Attch_2-_Evaluation_Criteria.doc

FA4890-16-T-0004, Attachment 2

Headquarters Air Combat Command

(HQ ACC)

A2 Evaluation Method and Criteria

For A2 Capability Working Group (CWG) Plan of Actions and Milestones (POA&M) Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

1. Evaluation Methodology: The requirement will be evaluated using the Lowest Priced, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection method. LPTA source selection method is a simplified best value source selection strategy that permits award to the lowest priced offeror who meets the minimum requirements as identified in sections 3.0 PWS.

The Government intends to rank the proposals by price and only evaluate the three lowest priced proposals for the applicable requirement, in addition to any proposals within 10% of the average of the three lowest priced proposals. Those outside the evaluation pool will not be evaluated, unless necessary to obtain the desired effective competition of three (3) technically acceptable offers.

The following factors are evaluated: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Technical will be rated as acceptable or unacceptable.

2 Proposal Submission Requirements

2.1 Please submit Technical and Price proposals on a Firm Fixed Price basis.

2.2 Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail to substantiate offerors’ stated claims. The Technical proposal shall not contain any pricing data. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the Offeror intends to meet requirements. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of the Offeror’s capabilities. The Government will base its evaluation solely on information presented in the offeror’s written Technical Proposal.

2.3 Factor 1-Technical Approach The Technical Proposal shall include a clear and concise description of how the offeror plans to meet the technical requirements in the PWS and specifically address in adequate detail how the offeror plans to meet the stated subfactors for this factor. Offerors must in detail, specifically identify the approach/technology proposed, along with the standards utilized and the tools and methodologies of how the solution/approach is developed. The Government will evaluate the approach/solution to ensure it is viable and Offerors have a thorough understanding of the requirement. Proposal submissions for this factor are limited to ten (10) pages.

2.4 Additional information on page counts for Technical proposals. Font size must be no smaller than Times New Roman size 10. Margins shall not be any smaller than 1 inch. Table of Contents (ToC), compliance matrix and acronym definition pages are not technical proposal requirements, but may be provided at the discretion of each Offeror. If an Offeror chooses to provide a ToC, compliance matrix, or acronym definitions page, these documents will not be counted toward the stated page limit for technical proposals.

2.5 Factor 2 – Price Proposals. Offerors are required to submit a complete price proposal using the template provided at Attachment 5 to this solicitation. Travel is cost reimbursable. The Government estimates travel on this contract not to exceed (NTE) $75,000 total ($15,000.00 each period; Base Year and all Options). When preparing the Price Proposal, Offerors shall apply a travel handling rate, as appropriate, to the estimated travel and submit as part of the Price proposal. If the offeror is not proposing a travel handling rate, please state so in your price proposal.

2.6 Factor 3 – Past Performance. The offeror shall submit information on contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform the proposed effort. This information is required on the offeror and any teaming partners that will perform more than 40% of the proposed effort. Offerors may submit a maximum of three (3) active or completed contract references where they performed similar services as a prime contractor or a major subcontractor to the requirements in the PWS. The information submitted shall include the reference contract number, program title, government POC with phone number and email, contract type, period of performance, and total contract value for the reference. Offerors shall provide a brief description of the services provided under this contract. Description shall provide details on how reference is relevant in demonstrating the ability to perform this effort and explain how/why the referenced contracts are relevant to the proposed effort. Offeror’s references are limited to one (1) page per reference, total three (3) pages for the offeror’s past performance submission. Font size must be no smaller than Times New Roman size 10. Margins shall not be any smaller than 1 inch.

2.7 Other Sources. The Government may utilize references other than those identified by offerors in evaluation of offerors’ past performance. While the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of providing accurate and complete, recent and relevant, PPI that demonstrates the ability to perform this requirement rests with the offeror.

3.0 Evaluation Methodology and Factors

3.1 The Government will evaluate an offeror’s written technical proposal to determine to whether the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements of the PWS. Technical acceptability will be rated at the subfactor level, assigning each subfactor a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” An offeror’s proposal must be rated “Acceptable” in all Technical subfactors to be eligible for award. For technical subfactors that have multiple criteria, an offeror’s proposal must meet all criteria under that technical subfactor to receive an “Acceptable” rating for the subfactor. In assessing the acceptability of each subfactor, the Government will identify any deficiencies as defined below. Proposals that receive deficiencies in a subfactor will receive an “Unacceptable” subfactor rating. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings.

