ATCH_12_Section_M.pdf

SSP Attachment 12 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection in which competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Award will be made to the lowest, reasonably priced Offeror that has an acceptable past performance and acceptable technical evaluation rating. Offerors who do not receive an acceptable rating for both their past performance and technical proposals will not be eligible for award. 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 subfactors.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1 – Technical (See paragraph M.3) Subfactor 1- Quality Control (QC) Subfactor 2- Workforce and Organizational Structure Subfactor 3- Understanding the Requirement Subfactor 4- Service Provider Training Program Subfactor 5- Transition Plan

Factor 2 – Past Performance (See paragraph M.4) Factor 3 – Price (See paragraph M.5)

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but will not be ranked using non-price factors/subfactors.

M.3. Factor 1 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the five (5) technical subfactors below, M.3.1.1., M.3.1.2., M.3.1.3, M.3.1.4, and M.3.1.5. as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section (Section L) of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as depicted in Table 1 below for each subfactor. The Government will assess risk associated with the proposed approach as a component of technical acceptability. Risks that have the potential to disrupt schedule, increase costs, degrade performance, increase need for Government oversight, or increase likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance will be identified as “unacceptable.” A rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the technical evaluation.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

FA3002-18-R-0010, Air Combat Training System Attachment 12

M.3.1. Description of Technical Subfactors: Proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactor evaluation criteria:

M.3.1.1. Subfactor 1: Quality Control(QC): This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to develop and implement the Quality Control Process that would be employed in this effort. The Offeror’s proposal must explain the draft plan to evaluate the quality of operation and maintenance; identify, document and immediately correct short-term deficiencies and trends, resulting in corrective action and continual process improvement in terms of quality, workmanship, and customer support. The Offeror demontrated that QC is the contractor’s (not the Government’s) responsibility. The standard is met when:

Subfactor 1: Quality Control (QC) Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.1.1.1. Present a QC approach for your organization, including lines of authority, and provide a proposal that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems, and monitor corrective actions ensuring successful and timely problem resolution. Explain how recurring problems will be prevented.

M.3.1.1.1. The Offeror demonstrates a sufficient QC organization, including lines of authority that will successfully evaluate compliance, find and document problems, and monitor corrective actions, ensuring successful and timely problem resolution while explaining how recurring problems will be prevented. The Government will assess whether the proposed is rational and feasible.

L.3.1.1.2. Describe a system for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

M.3.1.1.2. The Offeror describes a process that is sufficient for recording, computing and assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

L.3.1.1.3. Describe the documents and records your company will develop, maintain, and utilize as part of the Quality Control Plan.

M.3.1.1.3. The Offeror adequately describes the documents and records they will develop, maintain, and utilize as part of their Quality Control Plan. The Government will assess whether document and records that the offeror plans to develop, maintain, and utilize are reasonably likely to document the quality of the offeror’s operations and maintenance, the actions taken to find problems, and the actions taken to correct problems.

L.3.1.1.4. Describe the method for gathering information and evaluating performance based on the requirements of the PWS, and reporting the results to the Government Contracting Officer Representative (COR) (PWS para 1.2.2.2.1).

M.3.1.1.4. The Offeror provides an effective method for gathering information and evaluating performance based on the requirements of the PWS, and reporting the results to the Government COR.

L.3.1.1.5. Present examples of how to successfully develop and implement quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

M.3.1.1.5. The Offeror provides adequate examples of how they have successfully developed and implemented quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contract requirements.

M..3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Workforce and Organizational Structure: This subfactor evaluates the company’s graphical representation of the operation, maintenance and logistics/administrative organizational structure for the base period and each option period of this contract for each place of performance (Luke AFB, AZ and Holloman AFB, NM). The standard is met when:

Subfactor 2: Workforce and Organizational Structure Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.1.2.1. Present a graphical organizational structure and the rationale for proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for each organizational element, work center, or shop.

M.3.1.2.1. The Offeror successfully demonstrates and presents a graphical organizational structure that delivers sufficient rationale for proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for each organizational element, work center, or shop.

L.3.1.2.2. Provide the number of full-time and part-time equivalents utilized and the rationale with calculations for this number based on workload projections provided in the PWS.

M.3.1.2.2. The Offeror provides an adequate full-time and part-time equivalents approach and appropriate rationale with calculations for the number of full-time and part-time equivalents based on workload projections provided in the

PWS.

L.3.1.2.2.1. Provide a detailed plan to provide Site Managers and Assistant Site Managers at each location with the required experience IAW PWS para 1.2.1.1.

M.3.1.2.2.1. The Offeror provided an acceptable, detailed plan for providing Site Managers and Assistant Site Managers that meet the required threshold of at least two (2) years of experience managing P5 ACTS (or any of the legacy Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) systems), or management of similar operations and maintenance contracts.

