Attachment_08_TAASC_II_Section_M_Final.pdf

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

RFP: FA8100-12-R-0003, ATTACHMENT 08

FA8100-12-R-0003: RFP ATTACHMENT 08

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Contract award will be made to up to four (4) Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award up to four (4) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts to Offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet 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 technically acceptable, superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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 reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to be necessary.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to award up to four (4) contracts for this acquisition. However, the

Government reserves the right not to award any contracts at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the ―correction potential‖ of any proposal aspect evaluated as ―unacceptable.‖ 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 or if the amount of corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

1.4 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, to include failure to adequately address a significant portion of the requirements, contract terms and conditions, or unreasonable pricing when compared to

Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination can be based on

Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Cost/Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final

Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

2. Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1 Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the

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

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Resource Management

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between cost/price and past performance. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Cost/Price). Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the award decision.

2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology:

a. Initially, offers will be ranked according to total calculated price. An offeror’s total calculated price will be determined by multiplying the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) hours designated for each Labor Rate Period identified in RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate Matrix by the labor rate proposed for each labor category, geographical location, and site designation as set forth in the same RFP/Contract Attachment.

b. Next, in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), for purposes of efficiency, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range composed of a minimum of seven (7) lowest priced offers up to a number of offers determined to be sufficient for efficient evaluation and contract award. If less than seven (7) proposals are received, this competitive range determination for efficiency will not be conducted. Note that the competitive range or ―group of lowest priced offers,‖ will be comprised of only those offerors whose offers are complete (for instance, all labor rates requested have been provided, all documentation requested in the RFP has been submitted with the offeror’s proposal). The Government may exclude from the competitive range any offer that initially appears to fit into the ―minimum of seven (7) lowest priced offers up to a number of offers determined to be sufficient for efficient evaluation‖ range but is found to contain errors such as, but not limited to, an incomplete Labor Category Rate

Matrix, other significant pricing errors, or missing proposal volumes. The Government may determine not to establish a competitive range based on pricing for purposes of efficiency at this point, even if more than seven (7) offers are received.

c. After the initial ranking by price and following the potential competitive range determination described in paragraph (b) above, the Government will evaluate technical, past performance, and

Cost/Price concurrently as follows: 1) the technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the offerors remaining in the competitive range. The technical proposals will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis with the technical evaluation team assigning a rating of

Acceptable or Unacceptable to each technical proposal. The proposals will be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below; 2) Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below; and 3) Cost/Price (cost/price proposal will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and balance) will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below for all proposals within the competitive range. Note that offerors remaining in the competitive range and entering the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) phase of proposal evaluation may still be determined unawardable should their FPR be determined unacceptable in terms of the Technical or Cost/Price factors or are otherwise not in accordance with the solicitation requirements.

d. The SSA will then assess the final TEP and past performance ratings for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

e. Finally, the Government will award (up to four (4) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) contracts) to the offerors whose offers represent the best value to the Government.

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each proposal. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Resource Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed resource management approach and proposed workload distribution matrix (ITO Attachment B-2). Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An acceptable approach must demonstrate a sound organizational approach that enables effective coordination of activities among subcontractors, core team members, and, if applicable, mentor/protégé, and joint venture partners. The approach must also demonstrate effective processes for internal team communication, monitoring team performance. The approach must include a process for facilitation of prompt resolution of task order issues and discrepancies. The approach must identify lines of communication and delegated authority. (PWS Sections 1.2, 1.4)

b. An acceptable approach must demonstrate an effective and efficient process for maintaining a highly qualified workforce across all 14 functional categories of A&AS support areas IAW the PWS. The approach must demonstrate the ability to provide a trained and capable workforce. The approach must also demonstrate an effective recruiting plan and process to replace employees to include notifying the Government.

The approach must include the hiring process for new and replacement employees. The approach must also define the offeror’s method of to ensuring timely availability of appropriate personnel to meet accelerated delivery schedules or surge requirements.

(PWS Sections 1.2, 1.4, 1.8)

c. An acceptable approach must demonstrate a working knowledge of the Government security clearance process and provide an efficient and effective method for ensuring properly cleared personnel are available promptly with emphasis on obtaining properly cleared personnel on short notice. (PWS Sections 1.2, 1.8)

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed program management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section

L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An acceptable approach must identify and demonstrate an effective and efficient process for managing business operations to support TAASC efforts to include safety, security, and quality management. An acceptable approach will demonstrate the process for informing and updating the Government in terms of any changes. The approach must also include the process for timely accomplishment of task order tasks and submission of reports. (PWS Sections 1.2, 4.1, 5)

b. An acceptable approach must demonstrate an effective and efficient TAASC oversight plan and associated processes and/or automated data systems/software used for performance, schedule, and cost management. (PWS Section 1.2)

c. An acceptable response must identify and describe all risks associated with the transition of existing TAASC A&AS support requirements to TAASC II and provide acceptable risk mitigation processes that will minimize cost and schedule impacts. An acceptable approach will successfully explain offeror’s plan to minimize disruption during the transition period while maintaining schedule and cost. (PWS Section 1.2)

2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.3.1 Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 6- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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

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.

