Draft_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Solicitation FA4890-16-R-0009 SF1449 Continuation

EVALUATION CRITERIA

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS (Oct 2014)

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 Jul 2011 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection as revised 6 Apr 2015 using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. In accordance with FAR 52.212-1, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary.

1.2. Technical proposals (Volume I) will be assessed on a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" at the subfactor level IAW Table A-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for all technical subfactors. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. The Government may incorporate into this contract, by reference or full text, portions of the successful offeror’s proposal submitted in response to this solicitation as revised and supplemented through the final proposal revision.

1.3. Past performance (Volume II) will be assessed on a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" at the factor level IAW Table A-2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may or may not include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government. To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an “Acceptable” rating for the past performance factor.

1.4. An offeror’s proposed Price (Volume III) must be determined fair, reasonable and balanced to be rated eligible for award. Offerors should submit their best price proposal with the original submission of Volume III, in the case that the Government decides to award without discussions. If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to open discussions, any pricing concerns will be addressed and/or resolved.

1.5. In order to be eligible for award, offerors must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9 and are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; and evaluation factor requirements. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make an award to that offeror.

1.6. The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. Award will be made on an all or none basis. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

2.1. Proposals will be evaluated using three evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price. Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability using the non-price factors/subfactors. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/subfactor. For this acquisition the non- price factors are technical and past performance. The Technical factor is comprised of the following three subfactors: (A) Quality Management System and (B) Program Management.

2.2. The process will be conducted as follows:

2.2.1. The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability on all non-price factors.

2.2.2. All Price (Volume III) proposals will be evaluated to determine the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price of each proposal will be calculated by adding the total proposed price for all CLINs including transition, basic period, option periods and fifty percent (50%) of the offeror’s Option Year 7 price (the price for the optional extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8).

2.3. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions in accordance with FAR 52.212-1 and make an award based on acceptable initial proposals. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information.

2.4. Should the Government find it in their best interest to open discussions and set a competitive range, the competitive range will be limited to the most highly rated proposals. The most highly rated proposals are defined as those that are rated acceptable on all the non-price factors or are considered to be easily correctable to be made acceptable on all the non-price factors.

2.4.1. If the Government holds discussions, the Government may issue evaluation notices to offerors in the competitive range. Responses will be requested from applicable offerors and discussions will be opened. Formal responses to evaluation notices (if applicable), discussion items, and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the award decision.

2.4.2. Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) 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, and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. 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 or negotiations. 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.

2.5. The award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitations requirements, receives "Acceptable" ratings for Technical Subfactors (Volume I) and Past Performance (Volume II), and has the lowest total overall evaluated price. The LPTA source selection process does not permit tradeoffs between price and non-price factors.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1. Factor 1 – Technical.

3.1.1. 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. Each subfactor will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards, and satisfactorily addresses the subfactor evaluation criteria identified below for each subfactor. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each technical subfactor. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings.

Table A-1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.2. Subfactor A: Quality Management System. The subfactor is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

1. Processes and/or procedures proposed will ensure a continuous, pro-active, and preventive-based monitoring, measuring, and analysis program focused on conformance to the PWS is in place at the start of contract performance. Approach demonstrates ability to successfully accomplish scheduled PMIs and unscheduled maintenance of HFGCS-PRS facilities and equipment IAW commercial and SCOPE Command standards.

2. Effective planning, operation, and control of quality management processes using the proposed quality management structure. Proposed structure includes personnel authority and responsibility, quality policy, and quality objectives. Documents needed to implement and maintain the propose quality management structure are identified.

3. Top management commitment/ involvement to the development, implementation, and continuous improvement of the proposed quality program with an emphasis on customer satisfaction.

4. Effective plan for notifying Government of issues affecting contract performance, contract impact, and proposed mitigation.

3.1.3. Subfactor B: Program Management. The subfactor is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

1. A management approach providing effective communication procedures both within the company and with the government to effectively execute the HFGCS-PRS PWS requirements. Proposal includes the organizational structure for all functional areas showing detailing lines of authority and communication, responsibilities, and functional relationships. The proposed organizational structure includes all teaming partners and subcontractors.

