Attachment_4_Evaluation_Factors.docx

20 Oct 08

ATTACHMENT 4 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ATTACHMENT 4 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

Source Selection Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) 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. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the 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 FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the government.

The government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements affordably. 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.

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 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 to be necessary.

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.

Rejection of Unreasonable Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or low 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.

Correction Potential of Proposals The government will consider throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable” or “reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable”. 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.

Evaluation Factors

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) Evaluation factors and subfactors 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 and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Contract Transition Subfactor 2: Zonal Maintenance Subfactor 3: Mission Systems Logistics Support Subfactor 4: Supply Support Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors In PPT, 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). However, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision (IAW FAR 15.304(e)).

(3) 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, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph (b) below.

Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph (c) below. Cost/Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph (d) 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.

b. 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. “Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable” is an interim rating only, and will not be used as a final rating.

ACCEPTABLE – The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

REASONABLY SUSCEPTIBLE OF BEING MADE ACCEPTABLE – The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “Unacceptable.”

UNACCEPTABLE – The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an Unacceptable rating are not awardable.

(1) Subfactor 1: Contract Transition The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Contract Transition approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. 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) Approach to manage and accomplish contract transition and phase-in ensures no disruption of mission support for the E-9 fleet in accordance with PWS 4.14.

(b) Acceptable proof from OEMs verifying their willingness to enter agreements and provide required data and technical support in accordance with PWS 4.2.

(2) Subfactor 2: Zonal Maintenance The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Zonal Maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates a maintenance plan that ensures aircraft zonal inspections are accomplished within OEM intervals, during PWS allowed timeframes, without impact to aircraft mission capability and reliability, and with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance in accordance with PWS 1.2 and 1.4.1.2.

(3) Subfactor 3: Mission Systems Logistics Support The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Mission Systems Logistics Support approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. 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) Acceptable proof the proposed mission system maintainer meets qualification and experience requirements in accordance with PWS 4.1.3 and acceptable proof the candidate intends to work for the Offeror if awarded the E-9 contract.

(b) Acceptable proof from the TMRS and SSR hardware and software OEMs verifying their willingness to enter into a formal agreement with Offeror to provide data and technical support necessary to maintain the mission systems in accordance with PWS 4.2.

(c) Approach to accomplish organizational, intermediate, and depot level mission system maintenance in accordance with the mission system maintenance concept ensures weapons system reliability rate is met in accordance with PWS 1.2 and 1.6.

(d) Approach to configuration control of mission systems ensures hardware and software configurations are documented and maintained in accordance with PWS 1.13 and 4.15.1.

(4) Subfactor 4: Supply Support The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Supply Support approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. 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) Approach to manage parts obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortage (DMSMS) for the E-9 aircraft and mission equipment ensures supply support problems stemming from parts obsolescence and DMSMS will be forecasted, managed, resolved, and reported before impacting the E-9 mission in accordance with PWS 1.16.7.

(b) Approach to manage Government Furnished Property/Equipment (GFP/GFE) and supplement with Contractor furnished property if necessary ensures parts and equipment availability to meet the required supply rates in accordance with PWS 1.16 and 1.16.3.

(c) Approach to maintain calibration of Government and Contractor furnished support equipment ensures no support equipment with expired calibration is used and no disruption to the E-9 mission due to non-availability of calibrated support equipment in accordance with PWS 1.7.

c. Past Performance Factor 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.

(1) Ratings.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below. Performance confidence assessment ratings are assigned pursuant to c(2).

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

(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.

(a) 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.

(b) 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 Capability subfactors 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 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 2 of FAR 52.212-1 Addendum 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 when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

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 E-9 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) requirement. The E-9 operates out of one Main Operating Base (MOB). CLS support includes aircraft and mission systems maintenance, capability to provide depot-level repair, Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS) operation, spare parts acquisition, component overhaul/repair (including engines), recurring engineering and technical services, and support equipment maintenance. The above are examples of scope and not intended to be an all inclusive list.

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 E-9 CLS requirement in terms of dollar value of parts managed ,personnel skill type/level, aircraft type, engine type, type of mission systems maintained, and contract type/value. Generally, efforts of less than $100,000 will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example: multiple overhaul contracts under $100,000 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 E-9 CLS requirement in terms of labor category ranges, aircraft type, level of maintenance, types of mission systems maintained, level of technical/engineer support, and value/quantities of parts.

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

Cost/Price Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price may be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price, Cost, Time and Materials) of previous effort as compared to the E-9 CLS requirement.

(c) 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), 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:

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the government s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

VERY GOOD (VG)

(PURPLE)

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the government s benefit. The contractual performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

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.

(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.

d. Cost or Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated:

· For award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) and all options.

· At price(s) proposed for the evaluation quantities.

· Based upon the applicable hourly rate multiplied by the corresponding quantity of labor hours specified in Section M of the solicitation for evaluation purposes.

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

(3) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(4) Unbalanced pricing Offerors proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may result in rejection of proposal if the Contracting Officer (CO) determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government ((FAR 15.404-1 (g) (3)). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items are significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques referenced in FAR 15.404-1(b), such that:

(a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

(b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

(5) Reasonableness Analysis of cost/price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

(6) Other than cost or pricing data In accordance with FAR 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. The FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining information other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate. Should the PCO 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).

(7) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs 0001 through X010 will be evaluated for award purposes as follows:

BASE PERIOD

NOTE: X007AE will not be evaluated because TBD 0008 Modification Development Not Evaluated and Installation

OPTIONS

NOTE: X007AE will not be evaluated because TBD X008 Modification Development Not Evaluated because TBD and Installation

(5) O&A Rate Support Section 2 of the cost volume will be reviewed to ensure Offeror-specific labor categories that form the basis for the proposed labor rates have been provided.

(6) Service Contract Act (SCA) From Section 3, the table provided which cross references the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels subject to the SCA with the job categories/skill levels of the Wage Determination will be reviewed for SCA compliance.

(7) Government Field Support Agencies From Section 4, compliance with the ITO requirement to identify the cognizant DCAA and DCMA office will be checked.

(8) Other In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from Section 7 will be considered.

(9) Estimated Quantities The following tables provide estimated quantities to be used in calculating Total Evaluated Price.

NOTE: These estimated quantities are for evaluation purposes only.

FLYING HOUR AND SORTIE ESTIMATES

The following quantities are FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY. The figures are not to be used for computation of workload.

FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY

CLIN

Period

* These Flying Hours are weighted numbers that were computed from historical data. Actual hours flown for the last five years were averaged and yielded a result of 650 hours per year. This figure was multiplied by the computed historical usage percentage for each range. The historical usage range figure resulted from the multiplication of the average hours per year by the computed historical usage percentage for each range.

** Dollar amounts in thousands of dollars

e. Tradeoff 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.

f. Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be in the Governments best interest. Offerors are encouraged to submit their best terms initially. If discussions are held, Offerors responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be considered for interim evaluations. If a Request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) is issued, Offeror responses to ENs must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation.

g. 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.

h. Reviews and Visits The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) 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.

i. 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 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 Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 will take precedence.