Note: All offerors rated as Satisfactory Confidence will be considered equal for Factor 2

Past Performance.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. 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 Cost/Price assessment. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance

Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. 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, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval

System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price assessment. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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 Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment A.1 of Section L, Instructions to Offerors and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT

(VR)

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

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

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

Consideration may be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule.

The Government will use the following categories based on the prime’s or team member’s proposed role or effort as it relates to their past performance:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on the similarities between a given

Past Performance effort and the TAASC requirement. The TAASC program includes, but is not limited to, recruitment, employment, training, guidance, and supervision of qualified personnel to accomplish a given A&AS task. TAASC requires contractors to accomplish tasks by employing and utilizing qualified personnel with various combinations of education, training, and experience while matching personnel skills to the work and tasks outlined in the task order

PWS and ensuring personnel are actively engaged to the fullest extent possible. TAASC also includes possible security requirements, maintaining business relations for subcontracted work, timely schedule management, cost controls, and reports.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the TAASC requirement in terms of number of personnel managed, number of task orders or contracts, number of personnel skill type/level, number of locations/areas supported, and contract value. Generally efforts of less than $150,000 (total dollar value) will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example: multiple task orders under

$150,000 (total dollar value) on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract.)

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the TAASC requirement in terms of types/number of functional categories, labor categories, length of work, travel requirements, on/off site work, and multiple task orders occurring simultaneously.

Note: Scope, Magnitude and Complexity will be assessed based on the prime or team member’s proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort.

Cost/Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the TAASC II requirement.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) information, Contractor Performance

Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with the DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear, or were, satisfactory.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractors proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear, or were, ineffective.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.3.3 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 assessment, 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 relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available 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. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less 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.

2.4 Factor 3 – Cost or Price

This is not a commercial effort; FAR Part 15 applies. However, cost breakdowns are neither required nor desired. Offerors may provide any supporting pricing documentation that supports fair and reasonable, balanced pricing to assist the Government in evaluation of pricing proposals.

The Government will evaluate the TEP of all offerors. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.6 below.

2.4.1 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (b) in order to determine price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3 allows the Contracting Officer to require data other than cost or pricing data if adequate information from sources other than the offeror cannot be obtained that is adequate to determine a fair and reasonable price.

Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in

FAR 15.404-1 (b). Historical actual fully burdened labor rates for the various job categories/skill levels, as well as the Independent Government Estimates based on recently awarded A&AS task orders will be the basis of labor rate comparison for price evaluation purposes and the determination of fair and reasonable pricing.

Offerors are cautioned that unreasonable prices or estimates on which proposed loaded labor rates are based may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.4.2 Complete Pricing

Offerors are cautioned to propose fully burdened (loaded) labor rates for all job categories/skill levels as omission of any required rates required for evaluated pricing constitutes incomplete pricing and therefore, unreasonable pricing. All spreadsheet cells requiring proposed rates shall be completed by all Offerors. The Labor Category Rate Matrix will be reviewed for completeness in order to ensure that all required rate information is provided.

2.4.3 Balanced Pricing:

Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. Rates will be reviewed to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to comparison with similar rates based on historical actuals, as well as other sources such as DCAA or Department of Labor. Additionally, proposed rates will be evaluated by comparison of individual loaded (fully burdened) labor rates with Government estimates of labor rates for each job category/skill level. The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed evaluated prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite acceptable TEPs, the price of one or more individual, fully burdened composite labor rates or evaluated total pricing per performance period is significantly over or under stated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques contained within FAR 15.404-1(b), such that:

a. There is reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the

Government, even though it represents the lowest TEP.

b. The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk to the Government.

The offeror may be rejected by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

2.4.4 Estimating Methodology

The offeror’s estimating methodology, including estimating, accounting and purchasing systems as applicable will be considered to ensure these systems can produce reliable, valid estimates in response to TAASC requirements (i.e., future task orders). This is particularly relevant pertaining to T&M task orders (cost reimbursable) which are subject to audit by DCAA.

2.4.5 Data Other than Cost or Pricing Data:

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining data other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining data other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain such data as appropriate. Should the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via data other than cost or pricing data. Should this occur, this opportunity will be provided via an Evaluation Notice (EN) during discussions.

