Section_M_009.pdf

FA4861-18-R-C003 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award.

1.0. M-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE.

1.1. NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

1.2. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS:

PARAGRAPH TITLE DATE

1.3. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT

(48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

1.4. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION

2.0. M-2 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT.

2.1. NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

2.1.1. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

2.1.2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48

CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

2.1.3. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION

2.1.4. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

3.0. M-3 SOURCE SELECTION.

3.1. Basis for Contract Award. This is a subjective 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 a Technical Rating, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and

Cost/Price. Contract(s) 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 Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_246.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ 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 and/or overall business 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.

3.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract for the Nellis

ADAIR IIProgram, however the Government reserves the right to award more than one contract depending on the quality of the proposals received.

3.3. Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP). All proposals submitted shall make no assumptions of the usage of any GFP not mentioned in the PWS.

3.4. Discussions. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions during the evaluation period, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. 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 evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

4.0. M-4 EVALUATION FACTORS.

4.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. 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.

4.1.1. Factor 1: Technical

4.1.1.1. Subfactor 1: Aircraft Key Performance Parameters

4.1.1.1.1. Element 1: Aircraft Speed

4.1.1.1.2. Element 2: Aircraft Radar

4.1.1.2. Subfactor 2: Implementation Approach

4.1.1.2.1. Element 1: Delivery/Mobilization Schedule

4.1.1.2.2. Element 2: Contemplated Post-Award Aircraft Modifications

4.1.1.2.3. Element 3: Aircraft Possession

4.1.1.2.4. Element 4: Aircraft Accidents and Corrective Action Steps

4.1.1.3. Subfactor 3: Logistics Sustainment Approach

4.1.1.3.1. Element 1: Component Lifecycle Tracking and Supply Chain Management Methodology

4.1.1.3.2. Element 2: Maintenance Practices

4.1.1.3.3. Element 3: Staffing Plan

4.1.1.4. Subfactor 4: Management Approach

4.1.1.4.1. Element 1: Facility Security Clearance

4.1.1.4.2. Element 2: Small Business Participation Commitment Document

4.1.1.4.3. Element 3: Small Business Subcontracting Plan

4.1.2. Factor 2: Past Performance Information

4.1.3. Factor 3: Cost/Price Proposal

5.0. Technical Evaluation. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a subjective basis, ultimately assigning ratings of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable. Offers will be assigned Strengths for exceeding threshold requirements for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 only. Deficiencies, Weaknesses, and Significant Weaknesses will be identified based on offerors technical proposal in accordance with Table 2C below. Offers with Deficiencies will not be eligible for award. Offers with two or more Significant Weaknesses will not be eligible for award. Two or more areas that are graded as a Weakness will be categorized as a Significant Weakness. Technical proposals will also be assigned a risk rating IAW Table 2B based upon evaluation of Technical Subfactors.

6.0. Past Performance Confidence Assessment. Next, the Contracting Officer shall seek recent, relevant, and performance quality information on all offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from the Government and commercial sources. The Government requires the Offeror to submit completed past performance questionnaires as part of this evaluation.

7.0. Price Evaluation. Finally, the Government will place all offers (and Unacceptable offers with correction potential) in order from lowest to highest price. An offeror’s proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each. Offeror whose total evaluated price is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), or unaffordable (not within the budgetary information included in the solicitation) may not be considered for award.

8.0. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 3

(Cost/Price) last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance.

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

9.0. Technical Factor. The Technical 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. Subfactors to which the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk

Rating will apply are Subfactor 1: Aircraft Key Performance Parameters, Subfactor 2: Implementation

Approach, and Subfactor 3: Logistics Sustainment Approach. Subfactor 4 will be evaluated on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis and a no separate risk rating will be assigned.

9.1. Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A – Technical Rating Method, excerpt below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2A - Technical Rating Method http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf

9.2. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is determined 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.

9.2.1. The Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk Rating, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

9.2.2. Definitions for Deficiency, Strength, Weakness, and Significant Weakness as excerpted from DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Chapter 5 – Definitions:

TABLE 2C - Definitions

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Strength

An aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

TABLE 2B – Technical Risk Rating Method

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR

15.001.

Significant

Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR

15.001.