Table A-1. Technical Evaluation Descriptors

3.2 The Government will then evaluate the Price of offerors rated “Acceptable” in all technical subfactors.

3.3 Award for All of the Work. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than all the work reflected in the PWS will be considered ineligible for award.

3.4 As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f) (4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors except for clarifications that do not change an offeror’s technical or price proposal. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a Price and Technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them necessary. In the event that any offerors are eliminated from competition, a competitive range determination will be made.

3.5 The Government will evaluate and rate each technical subfactor as follows:

Table A-2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

3.6 Tradeoffs are not permitted and no evaluation credit is given to aspects of an offerors proposal that exceed acceptability standards. This acquisition will result in a firm fixed price contract, with cost reimbursable line items for travel as specified in the PWS.

4 Evaluation Criteria – Specific evaluation factors and criteria follows:

4.1 Factor 1 – Technical Evaluation: In the evaluation of the technical proposals, the following criteria will be used:

4.1.1 Subfactor 1: The offeror will provide a summary of positions that includes, at a minimum, knowledge, skills, abilities and qualifications reflected in sections 3.0 of the PWS.

Criteria –The offeror’s proposal adequately provides qualification through applicable experience/education and meets minimum contract requirements of sections 3.0 of the PWS.

4.1.2 Subfactor 2: The offeror’s proposal clearly shows the capability to meet the entire range of task requirements of section 3.0 of the PWS through its proposed technical approach.

Criteria – Offeror’s proposal details how it will meet the range of program management and technical support identifying a sound technical approach that will ensure that the requirements of section 3.0 of the PWS are met. Describe how you will facilitate events that focus on independent strategic reviews and to meet evolving organizational goals and objectives toward developing the deliverables. Describe those key processes or actions you would take to glean and interpret information through various avenues to meet the deliverables outlined in the PWS. Describe how you will incorporate the three disciplines of targeting, analysis and collections across the Air, Space and Cyber domains. Describe your management plan and staffing strategy that you will employ in support of this effort.

4.2 Factor 2- Price Evaluation: This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and the price analysis to ensure awarded prices are reasonable. The government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices are consistent with the skill sets required for the work to be performed, the geographical locations where the work will be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various aspects of the offeror’s proposal. An offeror will be determined unawardable if its price is evaluated to be unfair or unreasonable.

4.2.1 Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include but not limited to the following: a comparison of all offerors’ proposed labor rates, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices for the same or similar services.

4.2.2 Evaluate price of all proposals that pass the technical acceptability for non-cost factors. Proposals rated as technically unacceptable will not have their price proposal evaluated. Tradeoffs are not permitted. Total evaluated price will consist of the sum of all labor CLINs, optional CLINs, cost reimbursable travel CLINs and G&A rate, for the base period and all option periods. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price proposal meeting the minimum technical acceptable criteria in accordance with PWS.

4.3 Factor 3- Past Performance: The Government will review each past performance reference provided by offerors and other past performance references, as applicable, to determine recency, relevancy, and quality of performance; and then an overall rating of acceptable or unacceptable.

IAW FAR 15.305(a) (2) (i) the comparative assessment does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

4.3.1 Past performance references should include Contract number and type (i.e., FFP/Cost, IDIQ), awarded value, Government Agency POC, and performance as a prime or subcontractor on the noted reference.

4.3.2 The offerors must submit an action plan that describes how they would manage and conduct the yearly events outlined in the PWS paragraphs 3.1 & 3.2.

4.4 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

4.5 Definitions

4.5.1 Definition of Relevancy: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities such as this solicitation requires for example, large working group facilitation with military organizations. References will be evaluated as either relevant or not relevant.

4.5.2 Definition of Recency: Recency is defined as similar work performed during the past three (3) years and with at least a 6 month PoP from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

4.5.3 Definition of Neutral: 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

4.5.4 Definition of Adverse past performance: Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supported a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b), Communications must be held with any offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the offeror previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.