Draft Section M FA4890-22-R-CN02 FOL BOS.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M – EVALUATION CRITERIA

As stated in FAR 15.204-1(b), Section M will not be physically included in any resultant contract.

EVALUATION

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1 This competitive best value tradeoff 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 Best Value Tradeoff source selection process. Award will be made to the Offeror deemed responsible IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements and represents the best value to the government.

M-1.2 The Government contemplates awarding a contract resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. Evaluation will be conducted as outlined in M-3.

M-1.3 Factor ratings and assessments will focus on each proposal’s technical acceptability, past performance confidence and price. The Government reserves the right to award 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 superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base 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. Price is not expected to be the most important factor in the selection of an Offeror for this solicitation; however, the importance of price as a factor could become greater depending upon the equality of past performance factor confidence ratings. When competing proposals are evaluated and determined to be equal, price would become the most significant factor. Price will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic and to assess the Offeror’s understanding of the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between technical and price shall be clearly explained in the price proposal. For example, if unique and innovative approaches are the basis for an abnormally priced Contract line Item (CLIN), the nature of these approaches and their impact on price shall 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, past performance confidence, and proposed price represents the best value to the Government.

M-1.4 The Government reserves the right 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, discussions 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 technical, past performance, and price proposals.

M-1.5 Responsiveness. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the offeror being non-responsive and ineligible for award. The Government will review the proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the provided documentation to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

M-1.6 Responsibility. No award will be made to an offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1.

The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

M-1.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that offeror may receive an award of this contract. The Offerors shall review and submit an assessment of any and all potential or actual OCI issues for the prime contractor, subcontractor, joint ventures, and teaming partners. If no potential or actual OCI issue exists, the offeror shall unequivocally and affirmatively so state without reservation. If a potential or actual OCI issue exists, the offeror shall (a) clearly identify the issue and its proposed mitigation strategy and (b) clearly explain why there is no unfair competitive advantage or detriment to the source selection and resultant contract.

M-1.8 If the Government conducts 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-1.9 Facility Clearance Requirements. At proposal submission, the Offeror shall possess a SECRET facility security clearance to assume contract tasks and responsibilities. If an Offeror does not have this type of clearance at the time of proposal submission, the proposal will NOT be evaluated and is not eligible for award. The Government will NOT sponsor Offerors for facility clearances. Offerors that are unpopulated Joint Ventures may meet this requirement by each member of the Joint Venture possessing a SECRET facility security clearance.

M-1.10 Final Proposal Revision (FPR) FPRs will be requested from each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions, if conducted. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions 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. The Contracting Officer will establish a common due date and time for submission of the FPR.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

Proposals will be evaluated using three (3) evaluation factors: (1) Technical, (2) Past Performance, and (3) Price.

Technical Factor 1 is not part of the trade-off. Technical Factor 1 will be rated Acceptable/Unacceptable at the SubFactor level. There are two (2) subfactors within the Technical Factor: (1) Program Management and (2) Technical Understanding. For the purposes of this trade-off, Factor 2, Past Performance, is considered more important than price. 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 superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. Offerors who receive an Unacceptable rating for either Subfactor under Factor 1, or Limited/No Confidence rating under Factor 2 are ineligible for award.

VOLUME I: TECHNICAL

M-3.1 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 meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. Technical proposals will be assessed a rating of "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" at the SubFactor level IAW Table A-1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2016, as shown below:

To be eligible for award, an “Acceptable” rating for both technical subfactors is required. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any SubFactor will render the proposal Technically Unacceptable. An overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. Each technical SubFactor contains aspects. Each aspect will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. Any aspect rating of “Unacceptable” will result in a SubFactor rating of “Unacceptable”. Proposals that exceed the 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.

SUBFACTOR 1 Program Management. Subfactor 1 consists of two (2) aspects: (A) Management and Integration and (B) Transition Plan

M-3.1.1 The following are Program Management aspects:

M-3.1.1.1 Aspect A: Management and Integration. This aspect is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates an acceptable integrated management approach for accomplishing program requirements to include:

i .Organizational structure that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, manning levels by position, skill sets by position, utilization of personnel, assigned roles and responsibilities, and cohesive functional relationships to execute program requirements and meet Appendix G estimated workload

ii. Communication that consists of effective lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government

iii. Scheduling of tasks and system of controls to provide quality/timely services or products that safely fulfill mission requirements

iv. QMS that complies with ANSI/ISO/ASQ 9001:2015 requirements and Appendix D of the PWS; integrates quality control approach(es) into corporate management structure and daily execution of program requirements; and implement/sustain a culture of continuous process improvement and compliance with contractual requirements, regulatory guidance, technical data, and all other technical guidance.

