Attachment_17_Section_M_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Criteria Subjective Tradeoff (STO)

M-1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Subjective Tradeoff (STO) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement Procedures, Guidance and Information Subpart 215.3, and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure (MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors' combined past performance information, technical “acceptability” and technical risk will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to price. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their technical risk, prices and performance records. Failure to meet a solicitation requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the Technical Risk Rating, TEP, and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

A. Technical Acceptability Factor. The government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Technical Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

Subfactor 1 – Management (Staffing/Training/Unions): The offeror shall demonstrate a Work Breakdown Structure that meets the staffing and manning requirements for remote site operations with emphasis on the following:

(1) A basis of estimate for each position proposed in the organizational structure which demonstrates the manning and hours associated with each element of the Installation Support Services 2 Performance Work Statement complying with all Collective Bargaining Agreements (if applicable) along with any direct and in-direct costs that support all requirements.

(2) Provide a brief narrative regarding the Top Level manning requirements in the

Work Breakdown Structure that demonstrates the necessity of the position to the contract.

(i.e. 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc.)

Subfactor 2 – Transition: The offeror shall demonstrate a plan for transition into contracted locations (including initial site survey) with emphasis on the following:

Section J, Attachment 17

FA5215-17-R-9002

4/3/2017 1

Phase-In. A systematic phased approach that manages the transition into the contracted locations addressed in PWS 1.3, accounting for:

(A) Seasonal/logistical limitations and with no impact to continuing Government operations;

(B) The ability to preposition, store and transport all Contractor equipment, personnel and supplies in a manner that ensures Contractor readiness to begin operations upon contract start and will minimize cost to the Government; and

(C) Provide a schedule to conduct a joint (Government, outgoing Contractor, and incoming Contractor) inventory and assessment of Government Furnished Equipment/Property/Facilities and the transfer from the outgoing to the incoming Contractor.

Subfactor 3 – Technical Approach: The offeror shall demonstrate an approach that achieves the technical requirements of operations and maintenance at the remote sites identified in PWS 1.3 with an emphasis on the following:

(1) Operations, maintenance and restoral efforts of all communication electronics equipment of the ISS2 program identified in PWS 3.2.6, 3.3.6, and 3.4.6 with the challenges that a remote environment presents; and

(2) Operations, maintenance and restoral efforts for all power production/distribution systems of the ISS2 program identified in PWS 3.2.3.19.1 and 3.4.3.19.1 with the challenges that a remote environment present.

Subfactor 4 – Retention: The offeror shall demonstrate a plan to retain key personnel identified in PWS 3.6.1 and 3.6.3 with emphasis on the following:

(1) Retention plan shall demonstrate a method to mitigate a gap in key personnel identified in the PWS.

(2) Retention plan shall demonstrate how each key position will benefit based on the company’s criteria for filling each key position.

B. Technical Risk Factor. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The government will evaluate the technical proposals and assign a technical risk rating as described in Table 2 below.

Section J, Attachment 17

4/3/2017 2

Table 2. Technical Risk Ratings

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule 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 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 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 combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

C. Price Evaluation Factor. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, unrealistic or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

Total Proposed Price: An Offeror’s Total Proposed Price (TPP) is defined as the combined total prices for Phase In, Option Year’s 1-10 and Phase Out. The TPP will be automatically developed in Section J, Exhibit B, CLIN/ELIN Tables.

Total Evaluated Price: An Offeror's Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is defined as the combined total prices for the Phase In, Option Year's 1-10 and Phase Out, plus the price for ten (10) six (6) month extensions (one (1) for each Option Yr) minus a reduction of $10,000,000.00 ($10M) (one million ($1M) for each Option Year) to represent the estimated market requirements (Retention Plan) to retain qualified personnel during contract performance. Not to Exceed (NTE) CLINs will not be included in the TEP.

In order to meet the requirements of FAR Part 6 and FAR Part 17, the price equivalent to the six

(6) months extension of services authorized by FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be evaluated and factored as part of the TEP. The Government will develop a six (6) month extension price for Option Years 1-10 by dividing each Option Year Total Proposed Price by two

(2) to represent 6 months of effort for each option period.

The formula for the Option to Extend Services amount is as follows:

Option Year 1 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 2 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 3 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 4 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2

Section J, Attachment 17

4/3/2017 3

Option Year 5 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 6 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 7 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 8 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 9 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2 Option Year 10 = Total Proposed Price Amount ÷ 2

The government will rank all offers by TEP. The price evaluation will document the completeness, price reasonableness, price realism, and balance.

Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the government to exercise the Options.

Offerors’ price proposals will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine reasonableness. The price evaluation will document completeness, price reasonableness, price realism, and balance as follows:

(1) Completeness: A proposal is complete when all pricing data required under Section L of the RFP is provided in the format prescribed.

(2) Price Reasonableness:

(a) Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Price analysis will be used to evaluate the reasonableness of each Offeror’s TEP to satisfy the requirement mandated by FAR 15.305(a)(1).

(b) Price reasonableness will be determined based on evaluation of each Offeror's TEP using any of the techniques and procedures per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

(c) A determination of an unreasonably high TEP may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

(3) Price Realism: The government will perform price realism analysis. An unrealistically low price determination may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

(4) Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The

Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price.

Per FAR 52.215-1(f) (8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between CLINs. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Section J, Attachment 17

4/3/2017 4

(5) Apparent Mathematical Errors: The proposal will be evaluated to ensure if a discrepancy exists within the information contained in the electronic copy.

D. Past Performance Factor. The government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and (ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Section J, Attachment 19), and

(iii) any data independently obtained by the government. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with Sec L-6, para B, 4(c), does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform critical aspects of the requirement (as identified in PWS Section 6, Service Summary Table 1), if applicable (see Sec L-6, paragraph B.4(e)), will not be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

(1) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last three (3) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.

(2) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 3 below:

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Rating Definition

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

(3) Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the (i) Quality Assessment Criteria evaluated under Section 4: Evaluation of Past/Present Performance Questionnaire and

(ii) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), if available.

(4) The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence. Offerors with no

Section J, Attachment 17

4/3/2017 5 recent past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive the rating “Neutral Confidence,” meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 4 below:

TABLE 4. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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 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 successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

E. The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

F. Integrated Assessment. In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable.” The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest TEP. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the Technical Risk Rating, TEP, and the Past Performance Confidence Rating.

Section J, Attachment 17

4/3/2017 6