RFP_Attachment_2-Section_M_A10_TO_Support.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2

SECTION M

Revision 1, 12 September 2016

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

REVISION RECORD

PWS Section Pages Revision

4.1 3 1

4.2 3-4 1

4.3 4 1

4.4 5 1

6.1.3 7 1

1.0 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 the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated cost/price, which is deemed responsible. 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 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

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 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.

1.3 Pre-Award Survey

The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the

PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.0 DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, if 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

2.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any unacceptable offer. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1 – Job Guide (JG) (Technical Sample Task 1)

Subfactor 2 – Flight Manual Checklist (Technical Sample Task 2)

Subfactor 3 – Digital Weapons Checklist (Technical Sample Task 3)

Subfactor 4 – Technical Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

4.0 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

The technical evaluation results in acceptable or unacceptable rating for each technical subfactor.

Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the technical factor. The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate subfactors 1-4 on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, as described in Table 1 below. An unacceptable rating on any technical subfactor will render the entire proposal unacceptable, and therefore, unawardable.

Table 1 - 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.

4.1 Subfactor 1 – Job Guide (JG) (Technical Sample Task 1)

The offeror shall demonstrate their familiarity with technical manual standards and specifications. The offeror shall demonstrate their capabilities in producing Air Force technical orders IAW Performance

Work Statement (PWS) section 3.0. The offeror’s response to this sample task should clearly demonstrate understanding of specifications identified in PWS section 2.0. Specifically, the offeror shall demonstrate the following capabilities:

Accuracy in converting the Job Guide in SGML format IAW MIL-DTL-83495D to include front matter data and not containing any grammatical errors

Graphics were converted to Vectorized CGM (i.e. line art graphic format)

Hyperlink Index Portable Document Format (IPDF) capabilities IAW PWS paragraph 3.10.4 and

Technical Order Conversion Requirements (TOCR)

Accuracy, functionality, and formatting of the IPDF IAW MIL-DTL-83495D

The following sample task support files (to include but not limited to the following) will be sent separately on DVD, at the request of offerors:

MIL-DTL-83495D

MIL-STD-38784A

38784STD-BV8a_scripts (zipped file)

83495C1CV9D0P1.dtd

83495C1CV9D0P1.dtd (modified)

83495C1CV9D0P1.fosi

83495C1CV9D0P1_Release_Notes

83495C1CV9D0P1_TDT

Isoentities (zipped file)

Readme file

4.2 Subfactor 2 – Flight Manual Checklist (Technical Sample Task 2)

The offeror shall demonstrate their familiarity with technical manual standards and specifications. The offeror shall demonstrate their capabilities in producing Air Force technical orders IAW Performance

Work Statement (PWS) section 3.0. The offeror’s response to this sample task should clearly demonstrate understanding of specifications identified in PWS section 2.0. Specifically, the offeror shall demonstrate the following capabilities:

Accuracy in converting the Flight Manual Checklist in SGML format IAW MIL-DTL-7700H to include front matter data and not containing any significant grammatical errors (significant means that the error changes the meaning of the sentence or step)

Resulting IPDF shall look similar to the checklist provided in the sample task

Offerors will not be evaluated on exact dimensions or parameters that are not specified by

MIL-DTL-7700H

Hyperlink IPDF functionality IAW PWS paragraph 3.10.4, TOCR, and Flight Manual

Hyperlinking Requirements (PDF)

MIL-DTL-7700H

MIL-STD-38784A

7700H-CV9D0P0.dtd

7700H-CV9D0P0.dtd (modified)

7700H-CV9D0P0.fosi

7700H-CV9D0P0_releasenotes

7700H-CV9D0P0_scripts (zipped file)

7700H-CV9D0P0_TDT

7700H-CV9D0P05x9.fosi

7700H-CV9D0P05x11.fosi

38784STD-BV8a_scripts (zipped file)

Isoentities (zipped file)

Flight Manual Hyperlinking Requirements (PDF)

4.3 Subfactor 3 – Digital Weapons Checklist (Technical Sample Task 3)

The offeror shall demonstrate their familiarity with technical manual standards and specifications. The offeror shall demonstrate their capabilities in producing Air Force technical orders IAW Performance

