Section_M_RS_Advertising_22_Dec_2016_R1.pdf

SECTION M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. INTRODUCTION: This section outlines the basis for evaluation of the offeror’s capabilities and proposals submitted in response to the solicitation, after evaluation of offeror’s minimum requirements is completed. The evaluation criteria describe the scope of the evaluation to be performed on each proposal.

Section L of the RFP describes the proposal content and format requirements.

2. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

a. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

b. This acquisition is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (FAR) 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process. The Government will select the offeror based on an integrated assessment of the offeror’s technical proposal, past performance, and proposed price information.

c. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. Proposals will be evaluated based solely on the factors contained in this solicitation.

d. The Government reserves the right to:

(i) Award a contract or make no award depending upon the quality and/or affordability of proposals received in response to the solicitation;

(ii) Reject proposals which, upon initial review, are deemed substantially noncompliant with the proposal requirements of the RFP;

(iii) Consider, throughout the evaluation process, the correction potential of a proposal when a deficiency is identified;

(iv) Conduct discussions – if the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation, which may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.; and/or

(v) Award without conducting discussions.

3. EVALUATION

All proposals received will be subject to technical, past performance, and price evaluation by a technical evaluation team and/or a contract evaluation team. A color code rating technique will be used to evaluate the technical proposal. Color ratings will be assigned at the technical sub-factor level for sub-factors one and two. However, sub-factor 3, Staffing Plan and Financial Capability, will be evaluated on an

“Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis only. Past Performance will also be evaluated using the color ratings.

The price proposal will not be given a color rating. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors: Approach to Critical PWS Requirements, Scenario-Based Presentations, and Staffing Plan and Financial Capability. Technical sub-factor one is the most important and will be weighted at 50% of the total technical rating, sub-factor two will be weighted at 30%, and sub-factor three will be weighted at 20% of the total technical rating. Technical merit is the most important consideration and will be weighted at 45% of the total evaluation, Past Performance will be weighted at 30%, and

Cost/Price will be weighted at 25%. Price will be evaluated for reasonableness (all CLINS) and realism

(CPFF CLINS only) and will be considered as an integrated assessment of best value. The lowest priced proposal may not necessarily receive the award; likewise, the highest technically rated proposal may not necessarily receive the award. Selection will be based on the proposal that is determined by the government to represent the best overall value. A point system will be used to differentiate between the various colors and to differentiate offerors within the same assigned colors. The highest score, based on a

100-point system, will determine best overall value. The offeror’s score will be computed according to the descriptions below.

a. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors: The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical (45% of total evaluation)

Sub-factor 1: Approach to Critical PWS Requirements (50% of technical total)

Sub-factor 2: Scenario-based Presentation (30% of technical total)

Sub-factor 3: Staffing Plan and Financial Capability (20% of technical total)

Factor 2: Past Performance (30% of total evaluation)

Factor 3: Price (25% of total evaluation)

TECHNICAL EVALUATION: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate technical sub-factors 1 and 2 using Table 1, Technical Ratings, assigning one of the colors/ratings described below.

Any sub-factor evaluated as “Red” or “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Sub-factor 3 will be evaluated on an “Acceptable/Unacceptable” basis only.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. Evaluation of this factor shall focus on meeting the Government’s requirements, and any strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal using the color ratings below. Government will favorably consider proposed innovations and efficiencies that enhance cost, schedule and performance, are of benefit to the

Government, and can be made contractually binding. To support the Government’s determination of an actual benefit, the offeror may also discuss any cost advantages that may or may not appear in the cost proposal. Note that if an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this will be considered a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal and the proposal may be rendered un-awardable.

Color ratings for Technical sub-factors are as follows:

Definitions

Strength. A strength is a significant, outstanding or exceptional aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process.

Deficiency. A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement.

Uncertainty. “Uncertainty” is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and should generate the issuance of an evaluation notice (EN).

Sub-factor 1: Approach to Critical PWS Requirements (50% of technical evaluation total)

Description: The offeror's proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capability and proposed approach to performing the requirements set forth in paragraphs 4.08 to 4.16 of the Performance Work Statement

(PWS) (See RFP Attachment J-l). The offeror must be capable of performing all requirements of the

PWS; however, these paragraphs are considered the more critical elements of the PWS. The offeror's proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s core competency in the area of advertising. Core competency, in

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

the area of advertising, is defined as the ability to research, develop and execute appropriate multimedia communications that generate quality leads and create brand awareness within a targeted population.

This standard will be evaluated based on the degree to which the offeror demonstrates the technical and creative capability to develop and execute all critical PWS requirements.

Sub-factor 2: Scenario-based Presentation (30% of technical evaluation total)

Description: The offeror's Scenario Based Presentation shall demonstrate the following elements, which will all carry equal weight: (1) cognizance of client mission, (2) consistency of strategy, (3) creative philosophy, (4) quality, (5) creative capacity. This standard shall be evaluated based on the degree to which the presentation presents creative examples of effective advertising in the following media types:

(1) one or more print literature pieces, (2) one or more 30-second radio spots, (3) one or more Public

Service Announcement (PSA) TV commercial story boarded concepts (4) one or more Web Micro site concepts, which can be represented on story board.

Element 1: Cognizance of Client Mission. This element will be evaluated based on the degree to which the presentation demonstrates an understanding of the concept and role of the U.S. Armed

Forces in supporting the national defense, including the relationship of AFRC's Citizen Airmen to

U.S. Society as a whole.

Element 2: Consistency of Strategy. This element will be evaluated based on the degree to which the presentation demonstrates the logical strategy development and budget allocation proposal for the creative concepts.

