2_Section_7_MQ9_Draft_17Aug17.pdf

DRAFT

SECTION 7 – EVALUATION CRITERIA

BASIS OF AWARD

1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Trade-off source selection process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 31 Mar 2016 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 27 Jan 2017. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible (IAW FAR Part 9) offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

2. Factor ratings and assessments will focus on each proposal’s technical strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risk, past performance and price analysis findings. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the technical superiority and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. 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.

3. As set forth in Section 6, the Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1.

The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is the best value solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the Government determine it is in their best interest to open and conduct discussions, discussion will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The competitive range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each offeror’s past performance, technical, and price proposals.

4. 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.

5. Final Proposal Revisions (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 submitted 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.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

1. Proposals will be evaluated using three factors which are as follows: (1) Technical Capability, (2) Price, and (3) Past Performance. In terms of the hierarchy of importance, Technical Capability is significantly more important than Price and Past Performance with Price more important than Past Performance and Past Performance as the least important factor. Furthermore, there are four subfactors within the Technical Capability Factor: (A) Training Workload Management Plan, Manpower Analysis and Recruitment and Retention Process/Plan (B) Organizational Structure, Roles, Responsibilities and Communications, (C) Transition Plan, Instructor Training and Certification Plan and Quality Control Plan, and (D) Learning Management System and Contractor Furnished Equipment. Subfactor (A) is significantly more important than subfactors (B), (C) and (D). Subfactors (B), (C), and (D) are equally important. The greater the equality of technical proposals the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

2. As a basis for award, price is of secondary consideration. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. Price is not expected to be the most significant factor in the selection of an offeror for this solicitation; however, the degree of importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of the proposals for the other factors evaluated. When competing proposals are evaluated and determined to be equal, total price and other price factors would become the most significant factor. Prices will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is reasonable and to assess the offeror’s understanding of the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between technical and price must be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally priced cost estimate, the nature of these approaches and their impact on price must be completely documented. The burden of proof of price credibility rests solely with the offeror. Price proposals will not be rated or scored. The Government will make a subjective evaluation to determine if the offeror’s technical approach and proposed price represents the greatest value to the Government.

EVALUATION FACTORS

A) FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

1. The technical capability factor and associated subfactors shall receive a combined technical/risk rating including consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining the technical rating. These two ratings are presented together are of equal impact for the rating of each technical capability subfactor. The ratings shall be assessed at the subfactor level and an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned.

a) The technical capability rating focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses in the offeror’s proposal. If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable. The severity of the deficiency will determine if the offeror will be able to correct the deficiency through discussions. The technical risk rating is combined with technical capability, and focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s approach. Risk is assessed at the subfactor level, and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance based on the offeror’s identified approach and/or processes. In conducting the risk assessment, the Government will also consider information provided by the offeror in its proposal as to how the contractor will manage and mitigate risk.

b) Technical capability subfactors are listed in order of importance. Subfactor (A) Training Workload Management Plan, Manpower Analysis and Recruitment and Retention Process/Plan Analysis is significantly more important than subfactors (B) Organizational Structure, Roles, Responsibilities and Communications, (C) Transition Plan, Quality Control, and Instructor Training and Certification Plan, and (D) Learning Management System and Contractor Furnished Equipment. Subfactors (B), (C) and

(D) are of equal importance. Each subfactor will be assigned combined technical/risk rating color rating IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, as demonstrated in Table 3 below. The definitions for risk ratings listed for each color rating in Table 3, are in Table 2b below. The technical capability rating will not be rolled up to an overall factor level rating.

TABLE 3 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK

TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

Note: The Technical Risk ratings descriptions are provided below

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating 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.

2) The following are the Technical Capability subfactors:

Subfactor A: Training Workload Management Plan, Manpower Analysis, and Recruitment and Retention Process/Plan. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate three (3) aspects:

Aspect 1 – Training Workload Management Plan.

a) Training Workload Management Plan approach clearly demonstrates methods, innovations and policies which ensure all required work is accomplished IAW the PWS.

b) Provides detailed breakdown of each skills annual work capability to include: direct time, indirect, ancillary time, scheduled leave, holidays, and any other workload capability factors which may affect proposed manpower.

c) Provides effective processes for daily and long range scheduling that mitigate risk associated with workload fluctuations or other factors to ensure all PWS work is accomplished.

