FA8119-16-R-0013_-_Section_M_FINAL.pdf

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104.”

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS

M-01, General Information

(a) This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 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, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, dated 4 May 2011.

These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. The anticipated contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, 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 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the LPTA proposal.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

(b) 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 determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

(c) 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 source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

(d) Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the program. However, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

(e) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price 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.

(f) Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any uncertainty in the proposal. The judgement 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, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

(g) Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable. See Section L, L-01, Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph g, for more information regarding alternate proposals.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the Offeror’s ability to successfully repair all three part numbers (P/N) associated with National Stock Number (NSN) 5960-01-274-7627. The three part numbers comprising NSN 5960-01-274-7627 are (1) “190999-1”, (2) “VMS-1610”, and (3) “PM110S”. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIF) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

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

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent efforts.

M-03, PRE AWARD SURVEY

a. 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.b.

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.

M-04, PLANT VISITS

a. In the event discussions are necessary, plant visits may be conducted during the evaluation phase to develop knowledge for judging the potential for correction of the deficiencies.

M-05, SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

a. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements; such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors to be eligible for award. Any aspect of the proposal judged to be unacceptable would render the entire proposal unacceptable. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any proposed deviation from the solicitation requirements or exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified in accordance with the instructions in section L (See Section L, L-01, Proposal Preparation Instructions, paragraph g).