FA4890-24-R-0012_Section M_REV FINAL.docx

M. Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection using the Subjective Tradeoff source selection process. The Government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible, responsive Offeror (IAW FAR Part 9) whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M-1.2 The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract resulting from this solicitation and intends to select only one contractor for this acquisition and all associated task orders. After award of the IDIQ, task orders will be issued based on fully loaded labor rates and matrices incorporated into the contract. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract or any task orders depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in M-2.

M-1.3 To be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements; and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.

M-1.4 The Government reserves the right to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1 but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may include proposals with “Unacceptable” ratings at the sole discretion of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the Offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. If required, the competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). Therefore, Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.5 If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices (ENs) to Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to evaluation ENs and final proposal revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.6 Final Proposal Revision (FPR). If the Government enters discussions, FPRs will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

M-2.1 Factor Evaluation Proposals will be evaluated using four evaluation factors: (1) Pass/Fail Factors, (2) Technical Capability, (3) Past Performance, and (4) Price. Factor (1) Pass/Fail Factors is not part of the tradeoff analysis. Technical Capability is the most important factor and evaluated at the subfactor level. Subfactors B and C being of equal importance and more important than Subfactors A and D which are of equal importance. Past Performance is less important than Technical Capability and more important than price. The degree of importance of Price will increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the non-price factors on which selection is based, or when the evaluated price delta between Offerors is so significant as to diminish the value of superiority of the non-price factors.

M-2.2 Pass/Fail (Factor I) The Government will evaluate all items in this factor as either PASS or FAIL. The Offeror’s proposal must receive a PASS rating for all within this factor of the proposal evaluation process. A rating of FAIL will render the proposal ineligible for award and the Government may not evaluate the remaining factors.

M-2.2.1 Subfactor A: Facility Security Clearance The Government will assess the Offeror’s Facility Security Clearance on a PASS/FAIL basis. To receive a rating of PASS for Facility Security Clearance, the Government will validate the Offeror’s evidence that they possess a valid DoD facility clearance equal to the highest classification specified on the DD Form 254 attached to this solicitation for the Prime, Teaming Partners, or Joint Venture. The Offeror must possess a valid DoD facility clearance equal to the highest classification specified on the DD Form 254 at the time of receipt of proposals. The Government will not sponsor Offerors for facility clearances.

If an Offeror does not have the required DoD FCL at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will not be evaluated and is not eligible for award. However, the required FCL is not required for the Joint Venture (JV) itself if the Offeror is an unpopulated JV and all members of the JV possess a Top Secret FCL.

A JV without its own FCL will not have access to classified information and all access will solely be through the cleared JV members. Therefore, a JV without its own FCL is required to submit, as part of its proposal, a Security Plan/Standard Operating Procedure which, at a minimum, includes the following:

a. Identification of the JV member that will be responsible for implementing and managing all security program requirements.

b. A description of the JV and JV members’ roles and responsibilities to ensure compliance with 32 CFR Part 117, NISPOM.

c. A copy of the JV agreement(s) relating to the establishment of the JV and any subcontracts awarded to the individual JV members as they relate to this solicitation and all security responsibilities.

d. A completed Standard Form 328, "Certificate Pertaining to Foreign Interests" for the JV.

e. Execute a formal exclusion resolution stating that the JV will not require and will not have access to classified information.

f. The JV members and all subcontractors shall execute similar resolutions excluding the JV from access to classified information.

Facility Security Clearance

M-2.2.2 Subfactor B: Small Business Plan M-2.2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the submitted documentation to ensure that all required information has been provided and to verify compliance with requirements.

Small Business Participation

M-2.2.2.2 Small Business Participation (Applicable to both Large and Small Business Contractors) As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror’s proposal for how at least ten (10%) of the proposed total estimated amount of the contract (CONUS Locations ONLY) will address small business concerns and how the approach addresses the use of Small Business Concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns, Hub Zone Small Business Concerns, Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns.

M-2.2.2.3 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Applicable to Large Business Contractors) As part of this evaluation, the Government will consider each Offeror’s commitment to use small business in terms of the type of work to be performed, the extent to which specific companies are named in the proposal, and whether documented commitments are included in their proposal. An offeror can submit either an approved commercial plan or a negotiated DoD Comprehensive Test Program subcontracting plan or an individual subcontracting plan. The proposed subcontracting goals shall include proposed goals for Women-Owned Small Businesses, Small Disadvantaged Businesses, HUBZone Small Businesses, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. [Note: DoD goals are currently 5% each for Small Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Businesses and 3% each for HUBZone and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses.] The Successful Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plans will be incorporated in the contract. The awarded Contractor will submit how they have performed compared to their goals every 6 months via the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and the Government will document performance accordingly.