9.3. Subfactor 1: Aircraft Key Performance Parameters – Technical Rating Method. Description:

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s plan to bring tactical aircraft that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Performance Work Statement. This subfactor is met or exceeded when the offerors present a sound and realistic proposal to achieve all requirements within the Performance Work Statement and the following key subfactor elements. Offerors are permitted to propose multiple types of aircraft but each type aircraft must meet the threshold requirements set forth here and in the Performance Work Statement.

9.3.1. Aircraft Speed.

9.3.1.1. Minimum: Mach .80 +/-.02 at 35,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL)

9.3.1.2. Objective: Mach 1.5 +/-.02 at 35,000 feet Mean Sea Level (MSL)

9.3.2. Aircraft Radar.

9.3.2.1. Minimum: Fire-control radar capable of providing targeting data of a 2M2 target out to 20 nautical miles (NM). Radars must provide an aircraft and the pilot the capability to detect, track, and simulate ordnance employment against an opposing aircraft.

9.3.2.2. Objective: Fire-control radar capable of providing targeting data of a 2M2 target out to 50 nautical miles (NM). Radars must provide the capability to deliberately detect, track, and simulate ordnance employment against an opposing aircraft.

9.4. Subfactor 2: Implementation Approach – Technical Rating Method. Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s implementation plan to bring tactical aircraft that meet or exceed the minimum requirements of the Performance Work Statement to Nellis AFB. This subfactor is met or exceeded when the offerors present a sound and realistic proposal to achieve all requirements within the Performance Work Statement.

9.4.1. Delivery/Mobilization Schedule.

9.4.1.1. Offerors shall provide a detailed plan that describes:

9.4.1.1.1. How many aircraft are planned to be dedicated and provided that meet the technical specifications for this contract?

9.4.1.1.2. When will the requisite amount of aircraft that meet the required turn pattern called for in the PWS be available?

9.4.2. Contemplated Post-Award Aircraft Modifications.

9.4.2.1. If applicable, offerors shall provide a plan that describes:

9.4.2.1.1. What equipment(s) and timeframe(s) are needed for modification or replacement in order to meet minimum PWS requirements (if none, state N/A).

9.4.2.1.2. What equipment and timeframe is contemplated for modification or replacement in order to exceed minimum PWS requirements.

9.4.3. Aircraft Possession.

9.4.3.1. Offers shall demonstrate current or future aircraft possession. Greater consideration may be given to offerors that can demonstrate current possession of aircraft. Examples of current or future aircraft possession are:

Aircraft FAA registration certificates, lease agreements, purchase agreements, or a future plan for ownership. Proof shall be submitted in writing as an attachments/handouts for oral presentations and the reports will not be limited by any page limitation.

9.4.4. Aircraft Accidents and Corrective Action Steps.

9.4.4.1. Offers shall fully disclose all past aircraft incidents and accidents (as defined by NTSB 830). Offers will provide Preliminary Reports, Synopsis Reports, Final Reports, Data Summary, and/or any other equivalent

Department of Defense crash investigation board reports. These reports should be submitted in writing as an attachments/handouts for oral presentations and the reports will not be limited by any page limitation. Offers shall present pertinent details about past aircraft incidents and accidents as part of the oral presentation.

9.4.4.2. In response to previous incident(s), please describe corrective actions taken to reduce or eliminate possible future occurrences.

9.4.4.3. Offers shall describe how the offeror will respond to future incident(s) or accident(s) to reduce or eliminate future risk.

9.5. Subfactor 3: Logistics Sustainment Approach – Technical Rating Method. Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s implementation plan to sustain tactical aircraft operations long-term for the Nellis

ADAIR II requirement and meet or exceed the Performance Work Statement. This subfactor is met or exceeded when the offerors present a sound and realistic proposal to achieve all requirements within the Performance Work

Statement.

9.5.1. Component Lifecycle Tracking and Supply Chain Management Methodology.

9.5.1.1. Offers shall present a plan that describes how life limited parts and components will be tracked and replaced. What tools, processes, and procedures have been or will be developed in order to track these components.

Offers shall also present the planned or known supply chain for obtaining parts and components, planning for various types of maintenance events based upon 5,600 flight hours per year, and staff training and development to ensure uninterrupted services throughout each year of service.

9.5.2. Maintenance Practices.

9.5.2.1. Offers shall present a plan that describes how maintenance will be planned and executed to ensure uninterrupted services throughout each service year. Assumptions will be identified as part of this plan.

