Draft Evaluation Factors.doc

FAR CLAUSE 52.212-2

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD, BUT WILL BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (JAN 1999)

(a) The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) MISSION CAPABILITY/RISK

(2) PAST PERFORMANCE

(3) PRICE

Misstion Capability/Risk and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than price, however price will contribute to the selection decision.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2:

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

This is a Full Tradeoff (Best Value) competitive source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), when appropriate and the Air Force Source Selection Mandatory Procedures (MP5315.3) dated January 2008. 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 Price, Mission Capability/Risk (Technical) and Past Performance. 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 52.212-1 Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Items 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 superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior 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.

2.0 COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3.0 REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC PROPOSALS:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unrealistic in achieving the objectives and/or tasks of the Program Management Engineering Acquisition Support (PMEAS) requirement, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates. This reflects an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the requirements of the PMEAS contract.

4.0 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

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

5.0 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award up to 1 (one) contract for the PMEAS Program.

6.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

6.1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

This acquisition will utilize the Full Tradeoff (Best Value) source selection procedures to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. This is a competitive source selection in which competing offerors’ mission capability and past performance combined will be evaluated as significantly more important than cost or price; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

The Government will award a contract resulting from the solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. Only those elements considered discriminating factors will be source selection evaluation criteria. The following will be the factors and subfactors criteria included in the solicitation:

· Factor 1 – Mission Capability/Risk (Technical)

· SubFactor 1 – Program Management

· SubFactor 2 – Technical Support

· SubFactor 3 – Transition Plan

· Factor 2 – Past Performance

· Factor 3 – Price

6.2 MISSION CAPABILITY/RISK (TECHNICAL) FACTOR

The Mission Capability evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Mission Capability Technical Rating and the Mission Capability Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Mission Capability subfactor.

6.2.1 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Mission Capability subfactors will be evaluated to determine how well each proposal responds to the solicitation requirements and evaluation criteria. Subfactors 1 and 2 will be of equal importance with subfactor 3 of less importance. Based on the evaluated strengths, deficiencies, and/or uncertainties within the proposal each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings below.

TABLE 6.2.1 MISSION CAPABILITY RATINGS

(Include the description of each Mission Capability subfactor and how it will be evaluated for the technical rating. The narrative description for each subfactor should include 1) a statement of what is being evaluated (e.g., This subfactor evaluates…); 2) a clearly stated measure of merit covering what is necessary to meet the requirement covered by the subfactor (e.g., This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal addresses…); and 3) if applicable, the measure of merit should also state what is necessary to exceed the requirement covered by the subfactor (e.g., This requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates, substantiates, etc…). See paragraph 2.4.3.2 for detailed discussion of Mission Capability subfactors)

6.2.2 SUBFACTOR 1: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

This subfactor shall provide an approach for program management that thoroughly describes how the offer will provide a cleared and qualified workforce starting day one of the contract and plan on how to maintain that workforce. Staffing, security and training plans will be evaluated. This requirement will be met when the offeror’s proposal clearly addresses how staff will be hired and clearances maintained. An effective OCI Mitigation plan is a critical element. This requirement will be exceeded with demonstration that the staff will have appropriate access and clearances on day one.

6.2.3 SUBFACTOR 2: TECHINICAL SUPPORT

This subfactor shall provide an approach for technical support that shows technical ability and how requirements described in the PWS Paragraph 1.3 will be met. The offeror must address how they plan to staff the requirements for both key and non-key individuals. This requirement will be met when the offeror’s proposal clearly addresses that PWS requirements will be met. Only include qualification summaries of key individuals. Qualification summaries will be evaluated. Qualification summaries do not count toward the page limit. The requirement will be exceeded with demonstration that key personnel have experience across multiple domains. All key personnel are 850th ELSG/NQ personnel and are outlined by FTE in table 6.2.3.

