Revised_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. General Information

1.1 Basis for Contract Award. This acquisition will use Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding minimum acceptability. The Government intends to award up to six (6) contract(s) for the Air Force Contract Augmentation Program IV (AFCAP IV). The Government reserves the right to make more or fewer awards or none based on the quality and quantity of proposals received. All proposals that are initially determined to not comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation or that are initially rated “unacceptable” on any technical Sub-factor or that contain “incomplete” or “unreasonable” pricing may be deemed un-awardable if the award is made without discussions.

Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. IDIQ awardees will compete for task orders as they are solicited during the period of performance of the IDIQ contract unless competition requirements are exempted. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in its best interest. If it is determined to be in the Government’s best interest to establish a competitive range, the Government further reserves the right to limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency IAW FAR 15.306.

1.2 Terms and Conditions: The proposal must meet all requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations, certifications and must comply with formatting specified in Section L. 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 exception as unacceptable, making the proposal ineligible for award. In addition, inadequate, incomplete or disorganized proposals may be found to be technically unacceptable in the event the evaluators could not reasonably ascertain whether the proposal meets the technical evaluation factors of this solicitation.

1.3 Evaluation Methodology: Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability and pricing will be evaluated for completeness and reasonableness.

1.4 All Factors and Sub-factors except the Price Factors will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. If any Factor or Sub-factor is Unacceptable, the entire proposal will be deemed un-awardable. Acceptable and Unacceptable ratings are defined as follows:

Acceptable: Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

In order to be considered for an award, an Offeror’s overall technical proposal must be rated “Acceptable.” To be rated “Acceptable” in a Sub-factor, all aspects of the Sub-factor must be fully substantiated to the satisfaction of the Government as described in this solicitation. Any Sub-factor that is rated “Unacceptable” will result in the overall Technical Factor being determined “Unacceptable” rendering the Offeror’s proposal un-awardable. Offeror’s failing to submit the required documentation in a Sub-factor, will be rated “Unacceptable” for that Sub-factor.

2. Evaluation Factor 1 –Technical Proposal

2.1 The technical proposal is comprised of four Sub-factors: Technical Approach, Management Approach, Key Personnel, and Small Business Participation. Offerors are responsible for submitting a proposal which is coherent, understandable, easy to reference, complete and meets all submission requirements.

The Government will not make other than reasonable efforts to ascertain the meaning of a proposal submission, given that Offerors must follow these instructions for how to arrange and submit a proposal.

2.2 Sub-factor 1.1 - Technical Approach. This Sub-factor will be determined Acceptable when the Offeror presents a Technical Approach that meets all of the requirements of the three sample task order requirements. The Offeror’s Site Specific Management Plans (SSMP) in response to the sample task scenarios must adequately describe the Offeror’s approach to meeting the task requirements. The Offeror’s approach must adequately describe all procedures, plans and assumptions as well as a reasonable and sound methodology to quickly respond and execute the requirements. The SSMP must also provide a reasonable and effective solution to the scenarios with regard to staffing and mobilization, subcontractor lists, on-site management, personnel readiness, contractor security, personnel safety, logistics, sources and origins of materials (including supplier name and contact data), equipment, supplies, transportation delivery routes, fuel sources, consumables, storage sites, materials handling, air and sea ports, staging locations. The SSMP must also demonstrate an understanding of the requirement by providing a reasonable and effective command and control, communications, deployment site control processes and quality control plan, facilities layouts, property/equipment control plan. The Offeror’s schedule will be determined Acceptable by demonstrating realistic critical path milestones to meet the scenario performance requirement dates.

2.3 Sub-factor 1.2 – Management Approach. This Sub-factor will be determined Acceptable when the

Offeror’s Management Approach includes a management plan that is sound and realistic, incorporates all required plans as identified below, is effective in maintaining support in contingency environments, is effective in identifying and resolving problems, provides sufficient oversight to effectively manage and integrate subcontractors, and integrates applicable federal regulations and best business practices at the task order level.

