FA521524R0006 - Draft Section M.docx

FA5215-24-R-0006

Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

ALASKA RADAR SYSTEM (ARS)

FOR

BASE OPERATION AND SUPPORT (BOS) SERVICES

SOLICITATION FA5215-24-R-0006

31 May 2024

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. In this procurement, the AF intends to award based on an objective assessment and validation of the two Highest Technically Rated Offerors 2(HTRO), acceptable Small Business Participation, and pricing that is Reasonable, Realistic, Complete, and Balanced.

The Government will only award a contract to an Offeror who is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

Best value to the Government in this procurement is represented by the combination of HTRO Past Technical Experience (based on a government validated self-score), acceptable Small Business Participation, and pricing that is Reasonable, Realistic, Complete and Balanced. The identification of the 2HTRO will include the following: the HTRO and, if available, any offerors with a technical rating within 5% of the HTRO.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria in this Section M (described below). While the Government source selection 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The AF will make one award to the offeror that represents the best value for the government.

1.3 Proposals Substantiation. Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the proposal would be disqualified and not awardable.

1.4 Discussions. The Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award without discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines them not to be necessary. In the event discussions are conducted, they will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306 and will be limited to those Offerors determined to be the HTRO offeror(s) IAW paragraph 3.1, Evaluation Methodology.

2.0 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Proposal Compliance. 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 PCO’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the PCO determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented by DFARS 209.1.

2.2.1 Financial/Other Resources. The Government requires the offeror to provide financial institution information, IAW Paragraph 2.3.4 in Section L. The information will not be evaluated as part of the technical and price proposal; however, it’s evaluation is required to determine contractor responsibility prior to award.

2.3 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.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself based on the objective criteria described in Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents.

The Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring in the Offeror completed Section L, Appendix B, which includes weighting for each factor. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will validate the offeror with the highest proposed self-score and any offeror within 5% of the highest proposed self-score. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted because of Government validation, and the Offeror is no longer among the highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until only the offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain (see paragraph 4.0 of this Section M). The Government will evaluate for Small Business Participation Acceptability (see paragraph 5.0 of this Section M)) and Price (see paragraph 6.0 of this Section M).

The Government, either without discussions or after discussions occur, will award as follows:

In the event there is a tie for the HTRO, award will be made to the lowest TEP, contingent upon satisfactory price evaluation and acceptable small business participation.

In the event there is not a tie, the offerors that represents the HTRO and any other offeror that is within 5% of the HTRO’s technical rating, will be considered for award. The award will be made to the HTRO, unless the next highest technically rated offeror’s proposal represents a price savings of at least 10% from the HTRO proposal. In this case, award will be made to the next highest technically rated offeror contingent upon satisfactory price evaluation and acceptable small business participation. In the event the next highest technically rated offeror’s proposal does not represent at least a price savings of 10%, award will be made to the HTRO.

3.2 Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Past Technical Experience Factor 2: Small Business Participation Factor 3: Price

4.0 Factor 1 – Past Technical Experience (Volume II).

4.1 Past Technical Experience Evaluation. The Offerors proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring provided in Appendix B. The government will validate the Offerors self-rate score following the process outlined below:

1. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will then validate that the Offeror with the highest proposed self-scores, and any Offeror within 5% of the highest, are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation. Any proposal not in compliance may not be further evaluated, and the Government may evaluate the next highest self-scores for compliance.

2. The Government will validate the qualifications of each work artifact as required in Section L, Paragraph 2.5.1.2. Any work artifact which does not adhere to the required qualifications may not be further validated.

3. The Government will validate the highest proposed self-scores. Offeror’s self-scores will be validated using the work artifacts provided. If the substantiating information cannot be found within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. the Government will not search for the substantiating information.

4. If the Offeror’s self-rated score cannot be validated based on the work artifacts provided in Volume II of the proposal, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

a. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward. Adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government.

b. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted, and the Offeror is no longer among the highest rated Offerors, the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror until only Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores or within 5% of the highest remain.

4.2 Statement of Facts. If provided, The Government will evaluate the Statement of Facts in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 2.5.1 in Section L, to include formatting and content.