TABLE 6.2.3

3 Persons

1 Person

3 Persons

1 Person

1 Person

3 Person

Category A: Acquisitions experience and/or expertise

1. As a provider of Program Support to Program Managers with specialization in program management, implementation and establishing system requirements.

2. In acquisition strategy planning and program costing, requirements development and business process documentation and implementation.

3. In drafting, staffing and coordinating acquisition documentation.

4. In acquisition financial management and business process analysis supporting Program Control.

5. In major program acquisition, financial management of all acquisition appropriations, Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and DoD acquisition laws policies and regulations.

6. As provider of Joint Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS) documentation support.

7. In drafting, staffing and coordination of Air Force, OSD, and Congressional reports.

Category B: Finance/Program Control experience and/or expertise

1. In updating program financial documentation for Air Force semiannual reporting, financial analysis, milestone cost documentation and Work Breakdown Structures.

2. In major program acquisition, financial management of all acquisition appropriations, Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and DoD acquisition laws policies and regulations.

3. As Senior Audit Manager qualified to perform all levels of acquisition audits.

4. In Program Control using Earned Value Management Systems on performance-based Government contracts.

5. As Financial Manager managing program budgets and execution.

6. On accounting system CCaRs.

Category C: Operations experience and/or expertise

1. In information and command & control systems management.

2. With net-centric solutions for current and future C2 systems.

3. In reviewing and providing assessments on the impacts of national defense policy and strategy on command & control, planning, and situational awareness capabilities supporting operational missions.

4. Identifying capability gaps and acquisition of systems and services designed to ensure users receive access to primary US, Allied, and Coalition time-sensitive adaptive planning tools..

5. In drafting, staffing and coordination of Air Force, OSD, and Congressional reports.

6. As provider of Joint Capability Integration and Development System (JCIDS) documentation support.

7. As a planner, advisor, and analyst on deployed enterprise strategies that leverage network-centric capabilities for global users.

Category D: IA and IM experience and/or expertise

1. As provider of engineering support for Global and Cyber Command/Control (C2) network capabilities development.

2. Identifying capability gaps and acquisition of systems and services designed to ensure users receive access to primary US, Allied, and Coalition time-sensitive adaptive planning tools.

3. As IA Security Engineer, Information System Security Officer, Network Manager, System Administrator, and/or Information System Security Manager. Experience in Information Assurance as an Information System Security Manager (ISSM), Information Assurance Manager (IAM) and/or IAO.

4. As planner, advisor, and analyst on deployed enterprise strategies that leverage network-centric capabilities for global users.

5. Certified in Information Assurance

In addition to the required expertise, desired traits for key personnel are as follows:

Category C: Operations experience and/or expertise

1. As provider of engineering support for Global and Cyber Command/Control (C2) network capabilities development.

2. In missile defense systems/operations; missile warning; satellite command/control (C2); space exploitation.

3. In strategic nuclear ICBM and bomber planning and operations and arms control.

4. In the production, distribution, and implementation of strategic targeting materials.

Category D: IA and IM experience and/or expertise

1. As systems engineer for modernization and sustainment.

2. In drafting, staffing and coordination of Air Force, OSD, and Congressional reports.

3. In personnel security.

6.2.4 SUBFACTOR 3: TRANSITION PLAN

This subfactor shall clearly demonstrate the offeror’s approach to providing a sound organization which provides sufficient personnel with appropriate technical and security qualifications and ensure a seamless transition to fulfill the acquisition requirements. The plan shall include a staffing matrix that indicates number of positions by labor category and description and a training plan. The staffing matrix and training plan will be evaluated to determine the offerors ability to provide correct staffing mix to accomplish the work to be performed. This requirement will be met with a staffing matrix that indicates the ability to provide the correct staffing mix of cleared, qualified personnel on contract start. This requirement will be exceeded with a transition plan that demonstrates the transition plan will not interrupt FY changeover activities.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign strength, for performance in excess of threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements.

