Attachment-9-Section-M.pdf

RFP ATTACHMENT 9 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Contract Field Teams (CFT)

Revision 1 – 8 Jan 15

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

(a) This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision, including a partial set-aside of future task orders. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. The Government seeks to award approximately 13 Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts in two (2) competition pools:

(1) Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool: Approximately seven (7) ID/IQ contracts to Small Businesses whose offers represent the best value to the Government for task orders that will be set-aside under the special provision titled “Process and Criteria for Issuing Task Orders” (Section H-1 of the contract to result from this solicitation).

(2) Full and Open Competition Pool: Approximately six (6) ID/IQ contracts to either Small or Large Businesses whose offers represent the best value to the Government for orders that will not be set aside.

(b) Offerors competing for inclusion in the Small Business Set-Aside competition pool may elect to compete also for inclusion in the Full and Open competition pool.

Small Businesses will be evaluated in the appropriate competition pool(s) based on the offeror’s selection located on the front page of the RFP.

(c) Contract award will only be made to 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.

(d) To arrive at a source selection decision, the Government will evaluate the factors, subfactors (described below), and proposed price. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection (SS) process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 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 the technically acceptable, superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

(e) This source selection is conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15, “Contracting by Negotiation”, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award approximately 13 ID/IQ contracts in two (2) competition pools, as described above, to Offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence they will best meet the requirements; however, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interests. 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 and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach. The Government may also reject an offer where the past performance record results in an assessment of “No Confidence” for Factor 2, as described in section 2.3 below.

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition based on the evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 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.

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

1.6 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative 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 FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Technical), Volume IV (Price), and Volume V (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated 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. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume III (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.

1.7 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 of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) 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 a discrepancy exists between Section L- Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors Used to Evaluate Each Proposal Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

(1) Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Resource Management Subfactor 3: Quality Management Subfactor 4: Scenario Applications Subfactor 5: Small Business Subcontracting

(2) Factor 2: Past Performance

(3) Factor 3: Price

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors

(a) For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

(b) For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.2 Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. 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 will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. The SSA will then assess the Past Performance ratings and Price 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 offeror. 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. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the overall Technical rating. The Technical ratings are defined as follows:

Table 2.2 Technical Ratings

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: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed program management approach.

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components, with little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. The proposal must effectively describe how the Offeror will manage and accomplish transition of Task Order requirements to/from another service provider and stand-up of a new CFT site, which ensures the contractor will be fully operational by Task Order Period of Performance start date IAW PWS 4.2.1.

b. The proposal must effectively describe the Offeror’s management capability, to include the roles and responsibilities associated with weapon systems maintenance/modification/repair, which ensures the requirements of PWS para 2.0 are met. In addition, the approach must ensure the successful establishment of a contractor management structure by contract award, and the ability to successfully perform tasks, submit deliverables and resolve issues and discrepancies to meet requirements IAW PWS 4.1.

c. The proposal must ensure the Offeror can successfully transition and manage multiple requirements or teams at multiple locations concurrently, and must explain how the Offeror can meet the requirements of PWS 2.0, 4.1 and 4.2 within the following FTE levels for the respective competition pools:

i. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Two or more requriements or teams concurrently totaling 100 FTEs, with at least one example from a CONUS location and at least one example from an OCONUS location.

ii. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Two or more requriements or teams concurrently totaling 1200 FTEs, with at least one example from a CONUS location and at least one example from an OCONUS location.

d. The proposal must describe how the Offeror plans to effectively track, monitor, manage, control and audit task order cost down to the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) & sub-CLIN level to meet the requirements of PWS 4.1.1.

e. The proposal must present a sound organizational and management structure which ensures the PWS requirements will be met IAW PWS 4.1. If teaming and/or sub-contracting, the approach must clearly describe how each team member will perform their respective maintenance areas associated with the CFT maintenance scope in PWS 2.0. In addition, the approach must effectively describe how the Offeror will coordinate all contract activities associated with the CFT maintenance effort amongst any associated sub-contractor or teaming partners.

f. The proposal must describe a sound procedural approach to aviation maintenance which ensures a safe and effective understanding of Flight and Ground Aircraft Operations. Simply restating the DCMAI 8210.1C in the sample "Core Procedures" provided does not demonstrate the offeror can produce a set of safe and effective Flight and Ground Procedures and would be rated unacceptable. The approach must show how their aviation procedures meet the requirements of Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) 8210.1C IAW PWS 4.4.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Resource Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed resource management approach.