Work Statement (PWS) section 3.0. The offeror’s response to this sample task should clearly demonstrate understanding of specifications identified in PWS section 2.0. Specifically, the offeror shall demonstrate the following capabilities:

Accuracy in converting the Digital Weapons Checklist in SGML format IAW MIL-DTL-9977M to include front matter data, correct functionality, and not containing any significant grammatical errors (significant means that the error changes the meaning of the sentence or step)

Resulting IPDF shall look similar to the checklist provided in the sample task

Offerors will not be evaluated on exact dimensions or parameters that are not specified by

MIL-DTL-9977M

Hyperlink IPDF capabilities IAW PWS paragraph 3.10.4, TOCR, and Digital Weapons Checklist

Requirements (PDF)

MIL-DTL-9977M

MIL-STD-38784A

MIL-DTL-5096G

9977L-GV9D0P0.dtd

9977L-GV9D0P0.dtd (modified)

9977L-GV9D0P0.fosi

9977L-GV9D0P0_releasenotes

9977L-GV9D0P0_scripts (zipped files)

9977L-GV9D0P0_TDT

38784STD-BV8a_scripts (zipped files)

Isoentities (zipped file)

Digital Weapons Checklist Requirements (PDF)

4.4 Subfactor 4 - MIL-STD-1808/S1000D Conversion, Migration, Sustainment, and Data

Management

Proposals will be evaluated on the offeror’s technical approach, which shall exhibit the following:

Demonstrates capability to provide ongoing sustainment, concurrently with, but separate from, any migration/conversion process

Process for migration and conversion of legacy data to S1000D using the most current MIL-

STD-3048, with limited government personnel involvement during migration, conversion, and validation

Offeror’s validation process to ensure migration/conversion accuracy

Proposed notional timeline for phased deliveries contained within the PWS (Section 4.5)

Implementation of MIL-STD-3048/Business Rules application

Process for creation of S1000D style sheets needed for printing

Provide appropriately tailored notional Technical Manual Change Requirement (TMCR/TM-86-

01P) for S1000D migration and conversion

The following subfactor support files (to include but not limited to the following) will be sent separately on DVD, at the request of offerors:

MIL-STD-1808C

MIL-DTL-87268D

MIL-HDBK-863A

5.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

The past performance evaluation results in an acceptable or unacceptable rating for Factor 2 – Past

Performance, as described in Table 2 below. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of acceptable to be eligible for award.

5.1 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

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.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm 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.

5.1.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the Past Performance Information (PPI) 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 five (5) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. PPI that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

5.1.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent PPI obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to this acquisition. At least one PPI sheet should include contract performance of S1000D migration/conversion and/or military specification legacy data transition to MIL-STD 1808. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

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.

5.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The Government will use the following quality assessment definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Satisfactory: During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory: 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.

5.1.4 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.

6.0 FACTOR 3 – COST/PRICE

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for all tasks outlined in the basic requirement.

6.1 Cost/Price Evaluation

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the cost/price factor will be price reasonableness, balance, and

Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

6.1.1 Reasonableness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR

15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. The reasonableness evaluation will be performed for all CLINs.

6.1.2 Balance

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items IAW FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government. The balance evaluation will be performed for all CLINs.

6.1.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be computed and provided to the SSA for evaluation and award purposes only and will not be incorporated into the contract at award. The TEP will be computed by adding extended prices in

Attachment 11, Pricing Worksheet together. The Government will develop a notional schedule for MIL-

STD-1808/S1000D conversion prior to receiving proposals. This notional schedule will not be provided to offerors. The TEP will be computed by adding the extended prices for the notional schedule only.

For example, only the extended price for CLIN 0006 or 0007 will be incorporated into the TEP, but not both; and accordingly, based on which CLIN is selected out of 0006 or 0007, the Government will apply the appropriate post MIL-STD-1808/S1000D conversion extended prices for CY 2019, CY 2020, and

CY 2021 to the TEP. Task Order #1 pricing will not be included in the TEP computation.