(In addition to one of the statements above for any subfactor for which tradeoffs may be considered, you must also describe how you will evaluate the tradeoff (e.g., what other factors or subfactors will be considered and their relative importance between the evaluation factors/subfactors. It is mandatory to state in the solicitation how the tradeoffs will be evaluated.)

(When a strength(s) is identified and a Green or Blue Mission Capability Technical Rating may be warranted, the Green or Blue rating is earned based upon the magnitude of the additional benefit(s) to the Government associated with the strength(s). The mere existence of a single strength does not necessarily merit a Blue rating, though a Blue rating may be warranted should that strength provide considerable benefit to the Government. Conversely, a number of strengths may not merit a Blue rating if the collective benefit is relatively minor.)

(In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(ii) and 10 U.S.C. 2436, consider including the following language as part of a subfactor in major defense acquisition programs, as defined in 10 U.S.C. 2430, when it is pertinent to the best value determination:)

(If there is a requirement to consider an offeror’s commitment to purchase U.S. manufactured capital assets in the SRD, SOO, or other program requirements document, it should be included as a part of another subfactor. If it is not a part of a subfactor, there will be no way to rate it for color or risk, since the color and risk ratings are at the subfactor level.)

6.2.5 MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATING

Each Mission Capability subfactor will also receive a proposal risk assessment rating based on the definitions below that will focus on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach. Proposal risk will include an assessment of the potential to disrupt schedule, increase cost, degrade performance, the need for increased Government oversight, as well as judging the probability of success and the impact of unsuccessful contract performance. For any identified weakness, the evaluation will address the offeror’s proposed mitigation strategy and whether it is manageable.

TABLE 6.2.5 PROPOSAL RISK RATINGS

6.3 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule.

Within the Past Performance factor only recent and relevant performance will be assessed. Recency and Relevancy are defined as:

Recency: Contracts completed or ongoing within the past three years from formal release date of the RFP. Performance on contracts that began within six months of formal release date of RFP will not be considered.

Relevancy: Efforts that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity to those required for PMEAS support

6.3.1 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Under the Past Performance factor, the performance confidence assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror's past work records to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's probability of successfully performing the contract requirements. 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 Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor. The Government may consider past performance on an individual contract basis and in total. 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, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence, as defined in AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, Table 3. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. The performance ratings are:

TABLE 6.3.1

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

6.3.2 RECENCY AND RELEVANCY

6.3.2.1 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 (insert appropriate number) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Performance on contracts that began within six months of formal release date of this solicitation will not be considered.

6.3.2.2 RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). (insert appropriate criteria, such as product/service similarity, complexity, similar technology, diversity of tasks, type of effort [development, production, repair, etc.], contract scope and type, and performance period.) A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 6.3.2.2

(NOTE: The criteria the PCAG uses to determine “relevancy” should be included in this part of Section M. For example, relevancy criteria might include the technologies, functions, domain expertise, software development and integration experience, contract/subcontract management, and scope of effort. These criteria should relate to the Mission Capability subfactors. For further discussion on relevancy definitions and criteria, see AF IG5315.305(a)(2), Past Performance Evaluation Guide(PPEG))

6.3.2.3 PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. 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. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 6.3.2.3(Include the quality ratings your team decides to use. Some teams have used the CPARS ratings. An example of another set of ratings is shown below.)

6.3.3 ASSIGNING RATINGS

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no 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 relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. 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.

6.4 PRICE FACTOR

Price will be assessed for reasonableness and affordability pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(1), 15.402, and 15.404. There is no rating (e.g. color, risk, etc.) associated with the price factor. The total evaluated price for award purposes will be the sum of all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS), including options. If the cost reasonableness assessment indicates the proposed price is excessively high or low, the Government may consider the Offeror to have a lack of understanding of the technical requirements. The proposal would then be considered unreasonable and/or unrealistic and will not be awardable.

6.5 DISCUSSIONS

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.

7.0 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.