FA7000-15-R-0002_Att_9_Draft_Section_M.pdf

FA7000-15-R-0002

Section J, Attachment 9

1 October 2014

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-I - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS:

PARAGRAPH TITLE DATE

None

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION

SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

M-II – SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION

SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.246.doc%23b522521

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

None.

D. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures (dated 4 March 2011) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past

Performance, and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The

Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (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; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one single-award Indefinite-delivery Indefinite-quantity

(IDIQ) contract.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP.

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP).

d. Discussions.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision

(FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23s153 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23s153 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the

Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Staffing

Subfactor 3: Research and Engineering Tasks

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. Factor 1 and Factor 2 are approximately equal. Technical Subfactors are all approximately equal.

b. Technical Factor

(1) Evaluation of technical Subfactor 1: Program Management will receive one combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Technical/Risk rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement in conjunction with risk. Subfactor 1 will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings consider risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

(2) Subfactor 1 ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the

Technical factor.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304 file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23p5511

(3) Subfactor 1 confirms an offeror’s ability to establish and maintain the necessary program management to successfully perform the requirements identified in the basic Work

Statement for the entire contract. This includes the offerors ability to manage surge efforts, maintain schedules, and timely respond to the agency task order request for proposal (RFP) process. Subfactor 1 shall be evaluated against the following:

(i) Surge management. This element confirms an offeror’s ability to successfully manage surge efforts. Specifically, discuss and document your approach to realistically meet surge requirements to perform two additional simultaneous aircraft teardown analyses of different airframe types while already performing a single aircraft teardown analysis of a different type, to include:

1) Surge staffing;

2) Obtainment or availability of additional facilities;

3) Obtainment or availability of additional storage;

4) Subcontracting arrangements; and

5) Procurement or availability of necessary equipment, materials and services.

far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

This requirement is met (Acceptable/Green) when your acceptable approach demonstrates an execution, (implementation of teardown tasks) of the surge requirements within thirty days of the receipt of an RFP for the two additional teardown analysis tasks.

(ii) Schedule management. This element confirms an offeror’s ability to successfully manage schedules and timely provide required deliverables. Discuss and document your approach for meeting schedules to achieve specified periods of performance and the timely submission of deliverables for the four likely awardable task orders. An acceptable (Acceptable/Green) approach shall include:

1) A Microsoft Project Gantt chart that adequately documents necessary tasks with realistic and viable time frames for the successful performance of each of the four likely awardable task orders.

2) An explanation of your company’s procedures to successfully develop, implement, and monitor schedules to ensure the timely completion of task order requirements.

3) A Microsoft Project Gantt chart that provides real time insight into schedule progress for all ongoing task orders, not limited to the four likely awardable task orders.

(iii) Task order RFP response time. This element confirms an offeror’s ability to timely respond to agency request for proposal. The basic Work Statement (Attachment 1) requires a 10-day response time (Acceptable/Green) upon receipt of an RFP. An acceptable approach shall include:

1) A detailed explanation of how you will meet the 10-day response time.

(4) Evaluation of technical Subfactor 2 Staffing and Subfactor 3 Research and

Engineering Tasks uses an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s minimum requirement. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Each offeror’s proposal for Subfactors 2 and 3 will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Table A-1 – Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, excerpted below. The

Acceptable/Unacceptable rating depicts whether or not the offeror’s proposal meets the minimum Subfactor 2 and 3 technical requirements. If Subfactor 2 or 3 is evaluated as

“Unacceptable” it will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, not eligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23p5511

(i) Subfactor 2 will be evaluated individually and receive an

Acceptable/Unacceptable rating based on whether the proposal meets the Measures of Merit criteria. Any aspect of the Subfactor 2 proposal determined “Unacceptable” will result in a

Subfactor 2 rating of “Unacceptable.” Proposals that exceed the minimum evaluation criteria will not receive a higher rating. Subfactor 2 shall be evaluated against the following:

(a) Staffing. This subfactor confirms an offeror’s ability to staff multiple and differing task order requirements identified in the basic Work Statement with required labor categories.