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their

a. A sound approach for obtaining and retaining qualified personnel which ensures the requirements of PWS paragraphs 4.2 are met.

b. A sound approach which meets rapid response requirements at both Continental United States (CONUS) and Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) locations in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.2. The approach must ensure the Offeror can successfully respond to task order solicitations within 72 hours, when required, and must ensure timely availability of appropriate personnel to meet accelerated delivery schedules or surge requirements at both CONUS and OCONUS locations.

c. A security clearance process which ensures all personnel have the required mix of skills and clearance levels necessary to accomplish the CFT mission.

The proposed process must meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 5.2.

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Quality Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed quality management approach.

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their

a. A verifiable Quality Management System (QMS) that is Aerospace Standard (AS) 9100 compliant. This QMS must effectively describe how the Offeror's quality management plan is compliant with AS9100 and show verifiable objective evidence to demonstrate compliance. The Offeror’s AS9100 compliance must be supported by verifiable objective evidence IAW PWS 4.3.

b. Acceptable Standard Operating Procedures/Local Operating Instructions (SOPs/LOIs) as required IAW PWS 4.3.2.1. Offerers must have verifiable SOPs, which are compliant with AS9100, and include acceptable quality procedures for the following AS9100 clauses:

i. QMS processes as defined in AS9100 Clause 4 (quality manual, control of documents/records);

ii. Management responsibility as defined in AS9100 Clause 5 (management commitment, customer focus, quality policy, quality planning);

iii. Resource management as defined in AS9100 Clause 6 (provisions for resources, human resources, infrastructure, work environment);

iv. Product realization as defined in AS9100 Clause 7 (planning, customer-related processes, design and development [if applicable], purchasing, production and service provision, control of monitoring and measuring equipment, configuration management);

v. Measurement, analysis and improvement as defined in AS9100 Clause 8 (monitoring and measurement, control of nonconforming product, analysis of data, improvement).

c. An effective quality management approach that describes how the QMS clauses above will be implemented at the site level. The quality management approach must be compliant with AS9100. SOPs must describe when the development and submission of LOIs would be required and what circumstances would dictate the generation of site specific LOIs IAW PWS 4.3.2.1.

2.2.4 Subfactor 4: Scenario Applications

The Government will assess the Offeror’s sample scenario applications for CFT Task Order requirements. The sample scenarios presented in this sub-factor are representative of the work performed within CFT but will not be awarded as a result of this source selection. These scenarios are for evaluation purposes only and will not contribute to the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors must maintain consistency across all sub-factors when responding to sample scenarios. Failure to comply with this consistency requirement may result in an offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable. The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components, with little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. A transition plan tailored to each applicable sample scenario IAW attached CDRL A007 located within Section J of the RFP (PWS 4.2.1). The transition plan must indicate a clear understanding of transition requirements, and ensure all requirements of the transition elements specified in PWS Section 6.6 would be met for each applicable scenario.

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3 and Scenario 4

b. A scenario specific management plan which provides effective site supervision on day 1 of scenario period of performance and ensures each scenario could be successfully completed in accordance with PWS para 4.2.3.

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3 and Scenario 4

c. A scenario specific pricing sheet (for evaluation purposes only, not included in TEP). The pricing sheet for each scenario must be completed correctly, and must indicate a clear understanding of government required minimum amount of staffing necessary to ensure successful performance on each applicable sample scenario. (PWS para 4.2.2)

