FA7046-10-R-0001 Amendment 0001.doc

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

EVALUATION CRITERIA

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0

INTRODUCTION

This section defines the criteria the Government will consider in its evaluation of an Offeror’s proposal submitted for the OTES acquisition. The Government intends to award multiple award contracts from this 100% small business set-aside competitive full trade-off source selection. Attention is directed to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors -- Competitive Acquisition, which provides the Government’s intent to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value in accordance with the factors and subfactors of this solicitation. However, also note the Government reserves the right to award one (1) or not award a contract depending on the quality of proposals submitted and availability of funds. The Offeror’s proposal shall be composed of the Mission Capability, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Contract Documentation volumes. Responses to any additional information requests from the Government will also be evaluated. By submission of its proposal, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors.

M1.1

COMPLIANCE WITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

M1.2

REJECTION OF PROPOSALS

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated and determined to be unacceptable, fails to comply with the contract terms and conditions, or is excessively high or low in cost/price.

M1.3

COMPETITIVE RANGE

The competitive range, if discussions are to be conducted, will be established solely on the basis of the assessments of the initial proposals submitted. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2) the competitive range may be reduced for purposes of efficiency to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition. Offerors excluded or otherwise eliminated from the competitive range will be notified in writing and may request a debriefing (see FAR 15.505 and 15.506).

M1.4

DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions. However the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government IAW FAR 15.306(a)(3). Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision. If discussions are held Offerors within the competitive range will be issued a final proposal revision request once discussions are complete. The Offeror’s final proposal, as well as all responses to evaluation notices, will be considered in making the best value decision.

M2.0

BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will conduct an integrated evaluation of all parts of the Offeror’s proposal and utilize a full trade-off source selection process in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure 5315.3. This source selection will permit a tradeoff between mission capability, past performance and price in reaching the award decision, which 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 superior mission capability and/or past performance confidence assessment of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference of the lower rated, lower priced Offer.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

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.

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP), other than the GFP listed in the solicitation.

For a proposal to result in an awardable contract, it must meet all PWS performance requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all required certifications. This includes contractor responsibility (IAW FAR 9.1).

M3.0

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS FOR AWARD

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon the integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1 – Mission Capability

· Subfactor 1 – Task Order Solutions

· Subfactor 2 – Technical Solutions

· Subfactor 3 – Management Approach

Factor 2 – Past Performance

Factor 3 – Cost/Price

M3.1

RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Proposals will be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors and their relative importance:

M3.1.1 Factor 1, Mission Capability and Factor 2, Past Performance are of equal importance.

M3.1.2 Factor 3, Cost/Price is of less importance than Factor 1, Mission Capability and Factor 2, Past Performance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(3), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined are significantly more important than cost or price, however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

M3.1.3 Within Factor 1, Mission Capability, the subfactor of Task Order Solutions is more important than the subfactors of Technical Solutions and Management Approach. The subfactors of Technical Solutions and Management Approach are of equal importance.

M3.2

FACTOR 1 – MISSION CAPABILITY

Each Subfactor within the Mission Capability Factor will receive two distinct but related ratings: a technical rating that reflects the degree to which the Mission Capability Subfactor exceeds, meets, or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements; and a risk rating that assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the Mission Capability Subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Individual Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall technical and risk rating for the Mission Capability Factor.

M3.2.1

MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL RATINGS

The mission capability technical rating focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties in the offeror’s proposal.

TABLE 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL RATINGS

M3.2.2

MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS

The mission capability risk rating focuses on schedule, cost and performance risk associated with an offeror’s proposal.

