PTR_Section_M_-_21Mar17.pdf

DRAFT

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive best value source selection will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DOD) Source Selection Procedures and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection using the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is evaluated to represent the “best value” to the Government consistent with LPTA procedures. If an offeror fails to meet all solicitation requirements, the Government may not make a final award to that offeror.

M-1.2 The Government intends to initially rank the offeror’s proposals by total overall proposed price, which includes the total price of transition, the base period, option periods 1 through 4, and 50 percent of the option period 4 price to represent the price for the optional extension of services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Government will then evaluate the five lowest priced proposals as provided in the RFP, Section M-2.1 (Technical), Section M-2.2 (Past Performance), and Section M-2.3 (Price). Any proposals outside this initial evaluation pool will not be evaluated unless necessary to obtain the desired effective competition of two proposals rated as "Acceptable" in all technical subfactors and the past performance factor. In the event that at least two of the initial five proposals are not rated “Acceptable”, the evaluation pool will be increased by evaluating the next lowest priced proposal. This process will continue until there are two “Acceptable” proposals or until all offerors' proposals have been evaluated, whichever is reached first.

M-1.3 The Government contemplates award of one contract resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the acceptability of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

M-1.4 The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is necessary. 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.

Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government.

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

M-1.6 Final Proposal Revision (FPR). 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. 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. Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) evaluation factors: (1) Technical,

(2) Past Performance, and (3) Price.

M-2.1 Factor 1: Technical. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The focus of the Technical Rating is on the offeror’s ability to satisfactorily meet the evaluation criteria identified within each subfactor and aspect. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal. This factor will be evaluated “Acceptable/Unacceptable” at the Subfactor level IAW the definitions provided in Table C-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. An overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. Each subfactor will be evaluated “Acceptable/Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the basic SOW requirements and standards, and satisfactorily addresses the subfactor evaluation criteria for each subfactor. To be eligible for award, an “Acceptable” rating for all technical subfactors is required. For technical subfactors containing aspects, each aspect will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal satisfactorily addresses the evaluation criteria identified within the aspect. Any aspect rating of “Unacceptable” will result in a subfactor rating of “Unacceptable.”

In assessing the acceptability of each subfactor/subfactor aspects, any weakness or deficiency will be noted IAW the definitions located in FAR Part 15.001 and Section 5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. Proposals that are assessed with technical subfactor/subfactor aspect deficiencies or weaknesses will receive an “Unacceptable” technical subfactor rating. Proposals that exceed the technical 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.

RATING DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

WEAKNESS A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 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.

M-2.1.1 Subfactor A: Program Management.

M-2.1.1.1 Aspect I - Management and Integration. The offeror’s proposed approach shall provide an effective organizational structure to successfully accomplish program requirements. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all of the following:

a. Proposed approach will result in successful program management execution and demonstrates complete technical understanding of the requirement.

b. Proposed manning levels, skill mix, and labor categories are technically sufficient to successfully meet the requirements of the SOW.

c. Proposed procedures are adequate to attract, hire, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel.

d. Proposed key personnel and approach to maintain certifications and credentials are adequate to successfully execute the program.

M-2.1.1.2 Aspect II - Quality Control. The offeror’s proposed approach provides quality controls to successfully accomplish program requirements. This aspect is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the following:

a. Proposed integrated quality approach will result in effective planning, operation, and control of processes.

b. Proposed approach demonstrates top management commitment/involvement with continuous process improvement of the quality program.

c. Proposed preventive-based monitoring, measurement and analysis, and metrics will ensure conformance to the SOW and the offerors’ Quality program, correction and prevention of recurring discrepancies, and continuous improvement of processes/performance.

d. Proposed procedures for testing and accepting the threat and scoring systems assigned to a range, and approach for inspecting the threat and scoring systems, as well as mission scoring and reporting are adequate to meet SOW requirements.

M-2.1.1.3 Aspect III - Contractor Equipment. The offeror’s proposed approach provides sufficient vehicles to support program requirements. This aspect is met when the offerors proposal demonstrates the proposed contractor-owned heavy equipment/vehicles are technically sufficient to successfully meet SOW requirements.

M-2.1.2 Subfactor B: Transition. The offeror’s proposed approach provides an executable transition plan to successfully accomplish program requirements. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates

a. Schedule is logical and will allow for timely transition by performance start. Proposed approach will provide continuity of mission support and contract performance required to assume tasks and responsibilities for all components of the program at performance start: efficiently phase- in resources, and hire trained/qualified personnel meeting necessary security clearances.

b. Proposed approach will provide continuity of mission support and contract performance required to assume tasks and responsibilities for all components of the program at performance start:

efficiently phase- in resources, and hire trained/qualified personnel meeting necessary security clearances.

c. Hiring process, schedule and contingency plans are adequate to replace personnel during the transition period without disruption in service.

d. Approach to move property is adequate to meet SOW requirements at performance start.

M-2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance. 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 the PTR 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 the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meets the solicitation SOW requirements including quality, price and schedule.

M-2.2.1 Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided and any additional sources found by the Government (PPI/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 issue date of this solicitation, will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance record during the entire contract period.

M-2.2.2 Relevancy. 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. In determining relevancy for each recent PPI submitted, 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.

Each PPI reference found to be recent per paragraph M-2.2.1 will be assigned a rating of “Relevant” or “Not Relevant”.

M-2.2.2.1 Relevant present/past performance effort for operations and maintenance services and technical services involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-2.2.2.2 Not relevant present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-2.2.3 Past performance will be assessed a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" at the factor level IAW the definitions provided in Table C-2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016 in the table below.

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 does not have a 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

M-2.2.4 For each recent and relevant PPI/Other Source evaluated, the Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine the quality of recent/relevant PPI. 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 from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; may be obtained from established systems such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials.

M-2.2.5 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-2.2.6 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-.

M-2.2.7 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-2.3 FACTOR 3: PRICE

M-2.3.1. Price will be evaluated on the total overall price. Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP) consists of the total proposed extended prices for all fixed price CLINs and all cost-reimbursable CLINs for the transition, the base period, option periods1 through 4, and 50 percent of the option period 4 price to represent the price for the optional extension of services IAW FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Government has provided estimates for the cost-reimbursable CLINs. All CR CLINs are exclusive of indirect rates and fee. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-2.3.2. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price. Comparison of proposed prices in response to the 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. The Government will perform a price realism analysis by evaluating proposed prices to determine whether prices are consistent with the offeror’s technical proposal.

M-2.3.2.1. Price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (Reference FAR 15.404-1(g)). Unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

M-2.3.2.2. 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.

M-2.3.3. Supplemental Responsibility Determination - DoD Contract Security Classification Specification (DD Form 254). DD Form 254 requirements will be assessed for contractor responsibility IAW FAR Part 9, AFFARS Clause 5352.215-9000 and Section L, paragraph L-11.2.7. The Government will use the Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) to verify offeror and subcontractor(s) clearance information.

The Government is not obligated to hold discussions nor delay the decision brief awaiting an offeror or subcontractor to comply with DD Form 254 classification requirement(s). Contractor shall adequaltely address the following:

M-2.3.3.1. Offeror and subcontractor(s) having the highest classification specification required on the DD Form 254 attached to this solicitation; and

M-2.3.3.2. If applicable, the offeror submitting a request for authorization to subcontract COMSEC work for each subcontractor.

M-2.3.3.3. Resolution of all FOCI issues, if any (see Section L-11.2.7.1.).