RFP Attachment 02 - Section M Amend 001.docx

FA7022-20-R-0003

1 April 202023 March 2020

FA7022-20-R-0003

1 April 202023 March 2020

RFP Attachment 2 - SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1.0 Source Selection

M.1.1 Basis for Contract Award – This is a competitive best value subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Risk, Past Performance, and 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 and certifications 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost 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.

M.1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to award one (1) Speed of Relevancy Technical Assistance for AFTAC Systems & Technologies (SORTA FAST) Services IDIQ contract from FA7022-20-R-0003 and two initial Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) Task Orders concurrently.

M.1.3 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).

M.1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals – The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. Those offers which fail to meet the material requirement of the RFP will be deemed unacceptable and removed from further consideration.

M.1.5 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers – The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments or contract terms and conditions, , such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.1.6 Discussion Phase

M.1.6.1 The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. This reservation includes matters of omission, errors, additional or substitute pages of the initial proposal. Once the above conditions have been satisfied, those in the consideration pool will be forwarded to the discussions phase and the determination will be made whether discussions are required. If discussions are not required, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will make a recommendation to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) based on FAR 15.101-12 Tradeoff process.

M.1.6.2 If discussions are required, a competitive range determination will be made from those within the consideration pool. If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered. The contracting officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still in the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. The contracting officer will establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions shall advise offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

M.1.6.3 Discussions will be initiated by the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) upon issuance of Evaluation Notices (EN) to the offerors within the competitive range. ENs may be orally briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

M.1.6.4 Any offeror excluded at any time during the source selection process will be afforded the opportunity to request either a pre-award or post-award debriefing.

M.2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M.2.1.1 This is a best value source selection utilizing the subjective trade-off process to determine the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements as stated in this solicitation. 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. The Government will conduct a price analysis to determine whether proposed prices are fair, reasonable and balanced. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate the SORTA FAST IDIQ:

(a) Factor 1: Technical Capability & Technical Risk – Volume II

Subfactor 1: Security & Transition Approach Subfactor 2: Technical Approach/Staffing Subfactor 3: Program Management Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Subfactor 5: Proposed Technical Approach for Task Order 01 – Volume V Subfactor 6: Proposed Technical Approach for Task Order 02 – Volume VI

(b) Factor 2: Past Performance – Volume III

(c) Factor 3: Price – Volume IV

M.2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors – Technical is equal to Past Performance in importance. Within Factor 1, Technical Capability & Technical Risk, all subfactors of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

M.2.2 Factor 1: Technical Capability & Technical Risk – Volume II

M.2.2.1 Elements – The Technical evaluation combines the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating into a single rating as found in Table 1. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical Subfactor.

M.2.2.2 Technical Rating – An adjectival rating will be assigned to each Subfactor (subfactor 4 excluded) in accordance with (IAW) DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.2, and Table 1 (shown below) to reflect the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Subfactor requirements of paragraphs M.2.2.4 – M.2.2.9. The Technical Evaluation Board will determine an adjectival rating IAW Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method for each subfactor. In order to be considered for award, the rating for all technical subfactors must be “Acceptable”, “Good”, or “Outstanding”. Should any of the subfactors have a rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” as described in the description section of Table 1, the offer will be removed from further consideration and will not receive award.

Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

M.2.2.3 Risk of Unsuccessful Performance. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Descriptors as found in Table 2 will be utilized to assess the combined Technical Rating within Table 1.

Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating Method

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost 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, increased cost or degradation of performance. It is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M.2.2.4 Subfactor 1 – Security & Transition Approach M.2.2.4.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to the extent that the offeror clearly demonstrates the ability to meet or exceed the Personnel Security requirements. The Government will evaluate and consider as strengths the offeror’s ability to meet or exceed requirements of providing qualified personnel with security clearances as follows:

(a) All Key Personal shall possess a Top Secret clearance with valid DCID 6/4 date for SCI access, no later than contract performance start date.