2.4.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the six Labor Rate

Periods reflected on RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate Matrix. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Supplies or Services, Prices/Costs (Section B) of the model contract as well as the Cost/Price

Volume IV shall be consistent with proposed prices in the pricing matrix of the RFP used to develop the TEP. Should discrepancies exist in proposed prices between the hard copy and electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

For purposes of TEP calculation, the ―Instructions‖ tab in RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor

Category Rate Matrix, provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices.

Extended pricing per Labor Rate Period will be based on labor category rates multiplied by the

Government provided best estimated number of hours for each labor category/skill level.

Information provided below details the pricing methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing and development/calculation of the TEP.

2.4.6.1 On-Site and Off-Site Labor Rates for OC-ALC, OO-ALC, and WR-ALC (FFP):

The ceiling FFP rates proposed for each of the site designations (on-site and off-site) for each of the contract locations (OC-ALC, OO-ALC, and WR-ALC) as reflected in the RFP/Contract

Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate Matrix for Labor Rate Periods One (I) through six (VI) will be multiplied by the Government-provided estimated number of hours for each of the Labor Rate

Periods and then summed to provide the Total Evaluated Price. It should be noted that although the ordering period extends from Labor Rate Period I through V, Labor Rate Period VI shall also be priced. Labor Rate Period VI represents fully burdened labor rates to be utilized on task orders issued in Labor Rate Period V that extend beyond that period, going into Labor Rate

Period VI. For example, a task order could be issued during previous Labor Rate Periods

(starting in Labor Rate Period IV), but updated rates would be available for performance that extends into Labor Rate Period VI. Such a task order would utilize rates established as part of

Labor Rate Period VI for at least some of the period of performance.

Proposed rates shall be provided for each and every labor category/skill level for Labor Rate

Periods I through VI that appear in the Labor Category Rate Matrix, for the following geographical locations and site designations:

Air Logistics Centers

(ALCs)

On/Off Site for each ALC center

OC-ALC Tinker AFB On-Site

OC-ALC Tinker AFB Off-Site

OO-ALC Hill AFB On-Site

OO-ALC Hill AFB Off-Site

WR-ALC Robins AFB On-Site

WR-ALC Robins AFB Off-Site

The Labor Category Rate Matrix includes Labor Rate Periods I through VI. All job (labor) categories/skill levels shall be individually priced per period for every rate requiring proposed prices—all rates, including G&A rates and profit shall be proposed by the offeror. The sum of the six periods will equal the TEP. The pricing matrix includes spreadsheets for each of the six periods and will automatically calculate extended prices based on fully burdened rates per job category/skill level multiplied by the associated estimated hours. These extended prices will be added together and will result in the total evaluated price per Labor Rate Period. Each of the six periods will be added together and the sum will result in the TEP. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only and does not represent or guarantee comparable level of effort per period. The TEP is calculated as follows:

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) = Sum of Total Evaluated Price for each Period: Labor Rate

Period I + Labor Rate Period II + Labor Rate Period III + Labor Rate Period IV + Labor

Rate Period V + Labor Rate Period VI

Total Evaluated Labor Rate Period Prices (Labor Rate Periods I through VI) will be calculated based on proposed job category/skill level rates per period multiplied by the associated estimated labor hours, as provided in the pricing matrix.

The Labor Category Rate Matrix is to be completed by Offerors - these calculations will be performed automatically and will result in the overall TEP.

2.4.6.2 Task Order CLIN Structure:

It should be noted that the evaluated TEP is based on the six categories in the table above - three

ALCs with including on-site and off-site labor effort for each ALC. Although the TEP will be considered as FFP proposed labor rates per labor category per Labor Rate Period as calculated in

RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate Matrix, these TEPs are not associated with

CLINs and are used for evaluation purposes only.

The following table provides the CLIN structure to be available for all future task orders based on this overall IDIQ basic contract:

CLIN Contract Type

Item Description/

Air Logistics Center

(ALC)

On/Off Site

0001 FFP—labor OC-ALC Tinker AFB On-Site

0002 FFP—labor OC-ALC Tinker AFB Off-Site

0003 FFP—labor OO-ALC Hill AFB On-Site

0004 FFP—labor OO-ALC Hill AFB Off-Site

0005 FFP—labor WR-ALC Robins AFB On-Site

0006 FFP—labor WR-ALC Robins AFB Off-Site

0007 T&M—labor OC-ALC Tinker AFB On-Site

0008 T&M—labor OC-ALC Tinker AFB Off-Site

0009 T&M—labor OO-ALC Hill AFB On-Site

0010 T&M—labor OO-ALC Hill AFB Off-Site

0011 T&M—labor WR-ALC Robins AFB On-Site

0012 T&M—labor WR-ALC Robins AFB Off-Site

0013 Data—NSP All N/A

0014 Travel G&A; Cost No Fee All N/A

0015 Post-Award Conference &

Phase-In--FFP

To be conducted at OC-

ALC

N/A

2.4.6.3. Firm, Fixed Priced (FFP): CLINs 0001 through 0006

CLINs 0001 through 0006 will be utilized as FFP labor CLINs for purposes of Task Order Fair