Aspect 2 – Manning Workload Analysis

a) Presents detailed manning workload analysis that clearly explains all proposed manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees, if used, for CAT instruction and management at each site. Analysis clearly shows how offeror arrived at proposed manpower ensuring all PWS requirements are met.

b) Presents detailed courseware workload analysis for all courseware requirements that clearly explains the proposed development time in hours for each lesson instructional hour, provided a percentage breakdown of each proposed courseware skill for each type of courseware, and clearly identified proposed manpower for each skill to meet all PWS requirements.

c) Demonstrates a clear understanding of all proposed support position manpower requirements provided proposed manning which meet all PWS requirements.

Aspect 3 – Recruitment and Retention Process/Plan Analysis

a) Demonstrates an effective and comprehensive recruitment process that ensures sufficient, qualified personnel are hired and trained for each job category/position and specifically identifies and addresses hard to fill positions to execute all PWS requirements.

b) Demonstrates an effective and comprehensive retention process/plan to retain sufficient, qualified personnel for each job category/position and specifically identifies and addresses hard to fill positions to execute all PWS requirements.

Subfactor B: Organizational Structure, Roles, Responsibilities and Communications. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 1 – Training Management

a) Demonstrates an effective organizational structure detailing contractor’s line(s) of authority to include sub-contractors and/or teaming partners.

Aspect 2 – Roles, Responsibilities and Communications

a) Demonstrates cohesive functional relationships and effective roles and responsibilities that ensure effective communication procedures both within the company and with the government representatives to effectively execute the PWS requirements.

Subfactor C: Transition Plan, Quality Control Plan, Instructor Training and Certification Plan.

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate three (3) aspects:

Aspect 1 – Transition Plan

Phase-In

a) Demonstrates a clear understanding of priority allocation of resources and personnel.

b) Provides risk factors and plans for mitigating any identified risk

c) Provides a spreadsheet that clearly depicts all Phase In actions with start and completion dates which ensures the offeror is prepared on the contract start date.

d) Explains how the offeror will train and certify new personnel.

e) Explains how the incoming contractor shall interface with Government personnel in a manner that minimizes disruption of student training activities.

Phase-Out

a) Explains how the contractor shall ensure continuity of services in the event the incumbent does not receive the follow-on award.

b) Explains how the contractor shall provide for a smooth/uninterrupted transition of the incumbent personnel if the incoming contractor wants to retain such personnel.

Aspect 2 – Quality Control Plan

a) Presents a quality plan that clearly provides an inspection system that covers all item listed in the PWS Service Summary which includes frequency of inspections and methods of inspection

b) Demonstrates a documentation process which includes corrective or preventative actions taken and provides for the Government visibility throughout contract performance.

c) Demonstrates a clear understanding of security control process and procedures for Government provided cipher combinations, keys, lock combinations and safe combinations (PWS 4.3.2).

Aspect 3 – Instructor Training and Certification Plan

a) Demonstrates a clear understanding of instructor qualification requirements for each major block of training to be instructed, qualification/evaluation performed before a previously qualified instructor instructs, and written notification of each instructors’ qualifications for conducting unmonitored student instruction.

b) Clearly explains all ISD training accomplished to personnel supporting the CWD effort.

c) Clearly explains the re-qualification process/procedures when an instructor is de-certified or goes non-current.

Subfactor D: Learning Management System and Contractor Furnished Equipment. Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate two (2) aspects:

Aspect 1 – Learning Management System

a) Detailed approach that describes how you will provide an internet based knowledge portal which manages courseware and other academic material for the MQ-9 community.

b) Demonstrate how your LMS will be operational 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year except when down for scheduled maintenance.

c) Process to ensure LMS format and internet processes are standardized across all work locations and available to all FTUs and associated squadrons.

d) Approach for network operating maintenance that ensures capability sufficient to support the data base and meet computer network requirement of all users.

e) Describe in detail how access of unclassified material will be accomplished through a portal on the FTU/TRSS unclassified LAN and all classified material is located on a classified server that can be accessed via the SIPRNET web page with PASSWORD controls.

f) Describe how LMS software/licenses, if required, and appropriate servers are approved and online and available for use at all sites on the contract start date and all systems and operation are in compliance with all Government Security regulations.

