Attachment_3_-_Section_M_-_26_Dec_18.docx

Attachment 3 FA330019RA001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

Section M- Evaluation Basis for Award

I. Basis for Contract Award

This solicitation for Purchase Agents for Air Force Credentialing Opportunities On-Line (COOL) is set aside for small business concerns

A. Source Selection Methodology: This is a competitive Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, DFARS 215.3 and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information will be approximately equal to price. 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. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Any proposal with an unacceptable Technical rating will not receive further evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another Offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

B. Evaluation Factors for Award: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate the proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1 - Technical (Volume II) Factor 2 - Past Performance (Volume III) Factor 3 - Price (Volume IV)

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Volume II, Factor 1 - Technical Factor

Technical Acceptability Factor. The Government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more technical subfactor will render that technical factor as Unacceptable in the Technical Evaluation. The Offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors outlined below as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS), in Attachment 1. Detailed preparation instructions are included in Section L, Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders.

Table 1. Technical Acceptability Ratings, Defined

Technical Proposal. This Technical Factor will assess the offeror’s financial capability to access at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) from a reputable financial institution or entity; and the offeror’s Management Plan must include resumes for qualified individuals intended to fill the positions designaed in PWS paragraph 6.3 and ensure no gap in any labor caegory exceeds 10 days IAW PWS paragraph 8.0. The evaluation will address the offeror’s response as outlined below in the right-hand column. The “Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Bidders” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for quick reference only.

Subfactor 1: Financial Capability

The offeror shall demonstrate their Financial Capabilty by providing:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror successfully demonstrate its Financial Capabilty as follows:

Subfactor 2: Management Plan

The technical volume shall not exceed 40 pages (All documents)20 pages. A page is defined as one face of a sheet of paper containing information. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. Offerors are cautioned that any pages that exceed the page limitations shall not be read but shall be removed and either retained in the contract file without being considered in the evaluation, or, sent back to the offeror.

B. Volume III, Factor 2 - Past Performance Factor

Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (RFP Attachment 5), and (iii) any data independently obtained by the Government (e.g., the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)). If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Section L does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the Government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (i.e., 25% or more of the work) when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

0. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, somewhat relevant, relevant, and very relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the Offeror’s adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

0. The quality 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 element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

0. Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years from the issuance date of the solicitation, to include at least twelve (12) months of documented performance during the three (3) year period.

0. Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The Government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, the past/present effort must meet the following criteria:

· The total value must > $1,000,000.00 over the life of the contract.

· Performance duration must be three two (32) or more years.

· Performance must be in the Department of Defense or federal agency to purchase credentialing exams, preparation materials, and course work associated with preparation for civilian credentialing

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” but meets all of the following:

· The total value must > $500,000.00 over the life of the contract.

· Performance duration must be three one (31) or more years.

· Performance must be in an organization similar to the Department of Defense or federal agency to purchase credentialing exams, preparation materials, and course work associated with preparation for civilian credentialing.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this Solicitation requires. To qualify, the performance may fail to meet all of the requirements for “Very Relevant” or “Relevant” but meets all of the following:

· The total value must > $250,000.00 over the life of the contract.

· Performance duration must be three one (13) or more years.

· Performance must be to purchase credentialing exams, preparation materials, and course work associated with preparation for civilian credentialing.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude and of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. To qualify, all performance fails to meet one of the three relevancy ratings: “Very Relevant”, “Relevant” or “Somewhat Relevant.”

0. Sources. The Government may seek relevant performance information from the offeror in the form of Past Performance Questionnaires that are forwarded by the offeror to its selected sources; and data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Performance information may also be obtained from the references for each past/present effort submitted and/or from other sources. The past performance evaluation may take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, and/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:

4. The performance of these past efforts is relevant to the proposed effort; and

4. 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 the performance of the proposed effort.

0. Performance Evaluation. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s past performance meets the PWS and technical requirements of previous efforts, the assessment may consider things such as: the offeror’s history of adhering to schedules, the administrative aspects of performance, reasonable and cooperative behavior, and commitment to customer satisfaction.

When a relevant and recent performance record indicates performance problems, the Government may consider the number and severity of the problems and the suitability and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent projects or performance evaluations to review the corrective actions and evaluate their effectiveness.

0. Performance Confidence Assessment. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The Government will combine the recency, relevancy and performance evaluations of all of the efforts considered for the offeror to assign a Performance Confidence Assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence or No Confidence as described below in Table 4.

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

C. Volume IV, Factor 3 - Price Evaluation Factor. The Government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). Separately priced line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced.

1. Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer. The offeror’s TEP will be determined as the sum of CLINs 0001 and 1001 base year and the option year. CLINs X002 and X003 are Cost Reimbursable CLINs and will not be evaluated in the TEP.

1. Evaluating the Option CLIN do not obligate the Government to exercise the Option. The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-18, 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 year and option year will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services. No pricing is requested and will not be evaluated if submitted for the 6-month period referenced in FAR clause 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services.

1. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appears 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 determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1. Price will be evaluated for fair and reasonableness in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness; therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, if at any time during this competition the Contrating Officer (CO) determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the CO to determine price reasonableness.

E. Price Performance Trade-off. After the initial evaluation of each offeror’s price proposal, the Government will rank all offerors by price from the lowest TEP to the highest TEP.

The offer with the lowest TEP will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability. If the lowest-priced offer is determined to be Technically Unacceptable, that offer will be eliminated from consideration and the next lowest priced offer will be evaluated for Technically Acceptability.

Once the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer is determined, the Government will then proceed to conduct the Past Performance Evaluation for the offeror. If this Offeror is assessed a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence rating, its offer will be determined to represent the best value to the Government and no other offers will be evaluated or considered. Award will be made to that Offeror.

If the Offeror with the lowest-priced, Technically Acceptable offer does not have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment rating, the Government will then evaluate the next lowest-priced offer for Technically Acceptability and if determined Technically Acceptable, proceed to conduct a Past Performance Evaluation on that Offeror.

The process will continue (in ascending TEP) until the Government finds an Offeror with a Technically Acceptable offer and a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating or until all Technically Acceptable offers are considered.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will then make an integrated assessment, best value award decision which will include the Offeror with a Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating (if found) and all technically acceptable offers with TEPs lower than the TEP of the Offeror with the Substantial Confidence performance assessment rating; unless it is in the Government’s best interest to conduct discussions. For example: five technically acceptable offers are received; the Offerors with the first and second lowest TEP offers have performance assessment ratings less than Substantial Confidence, but the Offeror with the third lowest TEP has a performance assessment rating of Substantial Confidence. The SSA would make an integrated assessment, best value award decision among those three Offerors.

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(End of Section)