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 1 and Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3 and Scenario 4

d. A scenario specific Quality Control Plan, consistent with all elements otherwise contained in their basic contract factors/subfactor responses, IAW attached CDRL A009 located within Section J of the RFP for the applicable sample scenario that indicates clear contractor understanding of quality management requirements. (PWS 4.3.1)

i. (Full & Open Competition Pool) Scenario 2

ii. (Small Business Set-Aside Competition Pool) Scenario 3

2.2.5 Subfactor 5: Small Business Subcontracting

The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach for Small Business Subcontracting on CFT Task Order requirements. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components, with little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance:

a. A Small Business Subcontracting Plan that adequately responds to each of the requirement elements of FAR clause 52.219-9(d) paragraphs (1) through (11) and DFARS 252.219-7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan) and that is reflective of and consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Plan. Proposed percentages of total subcontracted dollars to be performed by small business must meet requirements for the following small business socioeconomic categories: Small Disadvantaged, Women-Owned, HUBZone, and Service Disabled Veteran-Owned. (PWS 4.6) (Applicable to large businesses only)

b. A Small Business Participation Plan that adequately responds to the items in Section L, paragraph 4.2.7.b. (Applicable to both large and small businesses)

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:

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal (with respect to each other) for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process

TABLE 5- 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

(Neutral)

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.

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 price factor. More relevant performance may 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 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, DCMA and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

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. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

(a) 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 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.

(b) The past performance information forms contained in Section L, ITO Attachment 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:

DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 4

Degree Description

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.

(c) Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

(i) Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the CFT maintenance requirements. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance of modification, maintenance, inspection and repair of active systems in the US Government inventory, such as aircraft; vehicles;

aerospace equipment; missile systems; subsystems such as engines, communications and cryptologic equipment; and ground support equipment.

Relevancy shall include descriptions of efforts related to on-site Organizational, Intermediate/Field, and Depot/Sustainment level maintenance support at customer locations both in CONUS, and OCONUS.

(ii) 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 CFT maintenance requirements. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance that demonstrates the capacity to manage multiple teams of varying size and complexity at locations worldwide.

This demonstration may include concurrent management of multiple contracts with varying numbers of personnel and locations. It may also include contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform.

(iii) Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and CFT maintenance requirements. Consideration may be given when determining relevant past performance with regard to complexity:

(1) Support of requirements with varying levels of Organizational, Intermediate/Field, and Depot/Sustainment level maintenance.

(2) Support of multiple types of modification, maintenance, inspection and repair of active systems in the US Government inventory, such as aircraft;

vehicles; aerospace equipment; missile systems; subsystems such as engines, communications and cryptologic equipment; and ground support equipment.

(3) Support of multiple contracts at locations both in the CONUS, and

OCONUS.

(iv) Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm- Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost Reimbursable (CR), Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the CFT 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, 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 when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. These corrective action 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:

Table 2.3 Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

Performance meets 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.

UNKNOWN (UK)

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

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings

(a) As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.3.1 above. The rating is not based on quantitative analysis. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price factor, 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.

(b) More relevant past performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant past performance. This may result in the more relevant past performance record receiving a higher confidence rating when compared to a less relevant past performance record. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

2.4 Factor 3 – 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 reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing to assist the Government in evaluation of pricing proposals.

The Offeror’s pricing proposal will be based on the TEP. The Government shall concurrently evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable offerors, including option and extension extended prices. Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.6 and 2.7 below. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extension does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extension.

This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the three-year Basic Period, both two-year Option Periods, and the 6-month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix.

2.4.1 Price Reasonableness Evaluation

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 15.404-1(b) 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

Historical CFT actuals as fully burdened labor rates for the various job categories/skill levels, as well as the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) based on recently awarded CFT Task Orders and/or current CFT Basic Contract NTE rates shall be the basis of labor rate comparison for price evaluation purposes and the determination of reasonable pricing. Differences affecting rate comparison such as escalation and factors contributing to differences (i.e. expenses for physicals, overseas workforce requirements) shall be noted. FAR 15.403-3 allows the contracting officer to require data other than certified cost or pricing data if adequate information from sources other than the Offeror cannot be obtained that is adequate to determine reasonable pricing.

Documentation submitted to support reasonable pricing may be considered in making that determination.

Unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

2.4.2 Balanced Pricing Evaluation

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. Rates will be reviewed to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to labor categories/ skill levels and across performance period years. 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 will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Documentation submitted to support balanced pricing may be considered in making that determination.

The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed evaluated prices be materially unbalanced. Evaluated offers determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more individual, composite labor rates or evaluated pricing per performance period is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques contained within 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 represents the lowest TEP; or

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).