Opportunity Competitions. The RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate Matrix indicates which rates in the matrix are to be utilized for ceiling FFP rates as broken out by site designation, geographical location, and Labor Rate Period (I through VI). During Task Order

Fair Opportunity Competition, all FFP labor rates proposed must be at or below rates proposed on Labor Category Rate Matrix for corresponding Labor Rate Period rates (i.e. according to geographical location and work site). CLINs will not be associated with the TEP for purposes of the basic contract competition.

2.4.6.4 Time and Material (T&M): CLINs 0007 through 0012

CLINs 0007 through 0012 will be utilized as T&M labor CLINs for purposes of Task Order Fair

Opportunity Competitions. The RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate Matrix indicates which rates in the matrix are to be utilized for ceiling T&M rates as broken out by site designation, geographical location, and Labor Rate Period (I through VI).During Task Order Fair

Opportunity Competition, all Time & Material rates proposed must be at or below rates proposed on Labor Category Rate Matrix for corresponding Labor Rate Period rates (i.e. according to geographical location and work site). All T&M rates proposed on the Task Order level shall be in accordance with DFARS 252.216-7002 Alternate A, Time-and-Materials/Labor-Hour

Proposal Requirements – Non-Commercial Item Acquisition with Adequate Price Competition.

CLINs will not be associated with the TEP for purposes of the basic contract competition.

2.4.6.5 Data (NSP): CLIN 0013

The data CLIN is Not Separately Priced (NSP) and therefore not part of the TEP calculation.

2.4.6.6 Travel (based on proposed ceiling G&A rates per period): CLIN 0014

Travel is Cost Reimbursable (CR) without proposed Fee and is to be proposed for travel associated with requirements at the task order level. Future task orders will include travel costs which shall be proposed IAW FAR 31.205-46. RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Category

Rate Matrix provides for proposed G&A on a periodic basis for each evaluated Labor Rate

Period I through IV. Offerors shall provide ceiling G&A rates for each period associated with contract performance for Travel on the RFP/Contract Attachment 03, Labor Category Rate

Matrix. Proposed G&A rates will be evaluated for reasonableness, completeness and balance.

However, calculations using G&A applied to estimated travel costs will not be used in the TEP calculation.

2.4.6.7 Post Award Conference: CLIN 0015

The Government anticipates that the initial task order award will consist of the Post Award

Conference. Contract awardees shall attend the conference and provide requested documentation as part of contract phase-in in accordance with RFP/Contract Attachment 06. The Post-Award

Conference is not part of the TEP calculation and is not evaluated.

2.4.7 SCA Compliance

Verification of compliance with the SCA Wage Determination rates will not be included in this evaluation. It is the responsibility of the offeror and the subsequent contract awardee to comply with the SCA. For SCA-covered job categories/skill levels, a cross-reference SCA conformation table identifying labor categories/skill levels in the Labor Category Rate Matrix shall be tied to comparable, associated labor categories/skill levels of the SCA Wage Determination for each of the three center geographical locations. See RFP Attachment 02. Any questions concerning

SCA compliance as it applies to labor rates should be directed to the Department of Labor.

2.4.8 Evaluation of Price Reasonableness, Completeness and Balance

The proposed fully burdened rates will be reviewed to determinate price reasonableness, including completeness, and balance. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed pricing rests with the Offerors. However, data beyond that required by this solicitation shall not be submitted, unless you consider it essential to document or support your pricing proposal.

3. Tradeoff

If the Government determines to utilize a trade-off, it will only be made between Past

Performance and Cost/Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable.

3.1 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if, during the proposal 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 SS decision. If a

Request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices for Volume II (Technical), Volume IV (Cost/Price), and Volume V (Contract Documentation) must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final ―unacceptable‖ technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award.

Note: Offeror responses to ENs for Volume III (Past Performance) shall not be included in the

FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

3.2 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.

3.3 Reviews and Visits

The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the

Offeror’s written proposal.

3. 4 Solicitation Requirements – Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and mission requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with all 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between the ITO (Section L) and the Evaluation Factors for Award

(Section M), the evaluation criteria in Section M will take precedence.