Section_M.doc

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

21 Aug 12

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

USING PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF PROCEDURES

1. 0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

1.1.1 This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.101-2, in order to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Upon receipt of the proposals, a determination of offeror responsibility and responsiveness will be performed by the CO. All offerors found to be responsive and responsible will move forward for source selection evaluations. Tradeoffs will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. An award will be made to an offeror, in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

1.1.2 The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it 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 price Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

1.1.3 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 select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract 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.

1.4. Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonable in cost 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.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation factors used to evaluate each Proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Capability

Subfactor 2: Business Operations Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors:

Note: 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 significantly more important than Factor 3 Cost/Price. Factor 3 Cost/Price will be considered substantial to the award decision.

2.1.2 Evaluation Methodology

Initially, the Government will evaluate proposals for all factors. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of acceptable or unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past performance shall be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Cost/Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. The SSA will then assess the price and past performance ratings for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

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.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Capability

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Capability approach. Offerors are required to present the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The subfactor minimum threshold is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and substantiates the following components:

a. A quality end product on a variety of different coatings. To be acceptable, the Offeror shall describe how the offeror has performed the work with the different coatings listed in Section 01000, paragraph 1 of the SOW;

b. Documentation to meet experience requirements or how the Offeror plans to acquire the experience requirements identified in the SOW, Section 03000, Paragraph 1.3; Section 03200, paragraph 1.5.1; and Section 02800, paragraph 1.6.1.2;

c. Ability to successfully work, manage and complete single and multiple delivery orders in accordance with the SOW, Section 01000, paragraph 1.4 to include:

1) responding to and completing multiple delivery orders within a short timeframe;

2) working concurrently in and around areas where mission essential work is being performed;

3) working other than normal duty hours to complete delivery orders;

4) providing sufficient number of employees, materials, equipment, quality control personnel and management oversight for the execution and completion of multiple delivery orders;

d. Ability to successfully meet the SSPC QP1 qualification and certification required in the SOW, Section 09900, paragraph 1.3 of the SOW.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Business Operations

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach to Business Operations. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L . The subfactor minimum threshold is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of requirements and substantiates all of the following components:

a) Preliminary Quality Control Plan (or company’s Quality Control Plan) that meets the requirements of the SOW, Section 01000, paragraph 3.7; Section 03200, paragraph 1.5 and other applicable paragraphs to include the following:

1) The offeror’s inspection processes and procedures relating to the requirements of the SOW and the individual Delivery Order. It should describe the best business practices utilized within the company to ensure quality end products IAW the SOW and individual Delivery Order;

2) Identify all key positions and responsibilities for each;

3) A description of the processes and procedures that will identify, correct and ensure non-recurrence of defective services.

b) Preliminary Health and Safety Plans proposed for this initiative to ensure the general safety and health and well-being of government and contractor personnel during the course of their work on Tinker AFB IAW with the SOW, Attachment 2, Section 00 71 00; Section 01000, Paragraph 1.5.7.2; Section 09900, Paragraph 1.7 and other applicable paragraphs to include the following:

1) Accident prevention and health protection for employees as well as occupants working near the work site;

2) safety meetings;

3) prevention of personnel exposure to unsanitary, health, and safety hazard/conditions.

2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance

2.3.1 Perfomance Confidence Rating

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

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, including cost and schedule. Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the evaluation of an offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's relevant present and recent past performance, focusing on and targeting performance, which is relevant to the technical sub-factors and Cost/Price.

In determining relevance, consideration will be given to product complexity, type of effort, and contract scope and type. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. As a result of an analysis of those risks, negative aspects, and positive aspects of past performance identified, each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating that is the rating for the Past Performance factor.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical sub-factors and Cost/Price, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror's performance meets mission requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror's history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

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, Contractor Performance Assessment Retrieval System (CPARS), Construction Contract Assessment System (CCAS), 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 criteria and Cost/Price assessment. 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 past performance information forms contained in Section L, Attachment 1.1, 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:

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.

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, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), Construction Contract Assessment System (CCAS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with 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:

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets or exceeds contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element being assessed may contain 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.

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. The resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level (Para 2.1) 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 a not relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

2.4 Factor 3 – Cost or Price

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Completeness; (2) Price Reasonableness; (3) Balance; and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.4.1. Completeness

To confirm the proposed price of each Offeror, the Government will multiply the quantities identified in Section B of the solicitation by the proposed coefficient, as applicable. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions will NOT be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition. In case of discrepancy between CD copy and paper copy, the paper copy will always take precedence.

2.4.2. Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of pricing proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through various price proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Unreasonable proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competitive range on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement. Offers should be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate their reasonableness. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror.

2.4.3. Balance

All Offerors will be evaluated for balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonabe prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Price Analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the Offeror’s price proposal. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of all proposed “Contract Period Estimated Totals” contained in The Bid Schedule for the two basic years and all three (3) option years, with a potential six (6) month extension.

2.4.3 Other than Cost or Pricing Data:

In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. FAR 15.404-1(d)(3) provides for obtaining other than cost/pricing data on FFP competitive contracts when requirements may not be fully understood by competing Offerors. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate. Should the Contracting Officer (CO) determine proposed prices to appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. Should this occur, this opportunity will be provided via an Evaluation Notice (EN).

2.4.5 Other

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Cost/Price Volume, will be considered. All relevant information pertaining to cost or pricing information must be included in Volume 3, Cost/Price. Other Proposal volumes shall not contain information required for thorough evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor. Similarly, any technical information provided to support proposed pricing must also be included in totality in Technical Volume 1.

3.0 Tradeoff

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. If a trade-off is used, it will only be made between Past Performance and 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 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 ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume III (Cost/Price), and Volume IV (Contract Documentation) must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Note: If the offeror fails to include EN responses in the FPR, the proposal may be rated technically “unacceptable”, or otherwise ineligible for award. Note: Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) are not required to be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

3. 2. 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. 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between the ITO and the Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M will take precedence.

3.3 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 Offerors’ capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.