(b) A minimum of 80% of all personnel shall possess a Top Secret clearance with valid DCID 6/4 date for SCI access, no later than contract performance start date.

(c) 100% of all personnel shall possess a Top Secret clearance with valid DCID 6/4 date for SCI access, no later than one (1) year after contract performance start date.

M.2.2.4.2 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s transition plan to the extent that the offeror clearly demonstrates the ability to meet or exceed all transition needs of SORTA FAST. The Government will evaluate and consider as strengths the offeror’s ability to meet or exceed the requirements of a 60-day Phase-in and 60-day Phase-out periods on the following:

(a) Transitioning records management responsibilities.

(b) Transition accountability of Government assets, i.e. computers, software, access codes/passwords, and deliverables.

(c) Establishment of a continuity approach for Task Order level programs

M.2.2.5 Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach and Staffing M.2.2.5.1 The government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Staffing and Skillset Management Plan (SSMP). Offerors are encouraged to utilize the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as a point of reference for delivery of services and personnel required. The offeror’s plan will be evaluated on:

M.2.2.5.2 Ability to attract and retain high quality staff. The offeror shall describe the mechanisms and incentives applied to attract and retain the specialized and technically complex skillsets required to fulfill the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Provide a detailed methodology of how a fully qualified and fully staffed workforce will be in place at the start of each task order (TO). Details regarding incentives used to hire, retain, maintain, and develop Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) cleared personnel shall also be provided. The offeror shall also define and map each labor category to the skillset, experience, and certifications needed to fulfill the PWS. Provide a description of how the Staffing and Skillset Management Plan was developed. Offeror’s proposed hiring and retention strategies will be evaluated to determine the if the proposed approach will sufficiently meet staffing requirements.

M.2.2.5.3 Vacancy fill strategy. The offeror shall describe the mechanisms applied to fill vacancies in a timely manner with zero/minimum mission impact. Provide an estimated average time to fill a vacant position. Proposals will be evaluated to determine if vacancy fill strategy considers local area competition for skilled employees. Proposals will also be evaluated to determine if vacancy fill strategy is realistic considering local competition and personnel security clearance requirements.

M.2.2.5.4 Adapting to Changing Mission. Proposals will be evaluated to determine if offeror has adequately demonstrated an ability to prioritize resources and workload in an environment that changes as national priorities change.

M.2.2.5.5 Ensuring high quality work performance. Describe approach to ensuring effective and high quality performance from your personnel. The offeror shall describe how appropriated metrics will be utilized to measure and track performance and workload. Proposals will be evauated to rate offeror’s ability to inspire a high level of performance from personnel who may or may not be located in close proximity to contractor program management personnel.

M.2.2.6 Subfactor 3 – Program Management M.2.2.6.1 The government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to program management applicable to RFP Attachment 7 – PWS IDIQ.

M.2.2.6.2 The government will assess prior experience with similar contracts that covered multiple, but complementary, work functions, as well as how you indicate your program/project management skills in the following areas:

(a) What is your company’s methodology for fostering cross talk between the various lines of efforts across the contract?

(b) What program management approach will you use to effectively meet the contract objectives?

(c) What approach do you use for Continuous Project Improvement?

M.2.2.6.3 The government will evaluate your mythology and strategy to quickly adapt to changing mission requirements, priorities, and workloads (w/out affecting ongoing work) in the following areas:.

(a) The described mechanisms applied to proactively maintain mission situational awareness and adapt accordingly.

(b) The described customer service strategy: listening to customers, understanding customer requirements, and fostering a cohesive and productive team atmosphere.

M.2.2.6.4 The government will evaluate the described process to ensure effective and high quality performance from personnel by evaluating the the offeror’s proposed approach for performance quality management.

M.2.2.7 Subfactor 4 – Small Business Participation – An adjectival rating will be assigned to Subfactor 4 in accordance with (IAW) DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 2.3.4.2.3, to reflect the quality of the offeror’s proposal. Small business participation shall be evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined in Table 3 (shown below).

