical proposal for subfactors 1, 2, and 3 received a Technical Rating of Outstanding, Good, or Acceptable with a rating of Acceptable for Subfactor 4; 3) whose price was determined fair and reasonable; and 4) whose proposal is determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to represent the best value to the Government.

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 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.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract for the BA

IQC program.

M.1. 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 the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. 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, Price, or Past Performance volumes. Exchanges conducted 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.1.1. 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 will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.2. 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).

M.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 two (2) factors:

Volume I/Factor I: Technical

Subfactor 1: Mission Solution/Capability (Adjectival Rating)

Subfactor 2: Staffing Plan (Adjectival Rating)

Subfactor 3: Courseware (Adjectival Rating)

Subfactor 4: Quality Control Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating)

Volume II/Factor II: Price

M.3.1. Relevant Importance of Factors and Subfactors. All Technical Subfactors are equal in importance except for Mission Solution/Capability, which is deemed more important than the other two adjectivally rated Subfactors combined. Subfactor 4 will bear no weight in a tradeoff decision as it will be rated on an Acceptable/Unaccpetable basis. IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical is significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. The Government is not required to pay what the Government perceives to be a substantial amount more for a higher rated proposal if it is determined that it is not in the

Government’s best interest to do so.

M.3.2. Subjective tradeoff, as defined for this acquisition, allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and price. The Government’s determination on how much more it will pay for a higher rated proposal with regard to Technical will be determined through a subjective assessment after consideration of the level of benefit the Government could expect as compared to the higher price.

M.4. VOLUME I/FACTOR I – TECHNICAL

M.4.1. The Technical Proposal will be evaluated based on an assessment of how well the offeror addressed each of the technical criteria. Statements such as “will comply,” “noted and understood,” “in accordance with best/industry practices/standards,” etc. without supporting narrative are not acceptable. Cursory responses or responses that merely reiterate or paraphrase the PWS language will not be considered to satisfy the requirements of the RFP.

M.4.2. Ratings for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will be evaluated utilizing ratings in Tables 1a and

1b below. A combined technical/risk rating will be assigned, see DoD Source Selection

Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 1a: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3

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 (Reference Table 1b for definitions of risk).

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 (Reference Table 1b for definitions of risk).

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 (Reference Table 1b for definitions of risk).

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high (Reference Table 1b for definitions of risk).

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 (Reference Table 1b for definitions of risk)..

Proposal is unawardable.

Table 1b: Technical Risk Ratings

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule 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, 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 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.4.3. Ratings for Subfactor 4 are defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Technical Ratings for Subfactor 4

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.4.4. Assignment of Ratings. Ratings will be assigned at the Subfactor level; the evaluation will roll-up into a single, comprehensive rating for the entire technical proposal. Strengths, weakness and deficiencies, will be identified at the Subfactor level and will contribute to the overall technical rating. Favorable assessments will consider the benefit, impact, and feasibility of additional commitments (strengths) by the offeror.

M.4.5. Strength. A significant, outstanding or exceptional aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s processes. A strength also is proposed innovations and efficiencies that enhance cost, schedule and performance, are of benefit to the Government and can be made contractually binding.

M.4.6. Weakness. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful task order performance. Weaknesses introduce performance risk and the assignment of a technical rating may be impacted by existence of weaknesses.

M.4.7. Deficiency. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government/PWS requirement. 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 un-awardable or may receive a lower technical rating.

M.4.8. Subfactor 1 – Mission Solution/Capability. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from Section L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 1: MISSION SOLUTION/CAPABILITY

SECTION L, INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS SECTION M, EVALUATION CRITERIA

This Subfactor is met when:

L.3.2.1.1. Clearly define the notional schedule/agenda to include design rationale in relation to how PWS Appendix D concepts are incorporated.

M.4.8.1. The offeror’s notional schedule/agenda utilizes all available facilitation hours in a way that is creative, interactive, dynamic, effective, engaging and professional.

M.4.8.2. The offeror’s schedule/agenda includes limited to no white space (with the exception of reasonable breaks), allows time for reflection, time to revisit objectives/ remediation and learning reinforcement.

L.3.2.1.2. Describe how digital classroom technology will be fused with up to date learning methods in unorthodox learning environments. This includes training tank areas, field training areas, physical fitness/human performance training areas and

M.4.8.3. The offeror proposed an appropriate balance of teaching methods digital classroom technologies, methods and activities.

standard classrooms.

L.3.2.1.3. Describe how experiential activities for outdoor and indoor instruction will integrate real world instructional experience from BA/SOF type lessons learned utilizing the incorporating instructional methods. Demonstrate how these activities will be introduced to the experienced BA operator demographic that ranges from the E-5 BA NCO through E-7 BA SNCO with at least 2 recent deployments in multiple weather environments.

M.4.8.4. The offeror described an adequate approach for integrating relevant instructional experience into the offeror’s instructional methods for both outdoor and indoor experiential activities.

M.4.8.5. The offeror’s description and design rationale is reflective of the target demographic and interweaves the majority of Appendix D.

L.3.2.1.4. Identify and describe the use of materials, training aids, and activities that will be incorporated and used during the BA IQC course (e.g. training aids and equipment to include mobile training tablets, computers, display units to whiteboard, paper copy handouts and outlines, etc.).

M.4.8.6. The offeror’s proposed courseware materials and training aids are user friendly, compelling, relevant and provide a mechanism for BA instructor candidate reflection, note taking, or journaling.

M.4.8.7. The offeror’s proposed use of the materials and activities is creative, memorable and would provide Airmen with simple reference material that reinforces learning.

L.3.2.1.5. Thoroughly describe the foundational and philosophical approach the offeror expects to bring to the BA IQC course design. Detail the course learning objectives and daily expectations in order to meet anticipated outcomes.