4.3 Teaming Any work artifact submitted, in which the work was performed by any other contractor (not the Offeror themselves), without a signed teaming agreement included with the submission, will not be considered a valid substantiation for the purposed of the Government validated score.

5.0 Factor 2 – Small Business Participation (Volume III)

This factor will be included and evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis for all Offerors representing the 2HTRO IAW small business participation standards as outlined in Section L. Offerors are advised, the proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become attachments to any award resulting from this solicitation.

5.1 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). All Offerors representing the 2HTRO will be evaluated on the extent of proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors) relative to the objectives and requirements established herein and Section L. The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document meets or does not meet the following elements:

5.1.1 The Offeror’s SBPCD demonstrates that all firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified.

5.1.2 The Offeror’s SBPCD demonstrates substantive commitment to small business firms by providing thorough and complete evidence of all binding commitments, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

5.1.3 The Offeror’s SBPCD identifies the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

5.1.4 The Offeror’s SBPCD is consistent with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if applicable.

5.2 Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Other than small business Offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan promoting Small Business Participation IAW FAR 19.704. Other than small business Offerors shall not utilize the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in the place of the SBPCD. The Government will evaluate whether an Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan meets or does not meet the following minimum small business participation goals:

Small Business Participation Ratings

6.0 Factor 3 – Price (Volume IV).

6.1 The Government will evaluate Price for reasonableness, realism, completeness, and balance.

6.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will evaluate the proposed TEP for reasonableness and realistic, completeness, and balance. For the purposes of the evaluation, the TEP shall be calculated utilizing Appendix E, TEP Proposal Format Template. Price analysis as detailed below will be conducted based on data as submitted by the offeror in Appendix E, TEP Proposal Format Template. The data shall conform to the instructions as outlined in Section L.

6.3 Evaluation of FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The solicitation and subsequent award for this acquisition contains the clause at FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This option to extend the contract term will be evaluated as part of the initial evaluation, whereby any resultant exercise of this option is within scope of the pending contract. The option provision may be exercised more than once, but the total extension of performance hereunder shall not exceed six (6) months. Offerors are required to price the base and all option CLINs. Offerors shall not submit additional pricing for the potential six-month extension of services period. The price of the FAR 52.217-8 option will be equal to half the price of the final one-year option period and included in the TEP.

The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing for FAR 52.217-8 through its price evaluation. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

6.4 Reasonable and Realistic. The Government will evaluate the proposed Total Evaluated Price for reasonableness using the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. Generally, the Government may rely upon adequate price competition to establish a fair and reasonable price and may use adequate price competition as the basis for the fair and reasonable price determination; provided adequate price competition exists. Additionally, IAW the procedures of FAR 15.4, price realism will be conducted to determine if an offerors proposed prices are too low or indicates a misunderstanding of agency’s requirement. Price realism analysis under the FAR is used to determine whether a low price reflects a lack of understanding of contract requirements or risk inherent in the technical approach. For the Government to determine a TEP to be reasonable and realistic, the TEP must represent a price to the Government that does not exceed the price a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

6.5 Completeness. The Government will evaluate the price proposals for compliance with Section L. The Offeror shall ensure they have provided all pricing information required by the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the completeness of Appendix E. All CLINS must be completed with a dollar amount, even if it is $0.00. Apart from CLIN amounts, a $0.00 rate in a labor category, an omitted rate/fringe/taxes, or other missing price information may result in the Government determining the price proposal to be incomplete. If the Government determines a price proposal to be incomplete, the Government will not be able to further evaluate the proposal for reasonableness and balance. In the event a proposal is considered incomplete, the Government will determine whether to enter discussions with the Offeror IAW Paragraph 1.4 of this Section M or proceed to the Offeror with the next highest Government-validated self-rated score under Factor 1, Past Technical Experience, with acceptable Small Business Participation.

6.6 Balance. 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 line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. 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, IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

7.0 Award. Award will be made to the responsible HTRO with Acceptable Small Business Participation, and pricing that is Reasonable, Realistic, Complete, and Balanced which represents the best value for the Government.