2.4.3 Price Realism Evaluation

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This evaluation is based on review of proposed pricing to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement to further ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. Proposed pricing must be realistic for the effort required. It must be consistent with PWS requirements and technical approach. Regarding proposed labor rates, proposed rates must be sufficiently and adequately priced to ensure retention of workforce such that performance is not jeopardized. To be realistic, proposed pricing shall be consistent with the proposed approach, demonstrating an understanding of the requirement and program complexity. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. Note: Cost realism will be performed for only CLIN 0013 Post Award Conference as a cost reimbursable contract.

This requires development of probable cost individually for each Offeror.

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 CFT requirements (i.e., future Task Orders). This is particularly relevant to T&M Task Orders for cost reimbursable efforts subject to Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) audit.

2.4.5 Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

In accordance with FAR 15.403-(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining data other than certified cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining data other than certified cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain such data as appropriate. Should the contracting officer determine proposed prices appear unreasonable or the possibility an offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via data other than certified cost or pricing data. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable, balanced or realistic pricing.

Should the need for this information occur, this opportunity will be provided via an Evaluation Notice (EN) during discussions.

2.4.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions.

Additionally, the pricing proposal will be reviewed in accordance with the TEP. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The following information addresses TEP calculation methodology. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format. Instructions for completion of the Labor Category Rate Matrix is included on the Summary Tab of the Excel workbook provided in the

RFP.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for three-year Base Period, Options I and II, each Option consisting of a two-year period, and 6-month Extension Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend the Term of the Contract”. The 6-month Extension Period unit prices/rates will be based on pricing proposed for Option Period II—all rates for the extension should be the same as Option Period II rates. The 6-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The 6-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option II—the last option period and will be a separate option exercised if it is utilized.

For purposes of TEP calculation, the “Total Evaluated Price Page” tab in the RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix for the 7.5 year potential ordering period provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract performance periods. The six-month Extension Period pricing shall be based on the last Option Period unit prices. Extended pricing used to calculate the TEP will be based on labor category rates multiplied by the Government-provided best estimated number of hours for each labor category/skill level. All job category/skill level rates as required by the pricing matrix shall be proposed. Rates proposed for all performance periods will be included in the TEP.

Burdened rates shall be proposed for Material/Services Handling. These rates shall be proposed to support CAP/CAS and Material/Non-Material. These rates shall be proposed for the three-year Base Period, Options I and II, each Option consisting of a two-year period, and 6-month Extension Period. Pricing for the 6-month extension will be based on rates proposed for Option II. The TEP calculation will include roll-up pricicing for Material Handling and Service Handling separately for the Basic Period, Options I and II and the 6-month extension. The roll-up pricing is based on historical estimates multliplied by the appropriate burdened rate.

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

2.4.7 TEP Calculation Methodology

The TEP is calculated as the sum of labor and material/services extended pricing based on the Labor Category Rate Matrix. All proposed, fully burdened (loaded) rates are input in the Excel spreadsheets as required. Extended pricing is automatically calculated and summed across labor and material/services to yield the TEP.

2.4.7.1 CONUS and OCONUS Labor Rates

Proposed pricing is evaluated by means of RFP/Contract Attachment 2, Labor Category Rate Matrix. Fully burdened (loaded) rates are input in the Excel spreadsheets. Rates are to be proposed for labor and material/services. These labor rates are proposed separately for FFP and T&M effort. Further, labor rates are provided separately for CONUS and OCONUS geographical locations.

The Labor Category Rate Matrix allows Offerors to input proposed fully burdened/ loaded labor rates for a series of labor classifications. These labor classifications are based on a variety of CFT job categories/skill levels. Each job category/skill level requires a fully burdened/loaded labor rate. These rates are multiplied by the Government estimated hours for each performance period. The resulting total dollars per job category/skill level are added together yielding a roll-up evaluated price for each performance period.

Labor is categorized by FFP and T&M effort. The proposed fully loaded composite Not-to-exceed (NTE) ceiling rates apply to either FFP or T&M as priced by job category and skill level. Labor is further divided into two categories: Straight-time (ST) and Overtime (OT). Labor rates are separately priced for each labor category; all job categories/skill levels are represented in each labor category of ST and OT.