2. Effective manning approach including all labor categories, skill levels, and the number of personnel for all proposed positions which is adequate and sufficient to execute PWS requirements. Proposal addresses scheduled work hours for all positions and demonstrates an adequate plan or approach to respond to unscheduled tasking and/or emergency situations in compliance with PWS requirements.

3. An effective personnel management and training approach to ensure a fully trained and competent workforce is available at the start of contract performance and maintained throughout the life of the contract. Proposal identifies the personnel who will require access to US Air Force unclassified network and effectively demonstrates the contractor’s ability to obtain and maintain NIPRNet access for those personnel.

4. An effective purchasing/supply management approach to maintain proper levels of test and maintenance tools and equipment, properly track and maintain the inventory of parts and GFE/GFP, and ensures competitive pricing will be used when obtaining cost-reimbursable assets to meet the requirements of the HFGCS-PRS PWS.

3.2. Factor 2 - Past Performance.

3.2.1. Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis at the overall factor level using the ratings shown below as outlined in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-2.

Table A-2: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

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

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

3.2.2. The Government will evaluate each offeror's recent and relevant present and past performance to assess whether there is a reasonable expectation that an offeror can successfully perform as proposed.

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 the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet contract requirements including PWS requirements, price and schedule.

3.2.3. A recency determination will be made for each contract reference. Recent past performance is defined as active work/services (minimum of 12 months) that was/were performed during the three (3) years preceding the date of issuance of this solicitation. This includes contracts that were started prior to this time period, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three (3) years from the date of this solicitation. The Government will not consider performance that concluded more than three (3) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation.

3.2.4. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance will be made. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor provided PPI contract reference. Relevant present/ past performance effort involves similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. An individual PPI contract reference will be considered in the relevancy determination if it meets one or more of the following criteria:

a. Provide O&M services or other multi-dimensional services similar to the size, scope and complexity of HFGCS program.

b. Managed operations and maintenance of high frequency antennas and equipment.

c. Provide services similar in magnitude and scope of the ratee’s identified role in the current requirement.

3.2.5. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to determine whether the offeror’s performance information is recent and relevant to the effort to be acquired (this acquisition).

The second aspect is to determine how well the offeror performed on those contracts i.e., the quality of product or service provided. Past performance shall be evaluated and assessed based on the whole record and not solely on the number of records submitted. Past performance will be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” by examining references determined by the Government to be recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 517919 – All Other Telecommunications.

3.3. Factor 3 – Price

3.3.1. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price.

3.3.1.1. In addition to the price analysis as described at FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed contract line item prices, the technical evaluation team will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror exchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

3.3.1.2. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

3.3.1.3. Price will be evaluated on the total overall evaluated price (TOEP). The TOEP consists of the total proposed price for all the firm fixed price and cost-reimbursable (CR) Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) for the Transition period and basic contract period plus all option periods. The Government has provided Not to Exceed (NTE) estimates for the cost-reimbursable CLINs. The offeror’s proposed fixed handling fee for the cost-reimbursable utility CLINs shall be applied to the estimated amount provided by the Government for each applicable CLIN to arrive at the total extended amount. The resulting total (estimated amount plus applicable burdens) shall be included in the total overall evaluated price. Note the TOEP will be used for evaluation purposes only, and the value of all CR CLINs at award will reflect the Government estimated value only. In addition, the FFP Non-Recurring Projects CLIN for each option year will be evaluated and awarded with a price of $0.00, which will be modified by future negotiations as necessary.

3.3.1.4. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the TOEP for all CLINS including transition, basic period, and option periods. Both the solicitation and resultant contract shall contain FAR clause 52.217-8 entitled “Option to Extend Services,” which states the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract, up to an additional 6 month period. Accordingly, for evaluation purposes, the Government will add fifty percent (50%) of the offeror’s Option Year 7 price as the price for the optional extension of services. This amount will be included in the Government’s overall evaluation of the lowest-priced proposal and shall be considered the pre-priced value of any CLIN exercised under the authority of FAR 52.217-8 if an extension of services is required.

NOTE: Evaluation of the option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.