9.5.3. Staffing Plan.

9.5.3.1. Offers shall provide a staffing overview to include details for hierarchy, hiring, retaining, and developing staff necessary to conduct flight operations, maintain aircraft, and manage the overall ADAIR II program. Offers are required to identify a Program Manager for the ADAIR II requirement that will directly interface with Government management officials for day-to-day operations.

9.6. The fourth subfactor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis in accordance with Table C-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method. If an offeror does not meet the minimum requirement for this subfactor, it will render their proposal unawardable.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

9.7. Subfactor 4: Management Approach – Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method. Description:

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s management approach with specific emphasis on having the required security clearances and small business plans in place. This subfactor is met when the offerors present a sound and realistic proposal to achieve all requirements within the Performance Work Statement.

9.7.1. Facility Security Clearance. The offeror present evidence of currently having a SECRET Facility

Clearance and are able to obtain SECRET security clearances for pilots whom will conduct flight operations in classified airspace.

9.7.2. Small Business Participation Commitment Document.

9.7.2.1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Applies ONLY to Large Businesses; and IAW

FAR 19.702 (b)(3) applies to work performed in the United States AND ITS OUTLYING AREAS ONLY) The Offeror shall include all information concerning Extent of Small Business Participation Commitment Document, if applicable.

9.7.2.2. The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall provide a narrative describing the Prime’s corporate commitment in providing subcontracting opportunities for small business, small disadvantaged business, women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, and service disabled veteran-owned small business. Describe the strength and specificity of each corporate commitment (i.e., what type of commitment, how binding is the commitment, how specific is the commitment to this proposed effort, and what types of tasks are included in these subcontracting opportunities).

9.7.2.3. A narrative describing the proposed goals and targets for subcontracting to the following:

Small Business 10% of total awarded dollars

Small Disadvantaged Business 10% of total subcontracting dollars

Woman Owned Small Business 5% of total subcontracting dollars

HUBZone Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars

Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars

9.7.2.4. Offeror shall describe how specific subcontracting percentage goal and targets will be met for the

WE&C contract expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total subcontracting dollars for subcontracting to each socio-economic small business category listed above. The subcontracting goals and other targets may be met by any combination of subcontracts, other business teaming arrangements or vendor purchases, and should make use of small businesses to the maximum extent practicable.

9.7.2.5. These goals are not applicable to work performed in foreign countries. However, these goals are applicable to any products, materials, supplies and/or services purchased CONUS, or its outlying areas.

9.7.2.6. For proposal purposes only, assume the total anticipated awarded dollars (for CONUS and Outlying

Areas) to be $50,000,000.

9.7.3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

9.7.3.1. Provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.7.

9.7.3.2. Provide completed Attachment XX, Small Business Subcontracting Plan Checklist.

9.7.3.3. If submitting as a Large Business concern under the applicable NAICS Code, submit a Subcontracting

Plan in accordance with FAR 19.7. The subcontracting plan is a basic contract requirement and will not be evaluated under Section M.

9.7.3.4. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.7 is not required for small business concerns.

9.8. 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 threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements. The

Government may give further positive consideration for performance in excess of the objective requirements.

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

10.1. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

10.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s 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 Nellis ADAIR II requirement. 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee

Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

TABLE 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

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.

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.

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.

10.2.1. 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 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

10.2.2. 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 Nellis ADAIR II program. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. 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 past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. Higher relevancy ratings may be given to projects that include:

10.2.2.1. Award value equal to or greater than $250K;

10.2.2.2. 5 continuous days of sustained flight operations with contract flight services;

10.2.3. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts

(DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

10.2.4. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Nellis ADAIR II program. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small

Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS

215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small

Business Subcontracting Plan. 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.

Quality Assessment Rating/Color Description http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P123_5649 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P123_5649 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm

Exceptional

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Very Good

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

Satisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Marginal

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered.

Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive

Customer oversight and involvement was required.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

10.2.5. 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 Technical 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 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.

10.2.5.1. More recent 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.

11.0. Cost or Price Factor.

11.1. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposal for basic requirements (basic award):

11.1.1. Reasonableness. The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

11.1.2. Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/31.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm

11.1.3. The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price (or for FPI contracts the maximum contract Government liability) to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total price (and proposed maximum contract

Government liability) and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

12.0. M-4 VISITS.

12.1. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.

13.0. M-5 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

13.1. 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.

[END OF SECTION M]