Indirect cost rates for Material/Service Handling are separately proposed as burdens (rates). Material Handling rates consist of CAP and Material; Service Handling rates consist of CAS and Non-Material. These proposed fully burdened rates for Material and Services shall be based on a composite burden for both, applicable to material and services separately. These are proposed for each performance period.

The TEP is used as the basis for price evaluation of Offerors’ proposals. Total estimated proposed cost for the post award conference attendance will be rolled into the TEP. As a cost reimbursable CLIN (0013), evaluation will include cost realism analysis of proposed costs. Offerors should note evaluation of cost realism is not to be confused with price realism. Only CLIN 0013 will utilize cost realism evaluation.

Total Evaluated Price = Total Evaluated Price for each Period: Labor Basic Period (3 years combined) + Labor Option I Period (2 years combined) + Labor Option II Period (2 years combined) + Labor 6-month Extension Period + Material/Service Basic Period (3 years combined) + Material/Service Option 1 Period (2 years combined) + Material/Service Option II Period (2 years combined) + Material/Service 6-month Extension. Note: initial total estimated proposed cost for post award conference expensesis provided under cost reimbursable CLIN 0013 with a total ceiling cost of $5,000. The Pricing Matrix spreadsheet will include Offerors’ proposed cost up to $5,000 in the TEP.

Basic 3-years

Option I 2-years

Option II 2-years

Extension 6-months

Total Price

Labor FFP

(CONUS)

Labor FFP

(OCONUS)

Labor FFP - Overtime

Labor FFP -

Labor T&M

Labor T&M

Labor T&M -

Labor T&M -

*Material Handling

**Service Handling

Total Estimated Cost (CLIN 0013) (One time only)

Provide proposed cost at beginning of performance period

N/A

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

*Material Handling Is applicable to CAP (CLIN X005) and Material (CLIN X008) **Service Handling is applicable to CAS (CLIN X005) and Non-Material (CLIN X008)

2.4.8 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. The Government will review the Labor Category Rate Matrix to ensure each offeror rounded to two (2) decimal places. Calculations must be based on prices limited to two (2) decimal places only. If any pricing proposal deviates from the stated format, the Government will apply the specified format which will provide the basis for extended pricing and TEP or may eliminate the Offeror.

2.4.9 Proposed Composite NTE Rates

All rates proposed will be evaluated in support of the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing. Price reasonableness evaluation focuses on “unreasonably high prices”; price realism evaluation focuses on “unrealistically low prices”. Cost realism will be evaluated only for CLIN 0013, Post Award Conference. All rates required to be proposed will be reviewed to ensure complete pricing is provided;

complete pricing is an aspect of reasonable pricing. Price proposal analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404, as required. Proposed rates will be evaluated to ensure these are adequately and sufficiently proposed to ensure offerors have an adequate understanding of the requirement and program complexity and ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. Proposed pricing will be reviewed for price realism to ensure proposed pricing is realistic for the effort required and ensure proposed pricing is not too low as to pose potential performance risk.

2.4.10 SCLS/CFT NWD 99-0316

The Government will review each offeror’s Price Volume (Volume IV) to verify an offeror’s compliance with the instruction to comply with SCLS and CFT NWD 99-0316, Attachment 4. Compliance with the SCLS/CFT NWD is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. Offerors’ demonstration of their understanding of the SCLS/CFT NWD as applicable for SCLA-covered positions will be reviewed. It should be noted actual compliance of Offerors’ wage rate payments to employees shall be IAW with the SCLS and Wage Determination (WD) as appropriate. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact (POC) in regard to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.4.11 Price Assumptions

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to understand the basis of proposed fully burdened rates to assist in the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing. Review will include evaluation of supporting data and estimating methodology. All information provided will be considered in evaluation of pricing proposals. Detailed explanation of cost assumptions and basis of estimate used in development of proposed costs for CLIN 0013 Post Award Conference shall also be included to explain the Offeror’s proposed costs. This explanation will be used in cost realism evaluation of this CLIN and compared to each offeror’s uniquely developed probable cost for CLIN 0013.

2.4.12 Subcontractors/Teaming arrangements/Vendor Pricing

Probable subcontractor and teaming arrangements will be reviewed. If applicable, the Government will review all contract teaming arrangement agreements to ensure each offeror proposed IAW ITO attachment 2.1.