M.4.8.8. The offeror’s approach demonstrates understanding of the BA IQC course concept, goals, mission and overall objective.

M.4.8.9. The offeror’s outline of learning objectives, expectations and outcomes is in line with the AF expectations as identified in the PWS.

M.4.8.10. The offeror’s foundational and philosophical approach to course design is in line with BA character traits.

M.4.9. Subfactor 2 – Staffing Plan. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from Section

L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 2: STAFFING PLAN

This Subfactor is met when:

L.3.2.2.1. Identify the number, position title, and duties of all full and part-time facilitators and on-site personnel the contractor plans to employ to accomplish requirements of the PWS (management, administration, curriculum development, sustainment, enhancement, and adjustment, course instruction, quality control, etc.).

Include a list and explanation of work to be accomplished via subcontract if applicable.

M.4.9.1. The offeror’s approach demonstrates adequate staff and contract management to accomplish requirements of the PWS.

L.3.2.2.2. Explain how a fluctuation in student load (causing excess or deficient contractor facilitators) will be managed to ensure required student to instructor ratios are maintained or exceeded.

M.4.9.2. The offeror’s approach demonstrates staff management to cover required courses.

M.4.10. Subfactor 3 – Courseware. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from Section

L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 3: COURSEWARE

This Subfactor is met when:

L.3.2.3.1. Provided detailed schedule for courseware development, with dates, to include internal milestones as well as formal reviews with Government participation for the kick-off meeting, 25/50/75 and 100% complete briefings/milestones as well as courseware validation.

M.4.10.1. The schedule positively addresses reaching the planned milestones.

M.4.10.2. Planning reflects thoughtful, risk management approaches and ensures on-site performance day-one after mobilization ends.

M.4.10.3. The schedule is built to allow flexibility and time for changes or course corrections/ redirections.

M.4.10.4. Risk is minimized as the schedule includes reasonable spacing/periods of time between milestone reviews.

M.4.10.5. Review milestone spacing is commensurate with workload/approach.

M.4.10.7. Schedule takes into account holidays and weekends and includes all mandatory review points as defined in the Instructions and in the PWS.

L.3.2.3.2. Outline how the offeror plans to keep a pulse on changes within the SOF community in regards to updated tactics, training and procedures. Outline how the offeror will be able adjust and translate training methods and information through a digital delivery platform and incorporate these changes into courseware.

M.4.10.8. The offeror presented a reasonable plan to incorporate new information, media (training aids, visual aids, etc.), updated rules, relevant hot topics/scenarios and overall plans to continuously improve the courseware and its facilitation.

M.4.11. Subfactor 4 – Quality Control Plan. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the Instructions to Offerors column is verbatim from

Section L above and is provided again for reference only):

SUB-FACTOR 4: QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

This Subfactor is met when:

L.3.2.4.1. The Offeror shall provide a Quality Control Plan that describes how they will ensure that the contract requirements are met while maintaining safety.

The plan must describe inspector and/or superintendent assignment controls and clearly demonstrate that quality is the contractor’s (not the Government’s) responsibility. Address the proposed skill levels, experience and training of the quality control personnel in relation to the required work disciplines.

M.4.11.1. The Offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) is sound and covers all services in the PWS. The QCP identifies the title of the position responsible for quality control, proposed skill levels, experience and training of the individual(s) responsible for quality control and clearly indicates that the Offeror and not the Government is responsible for quality control of the contract.

L.3.2.4.2. Describe number of tasks planned per inspector, frequency, and a plan, including tools and methods, for identifying and documenting performance

M.4.11.2. The proposed tasks listed in the QCP per inspector demonstrate an adequate method for identifying and documenting performance problems problems concerning subcontractors and/or in-house personnel.

concerning subcontractors and/or in-house personnel.

M.5. Volume II/Factor II – Price

M.5.1. Completeness. The Government will review the Volume II in its entirety for completeness IAW Section L instructions.

The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition IAW

FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, data other than certified cost or pricing data is required to be submitted per Section L of the RFP and will be evaluated IAW the criteria contained herein for price fair and reasonableness and balance pursuant to one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 based on the Offeror’s proposed approach. If the PCO determines that adequate price competition IAW

FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) no longer exists, or that price fair and reasonableness cannot be determined, the PCO may request and evaluate certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, to make a determination of price fair and reasonableness.

M.5.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be automatically calculated in the offeror’s filled out Attachment X. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision.

M.5.2.1. Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s prices and data submitted 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.3.2.2. Six Month Extension. 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 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 Department of Labor wage rates.

M.3.2.3. Price Discrepancies. In the event of a price discrepancy between the electronic version and the hard copy submission of the Volume III Price Proposal, the hard copy version will take precedence. Any discrepancy between amounts input into the Pricing Model and amounts input into Section B will be considered a minor or clerical error and require resolution through an Evaluation Notice

(Clarification/Communication/Discussion).

M.5.3. Verification of Small Business Size. In addition to review of all submitted financial statements, the Government may utilize the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) as well as other resources made available to assist with the verification of the offeror’s small business size status.

M.6. Volume III – Responsibility Information

M.6.1. Responsibility Information is not an evaluation factor. However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.104.

M.6.2. Past Performance. Past Performance will not be an evaluation factor; however, the

PCO will review past performance to support a determination of offerors’ responsibility or non-responsibility. The PCO may use any sources available in making the determination, to include, but not limited to, Volume III information, PPIRS or other databases; interviews with Program

Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract

Management Agency.

M.6.3. Financial Resources. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey as part of this source selection. Results of the survey (if conducted) will be utilized to assist in determining each offeror’s financial capability to meet the requirements of this solicitation.