2.3.1 Staffing Plan. Staffing Plan must adequately address the general recruiting and training strategy, standard operating procedures, capacity, and past recruiting efforts that are required to respond to contingencies worldwide. In addition, the Staffing Plan must adequately address the following:

(1) Ability to provide worldwide on-site expertise within the time frames required by the individual task order; (2) Describe how Offeror intends to ensure personnel have required shots, visas, and other documentation to meet required time frames; (3) Process for ensuring Prime and any subcontractors and/or teaming partners take affirmative measures to prevent human trafficking of persons and/or forced labor; (4) Process for staffing Host Country and/or Other Country Nationals (HCN and OCN, respectively); (5) Process for networking or obtaining outside resources to augment the pool of qualified personnel; (6) Reach-back capability and flexibility of relocating in-country personnel to other job sites; and (7) Process for maintaining adequate workforce and quickly filling unexpected vacancies in high-stress environments, i.e., retention incentives, recruitment bonuses, etc.

2.3.2 Quick Response Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Quick Response Plan. This Quick Response Plan provides the Government with assurances the Offeror could support urgent or classified requirements at any time during the life of the contract. The Offeror’s Quick Response Plan will be determined Acceptable when the Offeror presents a plan that realistically provides for the ability to work urgent or classified requirements within 24 hours on-site for CONUS and within 48 hours on-site for OCONUS (to include time required for receipt of classified information at the AFCEC Tyndall AFB vault). In addition, Offerors shall adequately address how to support classified real-time planning and/or communications with the Government for time-critical taskings on a 24-7 basis in the event an urgent or routine task was classified.

2.3.3 Procurement Plan. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s methodology for obtaining needed supplies and services at fair and reasonable market prices. Additionally, the Government will evaluate whether or not the plan includes a DCAA approved purchasing systems for the prime contractor and all identified teaming partners in accordance with FAR Part 44.3.

2.3.4 Quality Control (QC) Plan. The QC Plan must adequately address how it will ensure quality, schedule, cost, and performance for both cost reimbursable and Firm Fixed Price task orders. The Offeror must adequately address how it will provide sufficient oversight to effectively manage and integrate team partners, and the flow-down process of its QC plan to ensure consistency among the team. The Offeror must adequately address its process for effectively identifying and resolving problems arising between team partners. In addition, the Offeror shall adequately address how the Government will be notified of issues affecting contract performance, contract impact, proposed mitigation, and provide for contractor self-oversight. The QC Plan must adequately address the following functional areas: Contractor Program Management, Food Services, Lodging Services, Morale, Welfare, and Recreation Services, Engineering Services;

Buildings and Structures, Grounds and Roads, Electrical Services, Water Services, Wastewater Services, Fuel Services, Waste Management Services, Materiel Support, Equipment Maintenance and Reconstitution, Environmental and Medical Services, Airfield and Air Terminal Services, Fire and Emergency Services, Contingency and Disaster Relief Services, Transportation Services, and Communications Services.

2.3.5 Subcontract Management Plan. The Subcontract Management Plan must adequately address how it will provide sufficient oversight placing the full burden of oversight and correction with the contractor to effectively manage sub-contractors, ensure the correct sub-contractor mix, develop processes for assigning sub-contractors work, and integrate sub-contractors. The plan must adequately address a system for accounting and reporting any first tier subcontractor, sub-contract dollars expended and to provide for on-site task leaders to coordinate sub-contractor efforts on task orders.

2.3.6 Safety Plan. The Safety Plan must adequately demonstrate processes and procedures to protect employees and property from work-related mishaps, complying with all OSHA and all host nations’ requirements, as applicable.

2.3.7 Security Plan. The Security Plan shall adequately develop and implement

OPSEC/COMSEC/TEMPEST procedures and internal contractor controls to provide physical security protection. The Security Plan shall protect employees, information (including classified) and property and provide for increased security in hostile environments.

2.3.8 Property Control Plan. The Property Control Plan must adequately detail how the Offeror will executeassumption and disposition inventories as well as property control throughout the life of a task order.

2.3.9 Contingency Plan for Essential Contract Services. The Contingency Plan for Essential Contract

Services must comply with DoDI 1100.22, Policy and Procedures for Determining Workforce Mix. Acceptability will be based on the Offeror's demonstrated ability and planned strategy to continue contractor services during a crisis situation.