Aspect 2 – Contractor Furnished Equipment

a) Demonstrates that proposed CFE is compliant with the Air Force Network Integration Center approved product list.

b) Demonstrates that proposed CFE is sufficient to meet all PWS requirements.

B) FACTOR 2 – PRICE

1. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced price. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition to ensure awarded price is fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements.

An offeror may be determined unawardable if its proposed price is evaluated as unrealistic, unreasonable, or unbalanced.

2. In addition to the price analysis described in FAR 15.404-1(b), an assessment of affordability will be performed on the total evaluated price. The price of each offeror will be evaluated on the total, overall evaluated price, which consists of the total proposed price (FP and CR Travel CLINS) of the transition period, base contract period, optional CLINs, and all optional contract periods (to include a six-month extension of services IAW FAR 52.217-8). This analysis in no way limits the Government’s right to award to a higher priced offer, if that offer is determined affordable and represents the best value, based tradeoffs including benefits associated with any additional costs. Color or adjectival ratings will not be assigned to the Price factor. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of accomplishing the price analysis, including reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ total overall evaluated price. The Government has provided pre-established Not to Exceed (NTE) amounts for the CR Travel CLINs. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offerors proposal and will be part of the total overall evaluated price.

3. In addition to the analyses as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), 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 board 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 proposals.

4. There is an expectation of competition for this requirement; thus, offerors are cautioned to present their best 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 at least a green technical rating and at least a neutral confidence past performance rating, yet proposed prices appear unrealistically low or unreasonably high, 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 or unreasonably high offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

5. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror’s Technical Capability Proposal (reasonableness and completeness). Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance/technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal. For example, if the intended use of new and innovative techniques is the basis for an abnormally low price, the nature of these techniques and their impact on the cost or price shall be explained. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of the work required and its financial ability to perform the contract, and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal. The burden of proof as to price credibility rests with the offeror. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced price proposal; the Government will analyze offers and those determined unbalanced may be rejected.

C. FACTOR 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

1. Past performance shall be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts. The performance confidence assessment will be assessed at an overall factor level after evaluating all aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical capability subfactors. Past performance will be evaluated by examining a minimum of three (3) and a maximum of six (6) references determined by the Government to be the most recent and relevant in relation to this requirement and the assigned NAICS code 611512, Flight Training.

a. Recency for this solicitation is defined as performance occurring within the last three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Current performance will have greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than older performance. Further, references for contracts with less than one (1) year performance will not be considered.

b. Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as MQ9 CAT/CWD support as related to Factor 1, Technical Capability experiences and the PWS, especially those provided to Air Force installations and for multiple years of performance. 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 PPI contract reference in accordance with the following criteria:

TABLE 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY

VERY

RELEVANT

Effectively managed a military aircrew training program as prime contractor supporting RPA aircraft involving essentially the same level of complexities as this solicitation, where cost, schedule and performance were measured/evaluated.

Total contract value was in excess of $150M.

Performed aircrew training (academic, simulator and flying instruction) simultaneously at multiple locations.

Performed courseware development and maintenance utilizing

Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model.

RELEVANT -Effectively managed a military aircrew training program as prime contractor supporting RPA aircraft involving essentially the same level of complexities as this solicitation, where cost, schedule and performance were measured/evaluated.

Total contract value was in excess of $75M.

Performed aircrew training (academic, simulator and flying instruction) simultaneously at multiple locations.

Performed courseware development and maintenance utilizing

Instructional Systems Development (ISD) model.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Effectively managed an aircrew training program as prime contractor or sub-contractor supporting military aircraft, where cost, schedule and performance were measured/evaluated.

Total contract value was in excess of $40M.

Performed aircrew training services which included academic and simulator instruction. Performed courseware development utilizing an industry accepted quality control model.

NOT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2. 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 how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to this proposed effort. 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) Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); 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.

3. Performance Confidence Assessment. The rating for the Past Performance factor is based on evaluation of the offeror’s past performance data, resulting in an overall performance confidence assessment.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is recent and relevant to the Technical Capability subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment represents the Government’s confidence in an offeror’s ability to complete work of the same type, size and magnitude for the MQ9 CAT/CWD. Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

TABLE 5 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

4. 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.

5. In the case of offerors for which there is no information on past contract performance or where past contract performance information is not available, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past contract performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv).) In this case, the offeror’s past performance is unknown and assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral Confidence. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating may be worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating in this solicitation.

6. 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.