Atch_5_Section_M.pdf

Section M – FA8202-15-R -1004

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Evaluation Criteria for the

Acquisition of Engineering Services

For the

A-10 Field Level Technical and Engineering Services (Fault Isolation) Program

3 February 2015

Section Content:

1.0 - Source Selection

2.0 - Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

3.0 - Volume I – Executive Summary

4.0 - Volume II – Technical Proposal

5.0 - Volume III – Performance Confidence

6.0 - Volume IV – Price Proposal

7.0 - Volume V – Contract Documentation

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures IAW FAR 15.101-2 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 4 March 2011. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, and acceptable performance confidence assessment, which is deemed responsible IAW the Federal Acquisition Regulations (and supplements) and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

The Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) are available electronically (http://farsite.hill.af.mil).

The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors (Section L) of this solicitation. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Offers shall be evaluated for technical acceptability, price and performance confidence assessment as per Section M. Failure to meet any criteria in any sub-factor shall result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. While the Government’s Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) 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 evaluation.

1.2 Award Without Discussions: 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.

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) incorporated in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the A-10 Fault Isolation program. 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.

1.4 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject (as unacceptable) any proposals that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the RFP.

1.5 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. “Deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ to an unacceptable level. 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 easily correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c).

1.6 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

2.1 The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate proposals. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible IAW the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Sub-Factor A: Sample Task #1 Sub-Factor B: Sample Task #2 Sub-Factor C: Technical Approach Sub-Factor D: Management Approach Factor 2: Performance Confidence Factor 3: Price

2.2 Evaluation Methodology: Proposals will be evaluated to confirm that the basic proposal requirements of the RFP have been met. Any proposals that do not meet the basic proposal requirements may be considered non-responsive and will not be further evaluated.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be evaluated first. Once the lowest TEP is identified, Factor 1:

Technical will be evaluated for technical acceptability. The SSET shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Failure to meet any criteria in any Sub-Factor under Factor 1 results in an offer being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety.

Each sample task will be evaluated separately. Both sample tasks will be evaluated; however, if an offeror is deemed technically unacceptable after the sample task evaluations the other technical Sub- Factors will not be evaluated unless the SSET makes the decision that it is necessary.

If the proposal is technically acceptable, Factor 2: Performance Confidence will be evaluated. If Factor 2 is evaluated as acceptable, the SSET will continue to evaluate the remaining proposals in the same manner until a second proposal is identified to be acceptable for both the technical and past performance factors in order to establish competition and price reasonableness. If during the evaluations a proposal is found to be unacceptable for either of the factors then the SSET will move on the next lowest price offeror. Once two offerors are found to be technically acceptable the lowest priced, technically acceptable proposal will be considered the LPTA proposal and the offeror will be awarded the contract provided the offeror is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.104.

Each offeror will be evaluated on an individual basis. Each offeror in the competitive range will only be compared to others based on price. Technical acceptability and past performance acceptability will not be determined using comparative techniques. The PCO will notify contractors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or from further consideration for award.

3.0 Volume I – Executive Summary

3.1 The Government shall ensure that each proposal includes everything identified in Paragraph 3.2 of Section L.

An offeror shall be ineligible for award under this solicitation, if it is determined by the Government that an unfair competitive advantage has been created in favor of the offeror as a result of unauthorized or improper reliance or usage of nonpublic information by the offeror in developing the proposal. See FAR 9.5.

4.0 Volume II Technical Proposal

4.1 Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability: The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to all portions of the RFP. The Government may make a final determination as to the offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror.

4.2 Factor I – Technical Acceptability: The SSET shall evaluate all technical proposals in the competitive range on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” Failure to meet any criteria in any Sub-Factor – in the Technical Acceptability Factor – results in an offer being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. Each sample task will be evaluated separately. The SSET will use the scoring allocations for sample tasks identified in Section L, attachments 4-5 utilizing a pre-determined set of criteria to determine technical acceptability/unacceptability of answers to the sample tasks. These criteria can be requested during a debriefing and will be utilized consistently and fairly for each offeror. The proposals shall be evaluted against the following Sub-Factors:

(a) Sample Task #1

(b) Sample Task #2

(c) Technical Approach

(d) Management Approach

Technical Acceptability/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the contractor’s capability to satisfy the Government’s PWS requirements.