L.3.1.2.2.2. Provide a complete staffing/skill (job classification)/manpower matrix that is consistent with proposed methodology and provides Full or Part Time Equivalents sufficient to accomplish the projected workload provided in the PWS detailed to the “shop/function” level.

M.3.1.2.2.2. The proposal provides a sufficient staffing/skill (job classification)/ manpower matrix that is consistent with the proposed methodology and provided appropriate Full or Part Time equivalents sufficient to accomplish the projected workload provided in the PWS detailed to the “shop/function” level.

L.3.1.2.2.3. Provide the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE)/part-time, temporary staff-year equivalent hires. Provide the rationale and calculations used to arrive at the proposed FTE level. If the proposal includes fewer FTEs than typically required given the workload projections and PWS requirements, explain how you will achieve the efficiency and still accomplish the workload provided in the PWS (PWS Appendix 6).

M.3.1.2.2.3. The offeror adequately provides the number of Full Time Equivalents (FTE)/part-time, temporary staff-year equivalent hires. The Offeror successfully provides the rationale and calculations used to arrive at the proposed FTE level. The Offeror adequately explained and supported any efficiency that would be employed if the number of FTEs proposed appears to be lower than typically required, and still accomplish the workload provided in the PWS (PWS Appendix 6).

L.3.1.2.2.4. Identify “one-deep” positions on the organizational chart and explain the plan for backing up these positions.

M.3.1.2.2.4. The proposal adequately identifies “one-deep” positions on the organizational chart and sufficiently explains the plan for backing up these positions.

L.3.1.2.2.5. Demonstrate effective cross-utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout work centers. The proposal must

M.3.1.2.2.5. The Offeror adequately demonstrates an effective cross-utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout detail percentage of workforce that will be cross-utilized, while maintaining required skill mix and staffing levels.

work centers. The proposal sufficiently details percentage of workforce that will be cross-utilized, while maintaining required skill mix and staffing levels.

M.3.1.3. Subfactor 3: Understanding the Requirement: This subfactor evaluates the company’s overall approach and methodology for accomplishing work requirements identified in the PWS with the appropriate skills, equipment and materials. The standard is met when:

Subfactor 3: Understanding the Requirement Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.1.3.1. Demonstrate their ability to have trained personnel in sufficient number at the right place and at the right time to meet the PWS requirements.

M.3.1.3.1. The Offeror demonstrates an overall satisfactory approach for providing trained personnel in sufficient number at the right place and at the right time to meet the PWS requirements.

L.3.1.3.2. Provide a detailed approach to include sound innovations and efficiencies that enhance contract performance and achieve reduction in both contract and Government Operation and Maintenance costs.

M.3.1.3.2. The Offeror successfully provides a detailed approach that describes sound innovations and efficiencies that enhance contract performance and achieve reduction in both contract and Government Operation and Maintenance costs.

L.3.1.3.2.1. Describe an approach for scheduling work so that sufficient skills are available to meet the ACTS O&M and support requirements provided in the PWS.

M.3.1.3.2.1. The Offeror describes an adequate approach for scheduling work so that sufficient skills are available to meet the ACTS O&M and support requirements provided in the PWS.

L.3.1.3.2.2. Describe procedures/plans for operations/maintenance scheduling, tracking and completing special inspections, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance while continually meeting equipment availability standards.

M.3.1.3.2.2. The Offeror describes sufficient procedures/plans for operations/maintenance scheduling, tracking and completing special inspections, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance while continually meeting equipment availability standards.

L.3.1.3.2.3. Describe an approach for ensuring maintenance data input and forms required in the PWS are accomplished and that the status indicated on forms and in data systems is accurate.

M.3.1.3.2.3. The Offeror describes an adequate approach for ensuring maintenance data input and forms required in the PWS are accomplished and that the status indicated on forms and in data systems is accurate.

M.3.1.4. Subfactor 4: Service Provider Training Program: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach for developing a robust internal formal training program for operation, maintenance, and logistics personnel. The proposal must adequately address both remedial and on-going training. The standard is met when:

Subfactor 4: Service Provider Training Program Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.1.4.1. Describe a training plan and address how you will train, qualify, certify and maintain currency for employees prior to assuming a position and throughout the life of the contract.

M.3.1.4.1. The Offeror described a training plan that sufficiently addresses how to train, qualify, certify and maintain currency for employees prior to assuming a position and throughout the life of the contract.

M.3.1.5. Subfactor 5: Transition Plan: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s transition approach and ability to adequately achieve full performance on the first day of contract operations. The standard is met when:

Subfactor 5: Contractor Transition Plan Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.1.5.1. A detailed description that addresses recruiting, training, certifying, and qualifying personnel during the (1)-month mobilization period that results in sufficient numbers of fully qualified employees by contract start date. A graphical time-line schedule that addresses start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, badging and start work dates). The time-line shall address inventory for transfer of Government equipment and facilities, assumption of work, materials, and work procedures.