2.4 Sub-factor 1.3 – Key Personnel. This Sub-factor will be determined Acceptable when the Offeror’s

Key Personnel Experience includes the following: (a) A signed letter of intent between the Offeror's proposed program manager and the Offeror; (The on-site task order manager may be evaluated at task order awards.); (b) Evidence of a current SECRET security clearance for the proposed program manager; (c) A resume and a narrative summary of efforts that the key personnel was responsible for (that includes scopes/types of work, dollar value, and numbers of efforts where performance was completed no more than 5 years prior to the due date of the solicitation), demonstrating that the proposed program manager meets the following requirements: (1) The Program Manager shall have five years, within the last seven years, of program management experience which required knowledge in the following areas: (a) Government appropriations; (b) Air Force Engineering; (c) Construction, Services, Commodities; (d) Government acquisitions; and (e) Management of multiple task orders of a magnitude greater than $1M each in geographically dispersed locations simultaneously.

2.5 Sub-factor 1.4 – Small Business Participation. The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be determined Acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates it understands the Government requirement for subcontracting CONUS work and understands how to subcontract and manage subcontractor performance for CONUS requirements. In addition, the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan must, at a minimum, meet the goals below in Table 2.1. If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, the requirement for small business participation is met when the subcontracting plan and proposal demonstrate the following: (1) The Prime demonstrates a corporate commitment between all parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), HUBZone small business, women-owned small business, veteran-owned small business, and service disabled veteran-owned small business concerns; (2) The Prime demonstrates compliance with AFCAP IV Goals. The Prime demonstrates realistic (achievable) annual targets expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total proposed obligations for each category above. (3)Past performance of Prime in complying with requirements of FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9. (4)If a subcontracting plan is NOT required by FAR 19.7, the requirement for this Sub-factor is met.

TABLE 2.1. AFCAP IV SMALL BUSINESS GOALS

SMALL BUSINESS 36.7%

SMALL DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS 5%

WOMAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS 5%

HUBZone SMALL BUSINESS 3%

VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS 3%

SERVICE DISABLED VETERAN OWNED SMALL BUSINESS 3%

3. Evaluation Factor 2 - Past Performance. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s (and teaming partners) demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. 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 such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), other databases, and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.1 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 five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the AFCAP requirements. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based on the below definitions, 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 questionnaires submitted by each Offeror and information obtained by the Government from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

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

Not Relevant-Present/past performance efforts involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3.3 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, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. An Offeror’s quality assessment rating may be unacceptable in the event adverse findings are discovered. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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:

Satisfactory: During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory: 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.

Not Available: Quality and/or performance information is not available.

3.4 Assignment of Overall Rating. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating. The Past Performance factor will receive one overall rating as described below:

Acceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

Unacceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. Price. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) and PMO rates for completeness and reasonableness. The TEP is the sum of all three sample task order scenario prices (submitted in accordance with Attachment L-5). The Attachment L-6 rates are PMO rates to be incorporated into a resulting contract. The Government will substantiate these PMO rates as they are included as part of the Offeror’s pricing detail to the sample tasks. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been submitted in the proper format (provided). Price analysis will be utilized to evaluate the price reasonableness of offered total prices. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4.1 The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the price analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)).

(b) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

(i) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

(ii) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

(iii) Expert technical advice will be obtained to analyze the magnitude of changes between the technical approach, terms and conditions, quantities, and market and economic factors for the Offeror’s proposal, and those that provided the basis for the historical prices. Expert technical advice will also be used to assist in pricing the changes.

(c) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(d) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(e) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(f) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror.

4.2 Each Offeror’s price proposal shall be evaluated using one or more of the price analysis techniques listed above. Each technique, if utilized, shall be applied to all Offeror proposals.

4.2.1 Completeness: The Government will review the Offeror’s Price Model (Attachment L-5) and Attachment L-6 for completeness. For pricing to be considered complete, the Offeror must have submitted a price for all three sample tasks as well as provide PMO labor rates. Failure to provide complete pricing may result in a proposal being determined un-awardable.

4.2.2 Reasonableness: The Government will review the prices submitted in the Price Model and the resultant TEP and Attachment L-6 for Price Reasonableness. Pricing may be considered “unreasonable” if a sample task order price or TEP is significantly above the Government estimate or the average price of all Offerors for that specific element or Attachment L-6. Failure to provide reasonable prices may result in a proposal being rated un-awardable. The rates provided as part of Attachment L-6 will be validated as part of the submitted rates included in the Price Model for each sample task.