4.3 Technical Acceptability Factor

Two sample tasks will be used as part of the Technical Acceptability evaluation. The sample tasks will be scored as follows:

Sample Task 1: Offeror must receive 54/72 points to be deemed technically acceptable.

Sample Task 2: Offeror must receive 75/100 points to be deemed technically acceptable.

This sample task will be evaluated by the Technical Evaluation Team. To be deemed technically acceptable, the team must reach a consensus that the offeror reached the minimum thresholds identified above. If an offeror fails to reach the minimum point threshold for acceptability on any sample task, the offeror will be deemed technically unacceptable for that task, and therefore, technically unacceptable overall.

4.3.1 Sub-Factor A: Sample Task #1 – Real Time Engine Data (RTED) Airborne Data Recorder (ADR) Flight Data

The proposal and response to this task shall clearly demonstrate that the offeror has sufficient familiarity, experience, technical expertise and competence to accurately, correctly, effectively and efficiently understand, interpret, correct, complete, and update Turbine Engine Monitoring System (TEMS)/ADR related 107s using the Aircraft Systems Information Support Tool (ASIST).

4.3.2 Sub-Factor B: Sample Task #2 – Trouble Analysis

The proposal and response to this sample task shall clearly demonstrate that the offeror has sufficient familiarity, experience, technical expertise and competence to accurately, correctly, effectively and efficiently resolve Technical Order 00-25-107 Maintenance Assistance requests.

4.3.3 Sub-Factor C: Technical Approach- Technical Objectives

4.3.3.1 Proposals will be evaluated on offeror’s demonstrated technical approach for meeting the PWS, Section 3 requirements identified below:

• Maintenance Engineering and Technical Support (PWS 3.1)

• Include a description of the offeror’s knowledge of how each system listed in PWS 3.1 is integrated into the A-10 platform, offeror’s ability to provide on-site support, offeror’s ability to use approved A-10C Mil-Std-1553B protocol and support equipment as well as standard Electrical Engineering lab equipment (multimeters, power supplies, oscilloscopes) to analyze A/C deficiencies, offeror’s ability to use troubleshooting methods outside of official AF Technical Orders, and offeror’s ability to follow Operational Safety Suitability and Effectiveness (OSS&E) policies and processes, the A-10 SPO policies, processes, A-10 Drawing Practices (document number: 08-A10DOC-001), Time Compliance Technical Order standards and regulations, and general Air Force Maintenance practices, procedures, and policies.

• Engineering Support Requests (PWS 3.1.1)

• Avionics and Mechanical Sub-System Commodity/Component Failures (PWS 3.1.2)

• Technical Data Deficiencies (PWS 3.1.3)

• AFTO 22/252 (PW 3.1.4)

• Technical Meeting Support (PWS 3.1.5)

• Design Review (PWS 3.1.6)

• Mishap/Safety Investigations (PWS 3.1.7)

4.3.4 Sub-Factor D: Management Approach – Program Management Plan (PWS Section 4.0)

4.3.4.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on offeror’s demonstrated management approach and must reflect a clear understanding of all management requirements, be capable of satisfying requirements, and be realistically achievable. The Management Sub-Factor consists of a Program Management Plan (PMP).

The offeror’s proposed PMP shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 3 criteria are met. The proposal shall be evaluated to ensure that their program management plan adequately describes their approach that outlines all processes and programs by which the offeror will effectively execute all the requirements of the PWS. The proposal shall include an organizational chart of all key employees, consultants and subcontractors that contains the appropriate level of expertise and skill mix for the successful performance of the Fault Isolation program. The proposal shall also describe outlines for travel requirements. The proposal shall clearly demonstrate that the plan is realistically achievable and how the offeror will maintain contractually required communication with the Government to include MSRs, Trip Reports, etc.