M.3.1.5.2. The Offeror provides a detailed description that adequately addresses recruiting, training, certifying, and qualifying personnel during the one (1)-month mobilization period that results in sufficient numbers of fully qualified employees by contract start date;

including a graphical time-line that addresses start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and start work dates). The time-line adequately addresses inventory for transfer of Government equipment and facilities, assumption of work, materials, and work procedures.

L.3.1.5.2 A plan that describes acquiring GSA leased vehicles in sufficient number and type that you plan to provide for use in performance of this contract and the timeline for acquiring them.

M.3.1.5.2. The proposal shows an adequate plan to provide sufficient number and type of GSA leased vehicles to be used in performance of this contract and the timeline for acquiring them.

M.4. Factor 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum solicitation requirements.

M.4.1. Attributes of Past Performance Evaluation: This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: 1) determining whether the Offeror’s recent past performance is relevant or not relevant to this effort; and 2) determining how well the contractor performed on the recent contracts determined to be relevant to this effort. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and/or history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts. Rather, it gathers information from customers to enable the evaluators to assess how well the Offeror performed on those contracts.

M.4.2. Past Performance Evaluation Procedures

M.4.2.1. The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the Offeror (using questionnaires, which are forwarded by the Offeror to the Offeror’s selected sources), and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these 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. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are proposed to perform less than 20% of the work and are not proposed to perform critical aspects will not be evaluated.

M.4.2.2. Recency: Recent contracts are those in which the Offeror has performed within the previous three (3) years of the date of i ssuance of this solicitation. In order to be considered “recent” for the purpose of this evaluation, current programs must have at least three (3) months of completed performance from the date of issuance of this RFP. Contract performance that meets these criteria will be evaluated in their entirety, regardless of the total length of the contract. Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

M.4.2.3. Relevancy: The Government will evaluate relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance and assign ratings of “Relevant” or “Not Relevant.” Evaluators will determine relevancy of the Offeror’s recent past performance by comparing those efforts to the current requirement with respect to scope, magnitude, and complexity. Specifically, evaluators will review: type of service provided, total contract value, duration of contract, and contract type of the contracts reviewed. The Government will assign relevancy ratings to each contract reference using the descriptions in Table 2 below:

Table 2: Relevancy Description

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

Similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities is further described as contracts that provide P-5 ACTS operation and maintenance (or other ACTS system), control of manned ranges or air traffic control as defined in the PWS, and similar level of workload as identified in the bid schedule.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.4.2.4. Past Performance Ratings: The Government will assign an overall “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” past performance rating based on the evaluators’ assessments of the Offeror’s past performance data, as depicted in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown*.

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

* In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR

15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “Acceptable.”

M.4.3. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation: Sources of past performance information for evaluation will be: (a) Offeror’s Past Performance Information Sheets for each contract submitted; (b) completed PPQs; and (c) information obtained from any source available to the Government to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The past performance evaluation team will review all past performance information as it applies to the requirements of this solicitation. See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for treatment of past performance relative to small business. Failure to receive an “Acceptable” past performance rating will result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

M.5. Factor 3 – PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal as described below. Any other data provided by the Offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.5.1. Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each Offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404 (which may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following proposal analysis techniques listed below) based on each Offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an Offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed should correspond to efforts described in the technical proposal; therefore, a very low price may be considered unreasonable.

M.5.1.1 The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received; comparison of proposed prices to previous Government and commercial contract prices for the same or similar services;

use of parametric estimating methods/rough yardsticks; comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices; comparison with Independent Government Cost Estimates; comparison with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar services; and analysis of pricing information provided by the Offeror.

M.5.1.2. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.5.1.3. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the CO may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.5.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): A TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for award decision purposes. The Offeror’s TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Section B Price Schedule of the RFP by the Offeror’s proposed unit price for each FFP CLIN for the base

FA3002-18-R-0010, Air Combat Training System Attachment 12 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P17_2192 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P17_2192 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 and all option periods and then added together to calculate the TEP. The TEP will not include the Not- To-Exceed cost-reimbursable CLINs. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed TEP.

M.5.3. It is the Government’s intention to award without discussions, however the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if it is in the best interest of the Government to do so. If the lowest, reasonably priced offer is determined technically “Acceptable,” and past performance is determined to be “Acceptable”, this represents the best value to the Government. Contingent upon a responsibility determination, an award will then be made to that Offeror. Offeror(s) shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in the Proposal Preparation Instructions in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M.5.4. The Government does reserve the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range shall 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. If the CO 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 shall be provided to unsuccessful Offeror(s) in accordance with FAR 15.503. Offeror(s) excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

M.5.5. After conclusion of discussions and receipt of final proposal revisions, the Government will make an award to the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer (by TEP) that is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has an acceptable performance assessment rating, as this represents the best value to the Government.

FA3002-18-R-0010, Air Combat Training System Attachment 12 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P289_46239 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P289_46239 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P996_186227 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P975_183570 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P996_186227 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P22_3269