Measures of Merit:

Your staffing approach is “Acceptable” when you meet the following three requirements:

1) A detailed description of how you plan to recruit, hire, train and retain qualified employees to meet basic Work Statement task requirements.

2) Identify by basic Work Statement tasks in Attachment 16 the work you intend to perform in-house and the work you intend to subcontract.

3) Your approach and rationale to fulfill the requirements of paragraph 2.2.6.1.

On-Site Presence Required of the basic Work Statement.

(ii) Subfactor 3 contains 9 sub-tasks from the four likely awardable task orders that will be evaluated individually and receive an Acceptable/Unacceptable rating based on whether the proposal meets the individual “Measures of Merit”. Any sub-task rating of

“Unacceptable” will result in a Subfactor 3 rating of “Unacceptable.” Proposals that exceed the minimum Subfactor 3 evaluation criteria will not receive a higher rating. Subfactor 3 shall be evaluated against the following:

Task Order 0001: T-38 ASIP Support

(a) Sub-Task 1 – Contractor Review of the T-38 Empennage. The proposal shows an acceptable understanding of U.S. Air Force technical data as it relates to the T-38

TABLE A-1. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

aircraft. Refer to Sub-Task Order 0001 Work Statement, T-38 ASIP Support, Paragraph

2.1 Sub-Task 1 – Contractor Review of the T-38 Empennage.

Measure of Merit: Your technical approach is Acceptable when your proposal’s approach describes the following as it pertains to technical research:

1) The list of USAF documents, reports and Technical Orders requested is correct and therefore reflects an understanding of USAF structural sustainment as it relates to the T-38.

2) The proposed approach to performing a structural sustainment evaluation of the T-38 empennage is systematic and encompasses all aspects of structural sustainment.

(b) Sub-Task 2 – T-38 Specialized Structural Testing. The proposal shows an acceptable understanding of performing the structural testing in accordance with the WS.

Refer to Sub-Task Order 0001 Work Statement, T-38 ASIP Support, Paragraph 2.2 Sub-

Task 2 – T-38 Specialized Structural Testing.

Measure of Merit: Your technical approach is Acceptable when your proposal describes the testing required by paragraph 2.2:

1) The structural testing and analysis capabilities available to the contractor for performing and analyzing the results of tests typical of ASIP support efforts.

2) Which capabilities, if desired, will be fulfilled/augmented by USAFA/DFEM laboratory test capabilities.

(c) Sub-Task 3 – Static Strength, Durability, and Damage Tolerance Analyses.

The proposal shows an acceptable understanding of performing a DTA for damage in/around a field repair. Refer to Sub-Task Order 0001 Work Statement, T-38 ASIP

Support, Paragraph 2.3 Sub-Task 3 – Static Strength, Durability, and Damage Tolerance

Analyses.

describes the following as it pertains to DTA of Field Repairs:

1) The finite element analysis (FEA) capabilities of the contractor, including personnel, software and hardware to be used in performing sound FEA.

(d) Sub-Task 4 – T-38 Non-Destructive Inspection (NDI). The proposal shows an acceptable understanding of NDI as it relates to aircraft. Refer to Sub-Task Order 0001

Work Statement, T-38 ASIP Support, Paragraph 2.4 Sub-Task 4 – Non-Destructive

Inspection (NDI) Support.

approach describes the following as it pertains to NDI:

1) The contractor’s NDI capabilities in terms of facilities, equipment and certified personnel available and how applying those capabilities to the WS sub-task will result in credible, documented and deployable inspection tools and methods.