TABLE 2 – MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS

M3.2.3

MISSION CAPABILITY SUBFACTORS

The proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s capability to fulfill the OTES technical requirements. The Mission Capability Subfactor of Task Order Solutions is more important than the subfactors of Technical Solutions and Management Approach. The subfactors of Technical Solutions and Management Approach are of equal importance. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to:

M3.2.3.1

SUBFACTOR 1 – TASK ORDER SOLUTIONS

The proposal demonstrates to the Government the Offeror’s ability to:

· Respond with technically adequate approach to satisfying task order PWS requirements

· Have sufficient currency of systems, technology, operational experience/expertise to accomplish task order PWS requirements

M3.2.3.2

SUBFACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL SOLUTIONS

The proposal demonstrates to the Government the Offeror’s ability to:

· Understand AFOTEC core processes

· Understand operational test and evaluation

· Understand who the OT&E stakeholders are

· Have sufficient breadth, depth, and currency of systems, technology, and operational experience/expertise to accomplish PWS 3.2 to 3.6 requirements for future systems, to include Cargo and Bomber aircraft, UAV, cyberspace, and munitions

· Respond to time-sensitive requirements

· Use of software/tools, to include:

· Development/use of a wide variety of analytical and modeling and simulation capabilities in support of OT&E

· Establish test capability verification, validation and accreditation processes and structures that are viable

M3.2.3.3

SUBFACTOR 3 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The proposal demonstrates to the Government the Offeror’s ability to:

· Respond with adequate approach to satisfying PWS 3.1, 4.0, 5.3, and 6.0 requirements

· Effectively process optimum team assignments, team communication, monitoring of team performance, and conflict resolution

· Provide sufficient qualified and cleared resources (personnel and facilities) to support task and/or multiple task order requirements

· Show sufficient personnel management practices (including recruiting, retention, etc.) that enhance the likelihood there will be sufficient flexibility and backup personnel

· Provide an adequate risk management program to support the contract and task orders

· Effectively and efficiently manage risk management resources and personnel

· Establish required risk management processes and structures that are viable

· Provide an adequate quality control program to support the contract and task orders

· Effectively and efficiently manage quality control resources and personnel

· Establish required quality control processes and structures that are viable

· Provide a transition planning approach that will provide a fully functional team with knowledge of the technical and programmatic tasks to support the contract and task orders, to include:

· Effectively and efficiently transition resources and personnel onto this contract

· Establish required management processes and structures that are viable

· Ensure full continuity of mission support and contract performance 49 days after contract award

· Manage a security program that adequately addresses training, facilities, communications, personnel, and the handling of classified information

· Effectively and efficiently manage security resources and personnel

· Establish required security processes and structures that are viable

M3.3

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government shall evaluate past performance through an analysis of the Offeror’s recent and relevant contract performance. A single confidence assessment of the Offeror’s past performance (which includes, if applicable, the past performance of its subcontractors/teaming partners) will be made. The single rating given for the past performance factor is the Government’s assessment of confidence, based upon the Offeror’s performance record, that the Offeror will successfully perform the requirements of this solicitation as proposed.

M3.3.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all recent and relevant performance data submitted and/or obtained. Past performance information may be obtained through any one or more of the following: 1) the Offeror’s past performance volume; 2) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies; 3) questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition; 4) the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); 5) interviews with program managers and contracting officers; and 6) other sources known to the Government (which may include commercial references). Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. The Government will evaluate each contractor’s performance on an individual basis and will assess the Offeror’s entire past performance (including subcontractors) in aggregate. This takes into consideration joint ventures or teaming arrangements in which the proposing partners participated, either with each other or with other entities, in performing work similar to that which they are proposing to perform for the current effort.

There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate the offeror’s present/past performance to determine how recent and relevant a specific effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection. The solicitation shall establish the criteria for recency and relevancy in relation to the specific requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to what aspects of an offeror’s contract history would give the most confidence that the offeror will satisfy the current procurement.

M3.3.2

RECENCY

In determining recency the Government will only consider contracts completed or ongoing within the past three (3) years from the formal release date of this RFP. Additionally the Government will not consider any contract where performance began within six (6) months prior to the release date of this RFP.

