FA489020R0001 Section M - Evaluation.docx

FA489020R0001 – Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

A tradeoff source selection process will obtain best value 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 (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection 2019 Edition.

An award can be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to award without discussions. Should the SSA determine that discussions are necessary, a competitive range determination will be made prior to conducting. This range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of all tradeoff factors.

The Contracting Officer (CO) will notify Offerors in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered.

Evaluation Notices (EN) will be issued to Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to ENs and final proposal revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

FPRs will be submitted by each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Unexplained, or inadequately explained, revisions or exceptions to terms and conditions may significantly impact evaluation of the Offeror's proposal. Significant departures from previous proposal submissions may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

Each proposal will be evaluated using four factors:

1. Management Capability

2. Past Performance

3. Small Business

4. Price

The evaluation will be a two-step process.

Step 1 – Prerequisite (Reference: Section L-4.1) AS9110 certification is required from the Prime Offeror. For Joint Ventures, at least one member is required to submit a certificate. If a certificate is not provided, the Offeror’s proposal will NOT be evaluated

Step 2 – Tradeoff Criteria All factors will be evaluated using a tradeoff process. The relative importance of these tradeoff factors are listed in order:

1. Management Capability (Factor 1) is the most important non-price factor.

2. Past Performance (Factor 2) is the second most important non-price factor.

3. Small Business (Factor 3) is third in order of importance of non-price factors.

All factors above, when combined, are significantly more important than price (FAR 15.304(e)(1)). However, as proposals become equalized amongst these non-price tradeoff factors, the evaluated price becomes more important.

M-3 EVALUATING FACTOR 1, MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

(Reference Section L-4.2 and DoD Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016)

Proposals will be evaluated on the Offeror’s demonstration of the following:

Program Management. (Reference L-4.2.1.)

The Offeror provided an effective integrated management approach that demonstrates an organizational structure that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, manning levels and skill sets by position, skill sets by position, shop or function, and shift, assigned roles and responsibilities, lines of authority, and cohesive functional relationships to meet provided workload data and execute all PWS requirements.

The Offeror provided a comprehensive communication approach that consists of effective lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government to ensure continuity and mission success.

The Offeror provided an effective integrated approach to attract, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel by job category/position to execute all PWS requirements.

Quality Management System (QMS). (Reference L-4.2.2.)

The Offeror provided an effective approach for continuous pro-active preventative-based monitoring, measurement, and analysis program in compliance with AS9110 that uses quantifiable metrics and focuses on conformance to all PWS requirements and company QMS.

Logistics Management. (Reference L-4.2.3.)

The Offeror provided an effective methodology to plan, execute, manage, and control the life-cycle for Government Furnished Property.

The Offeror provided an effective approach to properly use and positively influence Air Force supply chain operations at retail and wholesale levels from acquisition of supplies materials and equipment to include demand planning, grounded weapon system mitigation, retrograde of line item replacement units and disposition.

Transition Plan (Reference: Section L-4.2.4.)

The Offeror provided an efficient plan that adequately addressed the following:

a) Realistic milestones to execute transition tasks in the mandated timeframe, to include interfacing with the incumbent contractor in support of transition tasks.

b) Effective approach to hire incumbent personnel and/or fill incumbent vacancies with trained/qualified personnel to perform contract tasks and responsibilities at contract start.

c) Effective process to acquire and integrate open actions (work orders, requisitions etc.) at contract start to ensure continuity and timely completion of open items.

FACTOR 1 RATINGS

The factor above will be assigned a technical and risk rating from the following charts. The ratings will focus on each Offeror's proposal strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses and risks using the definitions found in the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016.

This factor must have a final technical evaluation rating of at least Acceptable (Green) and a risk rating no worse than moderate in order to receive contract award.

Technical Ratings for Factor 1

Risk Ratings for Factor 1

M-4 EVALUATING FACTOR 2, PAST PERFORMANCE

(Reference Section L-4.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016)

A Performance Confidence Rating will be assigned to each Offeror based on three aspects of past performance evaluation. Past performance information (PPI) determined non-recent or not relevant will not be further evaluated.

1. Recency: Each PPI must be determined recent in order to be considered relevant. Recent is an active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last five years as of the release date of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of five years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent.

2. Relevancy: The following criteria will be used to determine the relevancy of each recent PPI submitted:

Relevancy Ratings for Factor 2

3. Quality: The Government will review all recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned, but rather the Offeror's overall record of performance quality will be used to assign a confidence rating.

Each Offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating, as follows:

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings for Factor 2

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.

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 nor unfavorably, and as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for this factor.

M-5 EVALUATING FACTOR 3, SMALL BUSINESS

(Reference Section L-4.4 and DoD Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016)

Proposals will be evaluated on the extent of commitment to small business in the performance of the contract. The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) for the following to determine if it meets or exceeds the requirement.

a. list of small businesses, by name, and the products/services they will provide with NAICS code;

b. the type and complexity of supplies/services to be provided by small business;

c. the extent of commitment (e.g. letters of intent, teaming agreements, mentor protégé, etc.);

d. how the Offeror will meet the total small business minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 20% of total contract value; and

e. both percentage and dollar breakouts of total small business participation by socio-economic category.

Proposals will also be evaluated on how well their past performance complies with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Large business Offerors will be evaluated on how well their subcontracting plan follows FAR 52.219-9 Alt II.

FACTOR 3 RATINGS

The factor above will be assigned a technical rating from the following chart. This factor must have a final technical evaluation rating of at least Acceptable (Green) in order to receive contract award.

Small Business Ratings for Factor 3

M-6 EVALUATING FACTOR 4, PRICE

(Reference Section L-4.5 and DoD Source Selection Procedures dated March 31, 2016)

Price proposals will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, realistic, and balanced price. The basis for a fair and reasonable determination will be the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In the event that reasonableness cannot be determined based on competition or comparison to the Government’s IGCE, other than cost and pricing data shall be used.

TEP consists of the Offeror’s pricing for the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract line items (CLINs):

X001 – Nellis Aircraft Maintenance Services (base and all option periods) X002 – Falcon (F-16) AMU (base and all option periods) X003 – Thunder (A-10) AMU (optional base year and all option periods) X004 – Computer, IT, Software, and Cybersecurity (optional base year and all option periods) X005 – Unit Deployment Manager (optional base year and all option periods) X006 – Deployment Liaison (optional base year and all option periods) 0099 – Transition Support

The Government provided amount for the award fee CLIN:

X007 – Performance Incentive / Award Fee (base and all option periods)

The total of the Government provided amount and Offeror proposed rates for the cost CLINs.

X008 – TDY Support and Government Directed Travel (base and all option periods) X009 – Reimbursable Expenses (base and all option periods)

The Government will evaluate all option CLINs (FAR 52.217-5), to include the FAR 52.217-8 option CLINs. This does not obligate the Government to exercise any options during performance of the contract.

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 proposal. There is a reasonable 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’s proposed prices appear unrealistically 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 unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.