Section 7 1 Mar 20.docx

FA489020R0004

SECTION 7 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM to 52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL IT ITEMS (Oct 2014)

BASIS OF AWARD

1. This competitive best value source selection will be conducted using the Technical Capability Trade Off procedures 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 as revised 25 May 2018. 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. This process 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 of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA bases the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors. 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. The Government intends to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1 (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). 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 accepted and most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each offeror’s 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 will 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.

SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY:

This acquisition will be best value using the Technical Capability Trade Off source selection procedures. Proposals will be evaluated using two (2) Factors which are: Factor (1) Technical Capability/Risk, and Factor (2) Price. However, in order to be eligible for award, each offeror must meet all the requirements of the Prerequisites. Technical Factor is most important and more important than the Price Factor. The greater the equality of Technical proposals, the more important Price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

PREREQUISITES:

These requirements will be assessed as either Acceptable or Unacceptable. Should any of these requirements is considered Unacceptable, then the entire proposal will be deemed Unacceptable and will not be assessed further. No tradeoff will be made for the Prerequisites.

Requirement I. Transition Plan IAW PWS 4.8.6: The offeror’s proposal provides a Transition Plan. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a). Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of all transitions requirements and identifies priority allocation of resources and personnel.

b). Proposal identifies key personnel for transition period and complies with program manager/site manager hiring requirements ref PWS para 5.3.

c). Proposal identifies risk factors and plans for mitigating any identified risk during the transition period.

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

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

f). Proposal clearly explains how the contractor shall ensure continuity of services in the event the incumbent does not receive the follow-on award.

Requirement II. Instructor Training and Certification Plan IAW PWS 4.8.3: The offeror’s proposal provides a Instructor Training and Certification Plan. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a). Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of instructor qualification requirements (ref PWS 5.4, App F1.3, F1.4) for each training specialty.

b). Proposal clearly explains how the offeror will train and certify new personnel and certify previously qualified personnel to instruct in each training block they are responsible for.

c). Proposal clearly explains the re-qualification process/procedures in the event an instructor is de-certified or goes non-current PWS 1.17 (2).

d). Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of courseware development personnel hiring requirements (ref PWS paras 5.7.5, 5.7.6) and clearly explains how all courseware personnel will be ISD trained to support the CWD effort.

e). Proposal demonstrates a thorough understanding of support personnel hiring requirements (ref PWS paras 5.7.1, 5.7.2, 5.7.3, 5.7.4, 5.7.7)

Requirement III. Quality Program Control, Quality Program Plan (QPP) IAW PWS 4.8.4:

The offeror’s proposal provides a Quality Program Plan. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a). Proposal QCP contains ISO 9001-compliant quality management systems.

b). Proposal clearly explains the offerors inspection system used to cover all services listed in the Service Summary (PWS Section 2), with specifics as to the areas to be inspected on a scheduled and unscheduled basis, frequency of inspections, and the title and organizational placement of the inspectors.

c). Proposal clearly explains the records documenting inspections and corrective or preventive measures taken and how these records will be maintained and made available to the Government.

Requirement IV. Contractor Furnished Equipment IAW PWS 3.5:

The offeror’s proposal provides detailed list of Contractor Furnished Equipment that sufficiently meets Base Communication Squadron system integration requirements. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal thoroughly demonstrates all of the following:

a). Proposal provides detailed list of any proposed Contractor Furnished Equipment which will be required in the performance of the contract.

b). Proposal provides an explanation to demonstrate that the proposed Contractor Furnished Equipment is sufficient to meet all PWS requirements.

c). Proposal demonstrates that any proposed Contractor Furnished IT Equipment will be compliant with the Base Communication Squadron LAN Network system integration requirements.

EVALUATION FACTORS:

FACTOR 1. Technical Capability and Risk:

There are three (3) Aspects within the Technical Capability which are: Aspect I: Manning Workload Analysis; Aspect II: Training Workload Management Plan; and Aspect III: Organizational Structure. Technical Capability will be rated in accordance with Table 3, Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method, of the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, dated 31 Mar 2016.

Aspect I: Manning Workload Analysis IAW PWS Appendix A-H:

a). Proposal demonstrates a detailed Contract Aircrew Training (CAT) manning workload analysis derived from PWS workload tables (ref. Appendix A through H) that clearly explains all proposed CAT manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees (if used), for CAT instruction and management. Your CAT man year calculations will include all direct, indirect and ancillary time; scheduled leave, holidays, and any other workload capability. The analysis should show how the offeror arrived at proposed manpower ensuring all PWS requirements are met.

b). Proposal demonstrates a detailed CWD manning workload analysis derived from PWS (ref Appendix D) for all courseware requirements that clearly explains all proposed CWD manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees. Explain the proposed development time in hours for each lesson instructional hour, providing 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). Proposal demonstrates a detailed support manning workload and a clear understanding of all proposed support position manpower requirements (ref. PWS para 1.12.1, 1.12.2, and 1.12.4, Appendix E and G) that clearly explains all proposed support manning, manning mix, full and part-time employees.

Aspect II: Training Workload Management Plan IAW PWS 4.8.1:

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

b). Proposal provides detailed individual position manning table resulting from workload analysis of each CAT/CWD and support manning position and the number of full time/part time personnel required for each position.

c). Proposal provides overall manning table resulting from manning workload analysis of each CAT/CWD and support manning positions and the total number of full time/part time personnel required.

d). Proposal demonstrates 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 III: Organizational Structure:

a). Proposal demonstrates an effective organizational structure detailing contractor's line(s) of authority to include subcontractors and/or teaming partners and provide an organizational chart depicting each participant’s role.

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

Combined Technical/Risk Rating. Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Technical proposals will be measured against evaluation criteria at the Technical aspect level, as applicable. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. In conducting the assessment, the Government will also consider information provided in the proposal as to how the offeror will manage and mitigate risk. Each Technical aspect shall be assigned a color rating, as defined in Table 3 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The aspect color ratings will not be rolled up into an overall Technical factor color rating. To be eligible for award, all Technical aspect must receive a minimum color rating of “Green/Acceptable” IAW the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

FACTOR 2. Price. 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 from the interested offerors. As business practice, competition establishes price reasonableness. Color or adjectival ratings will not be assigned to the Price Factor. 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. An offeror may be determined unawardable if its proposed price is evaluated as unreasonable or unbalanced. 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 to the Government.

The total evaluated price will consist of all CLINs including phase-in, basic period, option years, optional CLINS and fifty percent (50%) of the last option period price to cover the Option to Extend Services clause, 52.217-8. 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 Fixed Price Travel CLINs. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offeror’s proposal and will be evaluated as part of the total overall evaluated price.

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 proposal.

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 an acceptable technical 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.

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 proposal. 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.