M3.3.3

RELEVANCY

M3.3.3.1 The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. For the past performance evaluation to be an effective predictor of future success, the past performance history being evaluated must be Somewhat Relevant, Relevant, or Very Relevant to the instant requirement. Relevance is defined by the degree of similarity between the Offeror’s current/past performance and the current OTES requirement. Higher relevance will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government will place more weight and consideration on more relevant past performance information and CPARS will be given greater weight over other assessments. For the purpose of this evaluation, the term “Offeror” includes the prime Offeror and/or teaming members and major subcontractors. In order to be considered Relevant the effort must have been by the same business unit that is being proposed to perform the OTES requirements. Relevance of an effort in which the Offeror participated under a joint venture or subcontracting arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the Offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the Offeror performed, this effort will not be considered relevant. Assessments of relevancy will be based on the following definitions:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

M3.3.4

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE

The result of the Government’s analysis of the Offeror’s past performance record will be an overall Performance Confidence Assessment for the Past Performance factor. The Performance Confidence Assessment ratings are defined below:

TABLE 4 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably as a result, and will receive an “unknown confidence” rating. A past performance record resulting in a Substantial or Satisfactory Confidence rating may be considered more advantageous to the Government than unknown confidence rating.

M3.3.5

ADVERSE PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

For this acquisition, adverse past performance is specifically defined as “marginal/limited” and/or “unsatisfactory/no confidence” ratings. When relevant performance records indicate adverse past performance information the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the Offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. If adverse performance information is provided to the Government, and the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment on the finding(s), the Offeror will be given the opportunity to provide clarifications concerning the adverse information.

M3.3.6

CONFIDENTIALITY OF PERFORMANCE INFORMATION

Past performance information, including CPARS, questionnaires, etc., is confidential and is not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to influence past performance ratings will be perceived negatively and could impact the overall performance confidence rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection PCO only and not to any other individual(s). Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

M3.4

FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

M3.4.1

COST/PRICE EVALUATION

The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate and clearly describe an effective and efficient cost approach for accomplishing the stated requirements. The Offeror’s Cost/Price Proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic.

The Government’s best value determination will consider the sum of the probable Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) for the Task Orders. Prime Contractors are permitted to propose whatever mix (prime vs. subcontractor) they choose on each Task Order.

M3.4.2

COST/PRICE REASONABLENESS

The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b), and as supplemented, will be the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness. The evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(c), as determined appropriate, may also be performed in further determining the reasonableness and affordability of the proposal.

M3.4.3

COST/PRICE REALISM

The Cost/price realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d) and as supplemented. A Government calculated Probable Cost (PC) analysis may be performed in the realism evaluation. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). The Cost/Price Realism Assessment (CPRA) will consider technical/management risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal and associated costs. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low and technical/management risk associated with the proposal will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the CPRA for each offeror. When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Mission Capability Risk evaluation, the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Mission Capability subfactor.

M3.4.4

BURDEN OF PROOF

The burden of proof for cost/price realism and reasonableness rests with the Offeror.

M3.4.5

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M4.0 TRADE Off Methodology In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign strength, for performance in excess of threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements. The Government may give further positive consideration for performance in excess of the objective requirements.

Once an offeror is selected for award of a task order, that offeror may be excluded for all other task order selections until all awardees have received at least one (1) task order award and met the minimum guaranteed amount specificed in FAR 52.216-19, Order Limitations. Initial task orders may be of similar size, scope, and value. No initial task orders will be sole sourced either.

The SSA will make a decision to either award without discussions, or to authorize the Government source selection team to enter into discussions with offerors determined to be in the competitive range. 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. The SSA will make an integrated assessment and best value award decision by considering all offeror’s proposals that were evaluated for technical acceptability, past performance, and cost/price after the Government completes discussions and all offerors still within the competitive range are given an opportunity to submit a FPR.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M5.0

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.

M6.0

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 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.

(End of Summary of Changes)