Attachment_II-Section_M_070119_Final.pdf

Attachment II

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented by the DFARS and AFFARS, and DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding the stated requirements. Award will be made to one offerror who is rated “acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical, determined to have the lowest evaluated price, deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, and whose proposal meets all the terms and conditions of the solicitations. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority (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.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Part 15.3, 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 31 Mar 2016, 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 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 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 or if the amount of corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated.

file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153

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 any proposal that is evaluated and Offeror is not prepared or available to begin work promptly upon award.

1.5. 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 FPR will be considered in making the SS decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award.

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. 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) reque t or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. 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 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. In addition, the government may conduct pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this Source Selection. Results of PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirement.

1.7 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 and 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, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors 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.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Security Requirements

Subfactor 2: Management Plan

Subfactor 3: Technical Approach

Factor 2: Price

2.1.2. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors for each proposals. Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each Offeror. Technically acceptability will be evaluated on all offerors.

Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The proposals shall be evaluated as described in

Factor 1 below. Price will be evaluated as described in Factor 2 below. The offerors will be evaluated for reasonableness (2.2.2.1), price realism (2.2.2.2) and unbalanced pricing (2.2.2.3).

The SSA will then assess the price for all technically acceptable offers to make a best value award decision utilizing LPTA

2.2. FACTOR 1: Technical

Technical proposals are not required. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, and will be determined technically acceptable. All such offers shall be treated equally except for prices. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The technical ratings are defined below.

The Government will rely on the detailed proposal description involving the three Technical sub factors. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Technical Proposal based on the following 3 Sub-Factors: 1) Security Requirement, 2) Management Plan, 3) Technical

Approach. A Technical rating of acceptable or unacceptable will be given to each Sub-Factor and referenced section or paragraph of the Performance Work Statement.

An unacceptable rating for any of the factors or sub factors below will result in the proposal being found to not meet technical acceptability.

Sub-Factor 1: Security/Safety

In rating this sub-factor, the government will evaluate the Security Plan to protect and safe guard technical data sustainment support by reviewing the proposal for the following details:

1. Approach to safeguard technical data, source data, and meet security. This effort supports classified programs, systems, and material. Individuals performing work on this task order must be United States citizens and comply with applicable program security requirements at the time of task order award and replacement approval (Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 4.6 & Section 5.2).

2. Submit a detailed discussion of the Offeror's physical security plan, which will ensure that Government Furnished Information (GFI), for which the Offeror is responsible, will be safeguarded and secured. Include the type of key/combination control, end-of-day security check procedures, and a discussion of how employee conformity to security requirements will be affected. Discuss measures taken to provide key/combination security in the event that employees are terminated or reassigned, and include procedures for ensuring that password protection is in place. (PWS Section 3.1)

ACCEPTABLE: Contractor Proposal clearly demonstrates it shall comply with all requirements found in the PWS Sections 3.1, 4.26, & 5.2.

UNACCEPTABLE: Contractor proposal fails to meet requirements of PWS Sections 3.1, 4.26, & 5.2.

Sub-Factor 2: Management Plan

In rating this sub-factor, the Government will evaluate the proposed Management

Plan by reviewing the proposal for details including but not limited to:

1. Transition Plan - The contractor shall clearly demonstrate a phase-in and phase-out transition plan for the phasing-in and out of contractor performance. The period between award date and full performance start date constitutes the contract phase-in period. During the phase-in period, the contractor shall prepare to meet all contract requirements and ensure all incoming personnel are trained and qualified on the full performance start date. The Government will make all facilities, equipment, and materials accessible to the contractor during the phase-in period. The contractor team shall clearly demonstrate successful transition plan to recruit, hire, and retain qualified applicants to meet PWS task requirement. The phase-out contractor performance shall be outlined in transition plan to demonstrate the contractor approach.(PWS 5.12.1 and 5.12.2)

2. Address company policy regarding quality maintenance practices and quality workmanship in Quality Control Plan (QCP). Include specific procedures for implementing company policy requiring quality maintenance practices and quality workmanship and ensure compliance with PWS.(PWS Section 4.18)

3. Approach to provide offsite hosting/storage services to facilitate technical information exchange meetings and historical file access and plan to meet schedule for all government deliverables. (PWS 1.1.f and 1.1.7)

4. Approach to meet program requirements at primary operating base as well as

TDY locations; to include, an effective communications process with the

Government that ensures successful accomplishment of all task order requirements. (PWS Section 4.13)

5. Submit a detailed plan to include a discussion of how each type of record will be created, updated, and maintained. Describe in detail the methodology to be implemented for data collection in support of contract performance elements within the PWS including quality control planning and data. (PWS 1.1.6 and all subparagraphs)

6. Describe training and procedures used to ensure that each employee performing work under the contract is aware of required COMSEC, security policy, procedures, & requirements, and Foreign Disclosure restrictions. (PWS 5.2.7.1, 5.2.7.5, and 5.2.7.6) requirements found in the PWS Sections 1.1.f, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, Section 4.13, Section 4.18, 5.2.7.1, 5.2.7.5, 5.2.7.6, 5.12.1, & 5.12.2.