5.0 Volume III – Performance Confidence

The Government will evaluate the current and past performance of all offerors. The Performance Confidence evaluation assesses on a pass/fail basis whether the Government has confidence in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including schedule. The Government will consider the offeror-submitted information, as well as information obtained from any other sources, when evaluating the offeror past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment

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.”

5.1 Evaluation Process: The performance confidence evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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 Acceptability Factors C & D (technical approach & management approach). The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis.

In conducting the Performance Confidence evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Performance Confidence proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, that may include, but is not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) (or other databases) interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the acquisition and will be considered in the evaluation.

5.1.1 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the performance confidence information will be made to determine if it is recent. An effort is defined as recent if it was performed within the last five (5) years prior to the RFP issuance date. Current work is not excluded as long as there has been sufficient work performed on the contract to facilitate a meaningful review. More recent and more relevant perforrmance will have a greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance.

5.1.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts/projects relate to the applicable technical sub-factors. The Relevancy attribute that has been defined in the table below and Section L, Attachment 1, Past Performance Information Sheet (PPIS) and Attachment 3, Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet (if applicable) shall be utilized to determine the relevancy of a particular offeror’s (up to five (5) for prime contractors and up to three (3) for subcontractors) contracts/projects. In the event that third party performance information is obtained (e.g., from PPIRS) the Government will utilize the same relevancy definition (if relevancy is not clear, the Government may communicate with the applicable offeror to determine the contract’s/project’s relevancy). The Government will evaluate Past Performance projects identified in the PPIS, Attachment 1 of Section L and Roles and Responsibilities Worksheet on Attachment 3 of Section L.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

The offeror’s completed PPIS will be the SSET’s primary tool to consider relevancy (though additional information may be utilized). Performance confidence information that fails any relevancy conditions, as described in Section L will not be evaluated.

5.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the applicable technical acceptability subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information received from the offeror, and may consider information available from third parties. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than acceptable rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation may consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will review offeror’s response to Section L, paragraph 5.7 to evalaute offeror’s ability to isolate and resolve past issues. Adverse comments to which the offeror hasn’t previously had the opportunity to respond will be addressed via clarifications, or in discussion (if applicable). An acceptable performance confidence rating will be earned if there are either no validated ratings below satisfactory on any past performance, or, any validated ratings of marginal (or worse) past performance on a recent, relevant contract were later overcome by multiple satisfactory or better ratings on more recent similar efforts, thus allowing a reasonable expectation of successful performance on this acquisition. If adverse performance leads to an unacceptable rating from either the provided past performance or from Government sources as described in Section 5.1 then communications will be opened with the offeror to provide an opportunity to respond.

6.0 Volume IV – Price Proposal

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for the criteria of Reasonableness and Balance.

6.1 Evaluation Criteria

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

6.1.1 Reasonableness: The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

6.1.2 Balance: The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items/CLINs is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1.

6.1.3 Realism: In the event that only one offer is received, the Government may evaluate the realism of the offeror’s proposed costs if cost and pricing data is requested. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d0(1) and 2.101).

6.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): A TEP will be calculated to be used for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be the summation of all firm-fixed priced contract line items.

6.3 Proposal shall be evaluated to ensure all dollar amounts have been rounded to nearest dollar

6.4 Proposal shall be evaluated to ensure that pricing support data and estimating methodologies have been included and sufficient.

7.0 Volume V – Contract Documentation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Paragraph 7.0 of Section L (Contract Documentation).

7.1 Pre-Award Survey: The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of source selection activities. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be used in determining each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

7.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: In addition to meeting the identified factors and sub-factors, in order for offerors to be rated acceptable they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Section L and M to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award.

7.0 Volume V – Contract Documentation