M-3.1.1.2 Aspect B: Transition Plan. This aspect is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates an acceptable plan to ensure continuity of mission support and contract performance to include:

i. Realistic milestones to execute phase-in tasks during the 60 days allotted for Transition.

ii. Adequate organizational structure that includes appropriate number of personnel, qualifications, functional assignments to effectively accomplish transition tasks.

iii. Acceptable approach to hire incumbent personnel and/or fill incumbent vacancies, as well as phase-in resources and trained/qualified personnel required to assume contract tasks and responsibilities at contract start.

iv. Acceptable approach to interface with incumbent contractor to include assumption of incumbent personnel workload at each site resulting in no interruption of service.

v. Acceptable approach to meet ITAR licensing requirements and requisitions IAW PWS 4.1.4.2 at contract start.

vi. Acceptable and timely approach to integrate open actions (work orders, requisitions etc.) into the proposed data management system at contract start ensuring data is available for Government personnel access.

RATING DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

vii. Acceptable approach to meeting transient lodging requirements defined in Appendix H at start of contract period and feasible mitigation plan if subtasks of this approach are not completed by start date.

viii. Acceptable approach for the overall vehicle fleet management (GFV/SPV to CFV conversion) to support all FOL-BOS contract requirements.

M-3.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Technical Understanding. Subfactor 2 consists of three (3) Aspects: (A) Communications Support (B) Airfield Services and Management, and (C) Fire and Emergency Services.

The following are Technical Understanding aspects:

M-3.1.2.1 Aspect A: Communications Support. This aspect is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates a logical and acceptable approach for accomplishing Communication Support (C4I) Services support to FOL BOS operations per all applicable PWS paragraphs.

M-3.1.2.2. Aspect B: Airfield Services and Management. This aspect is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates a logical and acceptable approach for integrating airfield operations and management across all disciplines per the PWS to include coordination with Hato IAP to provide safe and effective flying operations.

M-3.1.2.3 Aspect C: Civil Engineering Mission Support. This aspect is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates a logical and acceptable approach for accomplishing Civil Engineering Mission support to include manning, certifications, operations, and supply/maintenance in support of the FOL mission.

M-3.2 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE. Past performance will 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 the quality of performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors. Past performance will primarily be evaluated by examining references submitted by the Offeror, however the Government reserves the right to review any other past performance information available to the Government and determined relevant to this requirement. The Government may obtain additional past/present performance information through other means and sources including 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) and other data bases; (4) Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); (5) Government Program Managers, Contracting Officers.

M.3.2.1 Recency. A Recency determination will be made for each PPI reference provided. Recency is defined as contract performance (minimum of six (6 months) during the four (4) 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 six (6) months during the four (4) years from the date of this solicitation), will be considered recent. If a PPI reference is determined recent, the Government may evaluate the Offerors’ performance record during the entire contract period.

M-3.2.2 Relevancy. A Relevancy determination of the Offeror’s Present and Past Performance for each PPI reference will be made. Relevancy for this solicitation is defined as past performance effort involving the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, with particular focus on OCONUS performance and the three primary mission areas identified in technical Subfactor 2: Technical Understanding. 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 validate the relevancy information contained in the contractor provided PPI reference. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy definitions apply:

Table 5: Past Performance Relevancy

M-3.2.3 Performance Confidence Assessment. The rating for the Past Performance factor will be 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 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 as the FOL BOS requirement. Each Offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as follows:

Table 6: Past Performance Confidence Ratings/Definitions

M-3.2.3.1 Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect 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 actual corrective actions taken. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. IAW FAR 15.306(b), Communications will 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-3.2.4 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.” In regards to the best value award decision a Satisfactory or Substantial performance confidence rating is significantly more important than a Neutral confidence rating."

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

RATING DEFINITION

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.

M-3.2.5 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-3.3 FACTOR 3: PRICE

M-3.3.1 Price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair & reasonable, balanced, and realistic based on competition; other than cost or pricing data may be requested. There is an expectation of competition for this requirement; therefore, Offerors are cautioned to present their best cost/price proposal up-front.

M-3.3.1.1 Price Realism. If proposed prices appear unrealistically low, further analysis may be conducted to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s proposal. In instances where an Offeror receives at least an “Acceptable” Technical Factor rating, and at least a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating, yet proposed cost or prices appear unrealistically low, and the offeror fails to explain these costs, the Government may consider the offeror as having a lack of understanding of the technical requirement. 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 low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal.

M-3.3.1.2 Balanced Pricing. Pricing shall be considered balanced when the proposed prices are determined to reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical approach. 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.

M-3.3.2 Total Overall Evaluated Price (TOEP). The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for Cost Reimbursable (CR), and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs; to include the base period, option years, and 50% of the last option period to cover the option to extend services. Evaluation of the option periods does not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Both the solicitation and resultant contract will contain FAR clause 52.217-8 entitled “Option to Extend Services,” which states the Government may require continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract, up to an additional 6-month period. Offerors shall not separately price the 6-month extension, as 50% of the last option period shall be used to automatically calculate pricing of the 6-month extension if FAR 52.217-8 is required.