Table 3 – Small Business Rating Method

Description

Blue

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green

Acceptable Proposal indicates and adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated and adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M.2.2.7.1 All offerors (both other than small businesses and small businesses) 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. The Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror met or exceeded the requirements:

(a) The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

(b) The extent to which offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

(c) Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

(d) The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

(e) The extent to which the offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the 15% proposed quantitative participation.

(f) Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements).

(g) Extent to which the offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 (DEVIATION 2016- O0009) Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

(h) The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine which offeror proposes the best value in terms of Small Business Participation. The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror will also be evaluated as Small Business Participation. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will become part of the resultant contract.

M.2.2.8 Subfactor 5 - Proposed Technical Approach for Task Order 01-Volume V

M.2.2.8.1 Using RFP Attachment 8 – PWS for Task Order 01, the Government will evaluate the approach of how your firm addresses at a minimum the following items:

(a) How your firm describes the approach to meeting the requirement.

(b) Your proposed staffing plan, including the number and labor categories of those to be hired (do not include pricing)

(c) Any assumptions made when creating your approach.

M.2.2.9 Subfactor 6: Proposed Technical Approach for Task Order 02- Volume VI

M.2.2.9.1 Using RFP Attachment 9 – PWS for Task Order 02, the Government will evaluate the approach of how your firm addresses at a minimum the following items:

(a) How your firm describes the approach to meeting the requirement.

(b) Your proposed staffing plan, including the number and labor categories of those to be hired (do not include pricing)

(c) Any assumptions made when creating your approach.

M.2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance – Volume III

M.2.3.1 Past Performance Factor – The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. 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. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in offeror’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

M.2.3.2 Ratings – The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures and Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below. In order to be considered for award, the rating for all past performance subfactors must be “Neutral Confidence”, “Satisfactory Confidence”, or “Substantial Confidence”. Should any of the subfactors have a rating of “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” as described in the description section of Table 4 below, the offer will be removed from further consideration and will not receive award.

Table 4- Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

M.2.3.3 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance, in supplying 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 subfactors and Price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered) taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Addendum to FAR.

M.2.3.4 Source of Information. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to 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; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and commercial sources. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

M.2.3.5 Recency: An evaluation 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 (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Submit no more than three (3) contracts for prime contractor or significant subcontractor or partner. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

M.2.3.6 Relevancy: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance. For each recent past performance contract reviewed, the relevancy of the work performed, to include scope and magnitude, will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Each proposal’s relevancy rating will be based on the offeror’s past performance as well as any teaming partner, or subcontractor’s past performance whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information sheets (PPIS) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, and Table 5 below):

Table 5. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

M.2.3.7 Impact. More recent or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral 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.

M.2.3.8 Quality of Services. The Government will review all past performance information collected, determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information, and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned; rather, the past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

M.2.3.9 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance and quality services assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 4 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror’s 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 a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

M.2.4 Factor 3: Price – Volume IV

M.2.4.1 Price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and an understanding of the requirement (completeness). Inconsistencies between the proposed Price Volume and Technical Volume, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical Factor.

M.2.4.2 Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M.2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

M.2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price: The government will determine a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for Factor 3. The TEP will not receive a color rating or a score. To arrive at this figure, the fully burdened fixed hourly rates provided, by year, for the labor categories specified in Attachment 11, “Total Evaluated Price Worksheet”, of the RFP will be multiplied by the annual estimated workload for each year to arrive at a total estimated price for that year. The years will be summed to arrive at a total estimated labor price for the ordering period of the contract.

M.2.4.5 Estimated travel will be provided by the government at the same amount for all offerors, and this value will be included as part of the TEP. Government plug numbers for travel will be provided in the resulting contract document. Finally, offerors will provide a separate price proposal for Task Order 01 and Task Order 02. The offeror will provide a summary of total labor price, and total proposal price, with all dollar amounts rounded to the nearest whole dollar. The rates provided in Attachment 110 will be used to price the task orders.

M.3.0 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 and 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.