Draft_Evaluation_Criteria.docx

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 Evaluation – Commercial Items

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team 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.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Communications, Operations and Maintenance Functions II program. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price 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.

1.4. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5. Discussions

If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

(1) If the Government determines that, after the initial evaluation of proposals, discussions are necessary, the Government may make a competitive range determination (limited to a restricted number of the highest rated proposals) in order to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct discussions.

(2) Discussions will be initiated by the CO issuing the ENs to the offerors within the competitive range. ENs may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

(3) Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

a. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1. Technical/Technical Risk

Subfactor 1. Technical Approach

Subfactor 2. Staffing Approach

Factor 2. Past Performance

Factor 3. Price

b. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical/Technical Risk and Past Performance are of equal importance. Within the Technical factor, the subfactors are considered of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2.2. Technical Factor

The offeror’s technical solution will be evaluated by following DoD Source Selection Procedures Methodology 2, Separate Technical/Technical Risk Rating Process. The Technical factor evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

Technical Rating. A color and an adjectival rating will be assigned to each subfactor IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2.1, Table 2 (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths and deficiencies of the proposal. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

DoD SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES: TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

2.2.1. Subfactor 1. Technical Approach

Offerors shall provide an effective and detailed plan describing their technical methodology/approach to be used in performing the requirements of the PWS. Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the offeror’s technical approach demonstrates the ability to:

a. Provide knowledge of AMC’s C2, ITV and business Systems listed in section 1.2 of the PWS. Incorporate knowledge of the examples of software and appliances listed in section 1.1 of the PWS and the hardware and software listings in the bid library.

b. Provide Program Management.

c. Provide and maintain a Help Desk including responding to and tracking requests for technical assistance, diagnosing and resolving technical hardware and software issues, redirecting issues to appropriate resources, and maintaining, modernizing, and developing features for an automated trouble ticket tracking system.

d. Provide system administration services consisting of effective system/servers provisioning, installation, configuration, operation, and maintenance of Systems hardware, software, and related infrastructure.

e. Provide system monitoring including monitoring alarms; verifying the integrity and availability of all hardware, interfaces, server (including virtual server) resources, systems, and key processes; reviewing system and application logs; and verifying completion of scheduled jobs (e.g. clean-up scripts, backups, and resets).

f. Provide network administration services consisting of effective network/appliance provisioning, installation, configuration, security, operation, and maintenance of Systems hardware, software, and related infrastructure.

g. Perform network monitoring including monitoring alarms; verifying the integrity and availability of all hardware, appliances, resources, and systems.

h. Troubleshoot and resolve database system malfunctions to meet operational parameters and resolve issues by detecting and isolating faults, and taking corrective action to restore fully operational status.

i. Monitor assigned applications and related systems for the purpose of reducing application downtime and ensuring that assigned applications are available when needed to meet system performance and availability parameters.

j. Ensure configuration control is implemented for all items identified in the various Systems’ production configuration baselines and production virtual images.

k. Provide robust configuration management for the production environment for all assigned Systems.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2. Staffing Approach

Each offeror shall provide an effective and detailed plan describing their approach to overall staffing of and transition to COM-F II. Measures of merit for this subfactor are met when the offeror’s staffing approach provides the following:

a. A staffing plan containing a personnel matrix that identifies the personnel resources to perform the requirements of the PWS. The plan shall provide a logical approach that ensures timely support and shall specifically address the following requirements:

1. Process to recruit/retain/replace personnel who have the knowledge, experience, training, and technical expertise/certification/security clearances commensurate with the requirements of the PWS.

2. Identification of key personnel listed in section 6.3 of the PWS to include position descriptions identifying the educational and experience level, requisite security clearances and (IA) certifications and any other qualifications showing the key individual’s ability to be key personnel for the services required by the PWS. Additionally, the contractor shall include the specific resumes of the key personnel listed in section 6.3 of the PWS. Salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract should be included in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, incorporated by reference.

3. A hierarchy chart displaying proposed organizational structure and span of authority.

4. Evidence of the ability to support PWS requirements during mission essential conditions for the tasks listed in section 13 of the PWS.

b. Phase-In Plan. Offerors shall provide a plan for transitioning services that includes specific details of the timelines needed to meet all Government requirements as detailed in sections 17.1 and 17.1.1 of the PWS. In addition, the proposed plan must provide an explanation for start-up, mobilization, and transition depicting the chronological sequence of events which will be accomplished starting at contract award in order to meet all requirements of the PWS.