UNACCEPTABLE: Contractor proposal fails to meet requirements of PWS Sections 1.1.f, 1.1.6, 1.1.7, Section 4.13, Section 4.18, 5.2.7.1, 5.2.7.5, 5.2.7.6, 5.12.1, & 5.12.2.

Sub-Factor 3: Technical Approach

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed technical approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Section L. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of ALL requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

1. Clearly describe approach to develop Electronic Technical Orders eTO. (PWS Section

4.11)

2. Clearly describe plans to meet required time constraints contained within the PWS for

Emergency and Urgent Technical Order deliveries. (PWS 1.1.3, Section 4.1, 4.16.1, and 4.16.2)

3. Clearly describe approach to show how Computer Software/Computer Software

Documentation (CS/CSD) will be used to facilitate Technical Order sustainment.

Demonstrate ability to Hyperlink IPDF technical data capabilities, the ability to create style sheets for printing, capability to produce eTOs IAW PWS. Demonstrate accuracy in converting technical data in SGML format.. (PWS 1.1.1 and 1.1.4.i) requirements found in the PWS 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4.i, Section 4.1, Section 4.11, 4.16.1, & 4.16.2

UNACCEPTABLE: Contractor proposal fails to meet requirements of PWS 1.1.1, 1.1.3, 1.1.4.i, Section 4.1, Section 4.11, 4.16.1, & 4.16.2

2.3. Factor 2 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations, not to include Travel Cost Reimbursement CLIN X0024, 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 extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology outlined in the proposed pricing matrix (Attachment IV).

These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Basic Period to include initial transition, all Option Periods, and the 6-month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Attachment IV, Pricing Matrix.

2.3.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2).

FAR Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items applies. Commerciality does not alleviate the

Government’s responsibility to determine pricing fair and reasonable. According to FAR

15.403-3 (c), requiring information other than cost or pricing data is generally limited with adequate price competition and commercial item acquisition. However, at a minimum, the

Contracting Officer must use price analysis to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable. Proposed pricing is not determined fair and reasonable based solely on the fact that a price-- in and of itself-- is included in a catalog. If the Contracting Officer cannot determine whether an offered price is fair and reasonable, even after obtaining additional information from sources other than the Offeror, the Contracting Officer must require the Offeror to submit information other than cost or pricing data to support further analysis (see FAR 404-1).

2.3.2. Unbalanced pricing

The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that exhibits unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total

Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items (CLINs) is significantly over or understated as indicated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

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 the offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are balanced with respect to separately priced CLINs. To assist with this requirement Offerors are required to insert proposed unit and extended prices into Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs Section of the

Request for Proposal. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected by the

Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unreasonably low or high proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement. Additionally, unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed prices rests with the Offeror.

2.3.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the

Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR

15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

Unrealistic prices or estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement. Offerors are also cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of “getting well” or recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments or other devices.

2.3.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

It is the intention of the Government to award without discussions. Offerors are cautioned to submit complete pricing proposals that fulfill all pricing requirements as stated in this solicitation. If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

FAR Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items applies to this solicitation. FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with 13.106-3 (Simplified

Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. FAR part 15 applies regarding price analysis as a basis for determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

2.3.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L, pricing instructions. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers

Evaluation Factors Order of Importance

Price or Cost 01

Technical 02

All evaluation factors other than cost or price when combined are significantly less important than Cost or Price.

Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed CLIN(s) prices for One (1) twelve (12)-month Base Period, four (4) One(1)-year Option Periods and a six(6)-month

Extension Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”.

The six (6)-month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Option Period eight (8) unit prices. The six (6)-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

Note: The offeror’s proposed pricing for CLIN X0024, Travel Cost Reimbursement, will not be evaluated.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the

Government to exercise such options. The six (6)-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of Option four (4)—the last option period. The six (6) Month Extension Period will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.