Task Order 0002: C/KC-135 Teardown Analysis

(e) Sub-tasks 2 and 3: Teardown Analysis Planning and Execution. The proposal shows a thorough understanding of performing the requisite steps in the teardown analysis required by the Task. Refer to Task Order 0002 Work Statement, C/KC-135

Teardown Analysis, Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 – Teardown Analysis Planning and

Teardown Analysis Execution.

describes in detail the following as it pertains to Teardown Analysis Planning and

Execution, including a description of all processes to be used to meet the requirements of

CAStLE Teardown Analysis Protocols 1–5, 7 and 8, to accomplish the objectives of this

WS, including:

1) A qualification approach showing how Protocol-specific staffing requirements will be met, including the Contractor’s provisions for facilitating audits (and demonstrations when necessary) of protocol processes during the execution of this

WS. The approach must also include a description of how any vendors/subcontractors used by the contractor to perform protocol tasks in support of this WS will be qualified.

2) A detailed process approach including descriptions of the following:

a) How the contractor will define Teardown Sections (TS) to the

Government Technical Lead (GTL) for approval as required by Contractor processes and Protocol 3 requirements.

b) How incidental damage to subject structure will be prevented/minimized during the execution of TS extraction (Protocol 3), TS disassembly (Protocol 4), and part coating removal (Protocol 5) when preparing structure for nondestructive inspection (Protocol 7).

c) How the contractor will ensure that all data are recorded as required by

Protocols 1-5, 7 and 8.

d) How the contractor will ensure the security and accurate location tracking of all teardown analysis subjects as required by Protocols 1-5, 7 and 8.

e) How the contractor will ensure the accurate tracking of protocol process status as required by Protocols 1-5, 7 and 8.

f) How the contractor will prioritize all nondestructive inspection (NDI) indications for recommendation to the GTL to select indications for root cause analysis which are of greatest interest to KC-135 fleet managers during the execution of Protocol 8.

g) What handling methods will be used by the contractor to prevent unintentional damage to parts after NDI (Protocol 7) and prior due/during execution of Protocol 8 tasks.

h) How teardown analysis subjects will be safely and securely transported, if required, between locations for the execution of various protocol tasks.

3) How the contractor facilities (or vendor/subcontractor facilities) will support the timely execution of each Protocol on a scale appropriate to the WS task.

This requirement is met when your approach is feasible and demonstrates an ability to meet the requirements of the protocols. Reiterating protocol requirements does not constitute how your processes will meet those requirements and will result in a failure.

Task order 0003: Distance Learning Curriculum Development

(f) Sub-Task 1: Survey. The proposal shows an acceptable understanding of performing the research survey and providing the recommendations required by the task.

Refer to Task Order 0003 Work Statement, Distance Learning Curriculum Development, Paragraph 2.1 Phase 1–Survey.

approach is met and when your approach is feasible, demonstrates a method that will provide a valid survey, recommendations are supported by valid research methodology, and describes in detail the following as it pertains to the research survey:

1) How the offeror will capitalize on existing survey data when developing their survey.

2) How the offeror will develop and execute a survey to relevant U.S. educational institutions.

3) Define how you will determine the relevant population to be surveyed.

4) Define the relevant factors to be used in the detailed analysis of existing courses, and why the factors are appropriate.

5) Describe the qualitative and quantitative research methods for making the report recommendations required in paragraph 2.1.2.

(g) Sub-Task 2: First Course Curriculum Design and Development. The proposal shows an acceptable understanding of educational presentation methods, course content development, outreach/communications and accreditation standards for performing the required Task. Refer to Task Order 0003 Work Statement, Distance Learning Curriculum

Development, Paragraph 2.2–First Course Curriculum Design and Development.

describes in detail the following as it pertains to course curriculum design and development for the course to be developed:

1) How the contractor will ensure the recommendations derived from the survey will be met in the developed new course.

2) How candidate presentation methods will be selected and then evaluated.

3) How course content will be developed such that course material is motivating and technically relevant.

4) The approach for developing a course description, course goal and course objectives.

5) How meeting typical public education requirements for a stand-alone course of instruction will be ensured.