M-2.2.4 Subfactor C: QMS AS9110 Certification The Government will evaluate the submitted documentation to ensure that all required information has been provided and to verify compliance with requirements. Each proposal assessed under paragraph M-2.2.4 will be assigned a color rating as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and as shown below.

AS9110 Certification

M-2.3 Factor 2: Technical Capability M-2.3.1 Factor Evaluation M-2.3.1.1 Subfactor Evaluation. There are four (4) subfactors under the Technical Capability evaluation factor. Subfactor A – Transition Plan, Subfactor B- OCONUS Support (includes Agile & MRT Support), Subfactor C – Management and Integration, Subfactor D- Task Orders 2-7 Support. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal.

M-2.3.1.2 Combined Technical and Risk Rating. The Technical proposals will be measured against combined technical/risk evaluation criteria at the subfactor level. Technical subfactor ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the Significant Strengths, Strengths, Deficiencies, Uncertainties, Weaknesses, and Significant Weaknesses of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each subfactor shall be assigned a color rating, shown below, as defined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The subfactor ratings will not be rolled up to an overall color rating for Technical Capability.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Evaluation Terms and Definitions

M-2.3.2 Technical Subfactors M-2.3.2.1 Subfactor A: Transition and Sustainment Implementation Plan (Task Order 1) The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. The provided management plan and milestone chart reflect transition tasks to execute the proposed approach within the mandated 90-day timeframe across all task orders and identifies any potential scheduling impacts.

ii. The plan provides a process for identifying and transferring open and pending actions that delineate how tasks will be assigned, and ownership accepted during the transition phase.

M-2.3.2.2 Subfactor B: OCONUS Support The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Provides an acceptable process for global personnel movement and contingency planning should commercial transportation disruptions occur.

ii. Provides a Maintenance Recovery Team (MRT) support plan for aircraft repairs, regeneration and relaunch at alternate locations that describes specific methods and innovations, demonstrates a reasonable approach, and ensures operational continuity for combat line generation.

iii. Provides a plan for agile aircraft maintenance IAW PWS para 4.11 to include specific methods and innovations for supporting short notice agile taskings while ensuring operational continuity and an ability to maintain combat line generation.

iv. Demonstrates an approach to coordinate with US Embassy Country Teams and current and potential host nation partners that ensures compliance with government requirements for contractor personnel to include but not limited to country entry and exit requirements, work visas, work permits and/or residency permits.

M-2.3.2.3 Subfactor C: Management and Integration The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Describes and/or illustrates an integrated management approach to provide an organizational structure that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, manning levels by position, skill levels by position, utilization of personnel to include details regarding any specific plans for cross-utilization, assigned roles and responsibilities, and lines of authority to meet provided workload data and execute all PWS requirements.

ii. Provides CONUS and OCONUS Manning Matrices based on Appendix L format, not including manning for munitions support requirements in PWS Paragraph 4.15.

iii. Provides a comprehensive communication approach with lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government to ensure continuity and mission success.

M-2.3.2.4 Subfactor D: Task Orders 2-7 Support The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the following:

i. Proposed labor categories and quantities to support task order PWS requirements (Appendix L), notional schedule and shift allocation, and justifications provided are reasonable and acceptable.

ii. Addressed deviations from the proposed IDIQ manning matrices (Appendix L) and demonstrates understanding of impacts with an acceptable plan for ensuring mission success.

M-2.4 Factor 3: Past Performance

M-2.4.1. The Government will evaluate this factor to assess the offeror’s recent and relevant present and past performance record to determine confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. For purposes of this evaluation, the “offeror” includes any joint ventures, subcontractors, and/or teaming partners proposed as part of the Prime Contractor’s team under this effort. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s recent and relevant demonstrated record of contract performance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including quality, cost and schedule.

M-2.4.2. Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each past performance reference provided and any additional sources found by the Government (past performance reference/Other Source). Recency is defined as active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation will be considered recent. If a reference is determined recent, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period. If a reference is determined to be not recent, the Government will not evaluate the offeror’s reference.