Element 3: Creative Philosophy. This element will be evaluated based on the degree to which the presentation demonstrates the agency's creative philosophy and similarity of the campaigns to

AFRC requirements.

Element 4: Quality. This element will be evaluated based on the degree to which when the presentation is clear, convincing, and factual and demonstrates freshness, originality and teamwork.

Element 5: Creative Capacity. This element will be evaluated based on the degree to which the presentation demonstrates the capacity and capability of the agency's creative department and staff.

Sub-factor 3: Staffing Plan and Financial Capability (20% of technical evaluation total)

Description: The offeror's proposal shall demonstrate via a comprehensive staffing plan how the agency will allocate personnel and resources to the AFRC account and what priority AFRC business will receive on a daily basis. Critical processes should be identified and described and must demonstrate detailed understanding of advertising as it affects military recruiting. Identify any risks associated with the approach and actions to be taken to mitigate that risk. This standard is met when the offeror’s staffing plan clearly demonstrates that the necessary depth and breadth of skills and experience have been identified, key management personnel are in place, an executable plan is in place to obtain the remaining skilled/experienced personnel, and financial capability meets requirements. To be found acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must clearly demonstrates the comprehensive knowledge, understanding, and experience to execute each of the following elements of the Account:

Element 1: Key Personnel. For the purposes of this acquisition, key personnel are defined as the

Account Manager, the Account Executive, the Media Buyer, the Creative Director, and the

Qualification Center Supervisor. Proposals shall describe specific experience for each key member that should include developing, managing, and executing national multi-media advertising campaigns.

Element 2: Types of Personnel. This element is met when the offeror's proposal demonstrates an adequate staffing plan with appropriate authorities and responsibilities to effectively manage the

AFRC account.

Element 3: Inter-Agency Relations. This element is met when the offeror's proposal adequately demonstrates the quality of intra-agency relations, including how the account group works with the creative staff.

Element 4: Integration of Accounts. This element is met when the offeror's proposal demonstrates the agency's ability to effectively integrate AFRC business into the existing agency structure.

Element 5: Management Oversight. This element is met when the offeror's proposal demonstrates sufficient corporate emphasis to ensure successful performance on the AFRC account.

Element 6: Standardization/Efficiency of New Account Procedures. This element is met when the offeror's proposal demonstrates adequate administrative procedures in place or proposed procedures to monitor and manage the AFRC account.

Element 7: Transition of AFRC Account This element is met when the offeror's proposal demonstrates an adequate mobilization/transition plan for the AFRC account.

Element 8: Financial Capability. Offeror shall provide a Financial Plan that demonstrates offeror has sufficient cash flow to carry AFRC media accounts up to $1,000,000 in pre-payments.

Offerors shall explain how they plan to maintain adequate financial capability for a contract of this magnitude and length. Documentation such as Financial Statements, Projected earnings, Debt

Ratios, and, if relying on financial support from other sources, identity of maximum lines of credit and sources of same are required.

NOTE:

Access: (This paragraph will apply if a joint venture or teaming arrangement is in effect).

Unless specifically agreed upon between the prime and individual team members:

(a) Each firm's financial information will not be accessible amongst team members.

(b) Team members must submit their current financial statements and other financial information, as required in element (2) above, to the Government through the prime under individually sealed packages.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION:

The Government shall evaluate past performance proposal information pertaining to similar work performed within the past three years for up to three (3) different projects which are of the magnitude and scope per tasks outlined in the PWS. Offerors are encouraged to convey each project’s overall objective, a short synopsis of work performed, and challenges faced and overcome.

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments shown in Table 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments.

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating (Color) Description

SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE

(BLUE)

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 (GREEN)

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

(YELLOW)

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 (RED)

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offerer will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(RED)

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.

Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror' s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical sub-factors and Cost/Price factor. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the

Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror' s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting

System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the

Technical sub-factors and Cost/Price. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical sub-factors and

Cost/Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to each element as described in the table in Section 4 of the

“Past Performance Questionnaire”.

A relevancy determination of the offeror's past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner.

The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – RELEVANCY DEFINITIONS

Rating/Color

Definition

VERY RELEVANT

(BLUE)

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

RELEVANT

(GREEN)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(YELLOW)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(RED)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical sub-factors and

Cost/Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

4. PRICE EVALUATION:

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. See paragraphs (a) and (b) below. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph (c) below.

(a) Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

(b) Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

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 proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Section B. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

(c) Total Evaluated Price: A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be calculated as follows:

(1) The extended prices (unit price x quantity) for all of the firm, fixed price CLINs and the corresponding option CLINs will be totaled.

(2) The extended prices (proposed Indirect Rates) for all the Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs and the corresponding option CLINs will be determined as follows and will be totaled:

X008 - Media $2,000,000 with the Indirect Rates and 10% fee applied

X009 - Promotional $1,000,000 with the Indirect Rates and 10% fee applied

X010 - Creative $1,000,000 with the Indirect Rates and 10% fee applied

EXAMPLE: For Media CLIN, if offeror proposed 10% overhead and 10% G&A, the

Total Price will be calculated as follows:

$2,000,000 x 10% Overhead = $200,000

$2,000,000 + $200,000 = $2,200,000

$2,200,000 x 10% G&A = $220,000

$2,200,000 + $220,000 = $2,420,000

$2,420,000 x 10% fee = $242,000

$2,420,000 + $242,000 = $2,662,000

(3) The labor rates in Schedule B will be multiplied by the estimated hours for each labor category for evaluation purposes only.

(4) The sums derived from Paragraphs (1) and (2) above will be added together to develop each offeror's TEP.