6) How the contractor will determine the expected number of candidate students and their expected qualifications.

7) How the contractor will approach student outreach.

8) How the contractor will approach course outreach.

9) How the contractor will approach the issue of accreditation.

10) How the contractor will measure student success.

Task order 0004: Storage

(h) Sub-task 2: Storage. The proposal shows an acceptable understanding regarding the storage of assets. Refer to Task Order 0004 Work Statement, KC-135

Teardown Program Assets Storage, Paragraph 2.2, Sub-Task 2: Storage.

demonstrates proper understanding of the following as it pertains to the storage of teardown program assets to accomplish the objectives of this WS, including:

1) How the Teardown Data Management System (TDMS) will be used to track program assets or, in the case of residual structure, how this structure will be stored and arranged in such a way as to facilitate timely retrieval.

2) The storage facility, indicating how program assets will be stored in a clean and dry facility that protects assets from mechanical, environmental and atmospheric damage.

3) The facility security, describing how program assets will only be accessible by authorized personnel.

4) The system of cataloging and access, describing how assets are located and mapped in the storage facility such that identification and retrieval of any particular part takes no longer than four (4) hours from the time it is requested by the Government.

(iii) Subfactor 3 ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the

Technical factor.

c. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in performing research tasks, engineering tasks, teardown analysis, program management and other related tasks that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating all aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of each instance of past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing, must have been performed or completed during the five years leading up to the date of solicitation posting. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of each instance of recent past performance information obtained to determine how closely the tasks performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance

(reference M002a). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor

(however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Greater consideration will be given to work that is more closely related to that specified in the Technical subfactors. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance information will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance questionnaires 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 (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

TABLE 4. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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.

(iii) To be considered relevant for this evaluation past performance information must meet the following criteria:

(a) A single source of past performance information that is similar in scope, complexity and magnitude will be considered relevant if it involves 4 of 9 required tasks from the four likely awardable task order Work Statements. It will be considered somewhat relevant if it involves at least 1 but not more than 3 of 9 required tasks from the four likely awardable task order Work Statements. It will be considered not relevant if it involves 0 of 9 required tasks from the four likely awardable task order Work Statements.

(b) Required tasks for each likely awardable task order are specified at Attachment 6: Task

Order 0001 – T-38 ASIP Support paragraphs 2.1. – 2.4.5. includes 4 tasks, Task Order

0002 – C/KC-135 Teardown Analysis Program paragraphs 2.1. – 2.4. includes 2 tasks, Task Order 0003 Corrosion Sciences Education Distance Learning Curriculum

Development paragraphs 2.1. – 2.2.7. includes 2 tasks and Task Order 0004 Teardown

Program Assets Storage paragraphs 2.2. – 2.2.2. includes 1 task. Information provided for individual task past performance does not have to be for T-38 aircraft, C/KC-135 aircraft or for Corrosion Sciences. Tasks performed must be the same, but the subject the task was performed on can be different.

(iv) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors 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, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory/green 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing

(or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

(2) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the

Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

(i) The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence

Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc%23p5522

(ii) More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance

Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown

Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

d. Cost or Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated based on a summation of total prices proposed for the four likely awardable task orders: 0001, 0002, 0003 and 0004. The sum amount of the four likely awardable task orders will constitute the Total Evaluated Price. The

Total Evaluated Price will be evaluated against the criteria of reasonableness.

(2) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Total Evaluated Price for all four likely awardable task orders will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Price competition in response to the solicitation will establish reasonableness, but the Government may also determine reasonableness through cost and price analysis techniques, pursuant to FAR

15.404, if necessary. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(3) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze Price proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will also analyze fully burdened labor rates to determine whether they are unbalanced. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

(4) Certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.403 is not required in response to this RFP. However, the successful awardee will be required to provide certified cost or pricing data in response to future task order RFP.

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm#b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#b312013

M003 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M004 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 subfactors. 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.