Attachment 5 - Section M - Evaluation Factors - Amendment 1.pdf

Attachment 3 Page 1 of 4

ATTACHMENT 3 – SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS

SOLICITATION # FA4528-24-R-0008

LF Contours IDIQ & Seed Project

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will base its evaluation solely on the information presented in each offerors’ proposal as detailed in this section. Award will be made based on the best value tradeoff process, with the work performance plan and past performance, when combined, being approximately equal to price IAW FAR 15.101-1.

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in this solicitation Section M but is other than the lowest-priced offeror.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for a Launch Facility Contour Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity at Minot AFB, North Dakota.

Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions or the opportunity for proposal revisions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

Offerors may be required to respond with their FPR within 24 hours. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to re-evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals removed for unfavorable ratings or pricing at the sole discretion of the Government. A competitive range, if required, may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2).

SECTION I – ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS

Offerors will be assessed on a Pass / Fail basis determined by compliance with the instructions provided under Section I of Attachment 2 “Section L” of this solicitation. Any offeror that does not comply with the administrative requirements may be removed from consideration for award.

SECTION II – WORK PERFORMANCE PLAN

The Work Performance Plan evaluation will examine the contractor’s capability to complete requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The evaluation will also examine proposals for schedule efficiencies and/or processes considered to be more advantageous to the Government. All Work Performance Plans will be assessed by each member of the source selection team and shall be assigned a rating using the table

Attachment 3 Page 2 of 4 listed below. Any proposals that are assigned either a marginal or unacceptable rating may be removed from consideration for award.

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal meets requirement and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is not awardable.

SECTION III – PRICE PROPOSAL

Both CLIN pricing and Total pricing submitted on the “FY24 LF Contours 5-year Bid Sheet” and the “FY24 LF Contours - Seed Project Bid” will be evaluated to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable IAW FAR 15.404.

Total amounts submitted without prices being entered on individual items will be rejected. In case of variation between the lump-sum prices and the total amount, the lump-sum prices will be considered the price submitted. Quantities for unit priced items are estimated only and the respective unit price will prevail in the event of an overrun or underrun subject to Section FAR 52.211-18 “Variation in Estimated Quantities”.

SECTION IV - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of past performance in comparison to the work required in this solicitation. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government will employ several approaches, including but not limited to the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal section, and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as: Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases; previous source selections; and interviews/questionnaires with Contracting Officers and commercial sources. There are two (2) aspects to the past performance confidence evaluation: recency and relevancy (including context of data). Both aspects will be considered for each of the contracts evaluated.

Attachment 3 Page 3 of 4

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 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained that met the recency condition. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the logistical considerations including but not limited to length of effort, dollar values, and type and complexity of deliverables. In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner.

Each Offeror will receive one of the past performance ratings detailed below based on the Offeror’s evaluated record of recent and relevant past performance. More recent performance or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance confidence assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of recent relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Any proposals receiving a limited confidence, or no confidence rating may be

KENDALL, CHARLES M SMSgt USAF AFGSC 5 CONS/SEL One of the past performance ratings detailed below based on Section IV of this document.

Attachment 3 Page 4 of 4 removed from consideration for award.

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Non-conformance with the specific organization, content, and page limitations may result in misevaluation of proposals or, depending on the magnitude of the nonconformance, the proposals may be eliminated from further evaluation. The proposal must be completed and emailed to daphne.rousey.1@us.af.mil and charles.kendall@us.af.mil No Later Than the due date and time specified in Block 13 of the SF1442 mailto:daphne.rousey.1@us.af.mil mailto:charles.kendall@us.af.mil