M-2.4.3. Relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror, joint venture, teaming partner or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will evaluate relevancy and assign a relevancy rating for each recent past performance reference in accordance with the following criteria:

Relevancy Rating

M-2.4.4. Quality. For each recent and relevant reference/Other Source evaluated, the Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine recency and relevancy of each past performance reference. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of its performance. The Government may confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in the proposals and may obtain additional performance data from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through, but not limited to, the following: 1) Contract Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS)); 2) Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); 3) Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other data bases; 4) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels; and 5) Interviews with Program Managers and Contracting Officers.

M-2.4.5. Performance Confidence Assessment. The Past Performance Team will consider offerors’ past performance as an entire team (where primes propose with subcontractors or in partnerships) or on an individual basis for Contractors proposing on their own. Each offeror will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment. This integration may include the recent and relevant present/past performance of the Prime Contractor, and subcontractors, joint ventures, and/or teaming partners. More recent performance that demonstrates a trend and/or more relevant past performance may have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment is made at the past performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance and the resulting confidence level for work under this requirement. Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

Performance Confidence Rating

M-2.4.6. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(4), communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information unless the offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-2.4.7. Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor as depicted in M-2.3.5.

M-2.4.8. Even though the assessment of past performance is separate and distinct from determination of responsibility required by FAR Part 9, past performance information evaluated may be used to support the determination of responsibility for the successful offeror.

M-2.5. Factor 4: Price. Price will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a complete, fair and reasonable, balanced, and realistic price. Proposals that are found to be unbalanced may pose an unacceptable level of risk to the Government, and may no longer be considered for award.

M-2.5.1. An offeror’s proposed price must be determined fair , reasonable, balanced, and realistic to be eligible for award. The total evaluated price consists of the sum proposed price for all task orders issued with the RFP, and as updated via any amendments through award, to include all options, 50% of the last option period (for the individual task orders) for the six-month extension of services option IAW FAR 52.217-8.

M-2.5.2. Part A – IDIQ Price Matrix

M-2.5.2.1. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 as outlined below. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offeror’s fully loaded labor rates proposed in the IDIQ price matrix located in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables, comparison of all priced task orders for all periods of performance and comparison of the total proposed surge pricing at deployed locations. Proposed fully loaded labor rates and pre-priced surge pricing FFP rates will be used to price task order requirements at contract award and serve as the ceiling rate for additional task orders and task order modifications throughout the life of this contract. The pricing table for CONUS locations will serve as the baseline for negotiations for adding sites that were not included in the price matrix at contract award.

M-2.5.2.2. The preferred and intended price analysis technique will be the evaluation of offeror’s pre-priced fully loaded labor rates (as proposed in the IDIQ price matrix located in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables for all contract performance periods), comparison of proposed prices for all task orders for all periods of performance in response to the solicitation. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.5.3. Part B – Task Order Pricing

M-2.5.3.1. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 as outlined below. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ total evaluated prices. The total evaluated price consists of the sum total proposed price of task orders issued with the RFP, and as updated via any amendments through award, to include all options and the Government estimated cost reimbursable CLINs extended to include any contractor applied indirect rates in accordance with their disclosure statement. Task order pricing shall be consistent with the offeror’s fully loaded labor rates proposed in the IDIQ price matrix provided in Attachment 3 – Manpower, Labor Rates, and Pricing Tables to include all priced options. Adjustments to the manpower requirements identified in the manning matrix provided in Volume IV are permitted but shall be justified based on the proposed technical solution for the unique task order requirements and must be clearly identified in the proposed price. Evaluation of options at the task order level shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Cost Reimbursement CLIN figures will be included in the TEP. Performance award fee/incentive will be excluded from the total evaluated price.

M-2.5.3.2. Evaluation of Firm Fixed Price portions of the requirement will include comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation, which is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures as described in FAR 15.404-1 may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price.

M-2.5.3.3. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer with unbalanced pricing; see FAR 15.404-1(g). An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates for other labor categories (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same labor categories as proposed by other offerors). The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed costs/prices from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation.

M-2.5.3.5. Price Realism. Price realism will be assessed by evaluating proposed prices to ensure they are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirement, and are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal. In instances where the offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar services at similar prices. An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal. There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement, thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal.

M-2.5.4. Part C – Proposal Documentation

M-2.5.4.1. General Responsibility Determination – The contractor must comply with the requirements of FAR 9.104-1.