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 objective requirements.

Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

A separate Technical Risk Rating will be assigned to each Technical subfactor IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2.2, Table 3 (shown below). The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weaknesses identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

DoD SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES: TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low Has 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 Can 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 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.

2.3. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

a. Ratings. One performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. The performance confidence assessments ratings are described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below:

DoD SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES: TABLE 5 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

b. Evaluation Process. The Government will require offerors to submit Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS) with individual contract references for the past performance evaluation. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), and other databases; interviews with Program Managers, COs; Past Performance Questionnaires; and commercial sources.

(1) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(2) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance. Consideration will be given to the scope and complexity of the reference and the contractor’s ability to provide operations and maintenance support expertise. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made for each reference based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). Each offeror’s total past performance will be evaluated in the aggregate with prime offeror’s past performance being of equal weight to team member’s past performance. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The PPIS and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts:

DoD SOURCE SELECTION PROCEDURES: TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

VERY RELEVANT

(1) Offeror shall demonstrate recent DoD experience and expertise in Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV or Business Systems.

(2) In addition to demonstrating recent DoD experience and expertise in MAF C2, ITV or Business Systems, the offeror must demonstrate:

Recent DoD experience and expertise in four or more of the following areas:

- Monitor and troubleshoot global data replication

- LAN/WAN network communication support within TACC, AMC and/or USTC

- Configuration and asset management for multiple networks and systems

- Provide 24/7/365 multi-tiered help desk for multiple networks and systems

- Provide 24/7/365 monitoring of assigned applications and related systems

- Provide system administration services consisting of effective system/servers provisioning, installation, configuration, operation, and maintenance of hardware and software

- Provide database administration services including but not limited to resolving system malfunctions to meet operational parameters

- The Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV or Business Systems

- Monitor and troubleshoot global data replication

- LAN/WAN network communication support within TACC, AMC and/or USTC

- Configuration and asset management for multiple networks and systems

- Provide 24/7/365 multi-tiered help desk for multiple networks and systems

- Provide 24/7/365 monitoring of assigned applications and related systems

- Provide system administration services consisting of effective system/servers provisioning, installation, configuration, operation, and maintenance of hardware and software

- Provide database administration services including, but not limited, to resolving system malfunctions to meet operational parameters

- The Mobility Air Force (MAF) C2, ITV or Business Systems

- Monitor and troubleshoot global data replication

- LAN/WAN network communication support within TACC, AMC and/or USTC

- Configuration and asset management for multiple networks and systems

- Provide 24/7/365 multi-tiered help desk for multiple networks and systems

- Provide 24/7/365 monitoring of assigned applications and related systems

- Provide system administration services consisting of effective system/servers provisioning, installation, configuration, operation, and maintenance of hardware and software

- Provide database administration services including, but not limited to, resolving system malfunctions to meet operational parameters

c. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy assessments of the recent contracts evaluated and how well the contractor performed on contracts reviewed through CPARS, PPIRS, FAPIIS, etc. and contracts listed in PPIS’s, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor past performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and higher rated relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or lower rated relevant performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Price Factor

a. Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated (but not rated) for award purposes. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the basic requirements (3-month phase-in/1-month base period), all option periods (four 1-year options and one 8-month option) and the 6-month option to extend services. Evaluation of options and/or extensions shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions. TEP will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The Government anticipates using the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), (ii), and (v) to determine prices fair and reasonable. In the event these techniques are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used.

b. The 6-month option to extend services is IAW FAR 52.217-8, "Option to Extend Services" and will only be utilized if necessary. The 6-month option to extend services is not to be considered part of option period 5 and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized. However, proposed pricing for the 6-month extension will be based on option period 5 pricing.

c. Also included in the TEP calculation shall be any ODCs and Travel CLINs provided by the Government. The TEP supports a contract total price based on the basic requirements (3-month phase-in/1-month base period), all options periods (four 1-year options and one 8-month option) and the 6-month option to extend services following option period 5.

d. The offerors’ proposals will be evaluated to determine completeness and reasonableness, as defined below.

(1) Completeness. The proposals will be reviewed to determine the extent to which all the price elements of the offer have been addressed. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure continuity and traceability of prices to the technical proposal and between the initial proposal and any revisions thereto. The review will determine the adequacy of the contractor’s proposal in addressing and fulfilling the solicitation requirements.

(2) Reasonableness. 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. As stated above, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

3. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.