Atch7_522122_SectionM_Evaluation.pdf

Teamcenter Professional Engineering Services

FA8202-16-R-1003

16 June 2016

ATTACHMENT 7

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

52.212-2 EVALUATION – COMMERCIAL ITEMS

(a) The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors shall be used to evaluate offerors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability/Risk

Subfactor A: Sample Task #1-Data Architecture and Interface Plan

Subfactor B: Sample Task #2 – Data Import and Validation Plan

Subfactor C: Sample Task #3 – Serial Number and Unit Configuration Tracking Plan

Subfactor D: Task Requirements

Subfactor E: Management Approach

Factor 2: Performance Confidence

Factor 3: Cost/Price

The factors are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical Capability/Risk) being more important, Factor 2 (Performance Confidence) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) last in importance. Within Factor 1 (Technical Capability/Risk), Subfactor A, B, C (Sample Tasks), D (Task

Requirements, and E (Management Approach) are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR

15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

(b) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award of acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

ADDENDUM to FAR 52.212-2:

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition is a competitive, best-value, trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFFARS. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of technical/technical risk, past performance history and cost/price. The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, 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 best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team 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 process.

1.2 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.

1.3 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.

1.4 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.

1.5 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).

1.6 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Government may reject (as unacceptable) any proposals that

DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the RFP.

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

1.7 Award Without 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 introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.8 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the

"correction potential" of any deficiency. 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.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the most advantageous solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. 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. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Capability/Risk

Subfactor B: Sample Task #2 – Data Import and Validation Plan

Subfactor C: Sample Task #3 – Serial Number and Unit Configuration Tracking Plan

Subfactor D: Task Requirements

Subfactor E: Management Approach

Factor 2: Performance Confidence

Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

(a) Factors are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical Capability/Risk) being more important, Factor 2 (Performance Confidence) next in importance, and Factor 3

(Cost/Price) last in importance.

(b) Within Factor 1 (Technical Capability/Risk), Subfactor A, B, C (Sample Tasks), D (Task

Requirements, and E (Management Approach) are of equal importance.

(c) IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

4.0 Factor 1: Technical Volume: The technical evaluation results in an assessment and rating of the quality and risk of the offeror’s solution for meeting the solicitation requirements.

4.1 Technical Subfactors: The following five subfactors comprise the Technical Approach factor:

Subfactor B: Sample Task #2 – Data Import and Validation Plan

Subfactor C: Sample Task #3 – Serial Number and Unit Configuration Tracking Plan

Subfactor D: Task Requirements

Subfactor E: Management Approach

Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical Volume factor.

4.2 Technical Subfactors Evaluation Methods: The evaluation of subfactors A, B, C, D, and E will be

IAW paragraph 3.1.2.1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures (1 April 2016), Methodology 1:

Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process. This provides for two distinct but related assessments: the technical rating and the technical risk rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each subfactor. The separate technical risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

4.2.1 Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

Strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies are defined as:

(a) Strength is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance (DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 5).

(b) Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

(FAR 15.001 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 5).

(c) Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level (FAR 15.001 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 5).

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for a technical approach exceeding minimum requirements.

4.3 Technical Volume Subfactors Evaluation:

4.3.1 Subfactor A: Sample Task #1 – Data Architecture and Interface Plan: Subfactor A will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2 of this document.

4.3.1.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s proposed approach detailing how the tasks identified in

Sample Task #1 will be executed and fulfilled to create a Data Architecture and Interface Plan.

4.3.1.2 Subfactor A is met when the offeror adequately describes the proposed COTS software capability with default processes to migrate data from one system to another; describes format data for loading; describes the appropriate relationships between the new and existing data; describes how to alter the Teamcenter environment; describes how to deploy the changes into Production; and describes how to validate the final solution to the task with a low or moderate risk.

4.3.1.3 The most highly rated offeror must also describe the proposed COTS software capability with exceptional solutions that show expertise in determining system to system interface requirements;

describe the use of data formatting and linking for time reduction in data loading; describe the

Teamcenter environment management tools to test and finalize database schema changes and propagate them into production; and describe the use of secondary programming tools for scripts/utilities to validate the final solution with a low risk.

4.3.2 Subfactor B: Sample Task #2 – Data Import and Validation Plan: Subfactor B will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2 of this document.

4.3.2.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s proposed approach detailing how the tasks identified in

Sample Task #2 will be executed and fulfilled to create a Data Import and Validation Plan.

4.3.2.2 Subfactor B is met when the offeror adequately defines the needed changes to the database schema with subsequent relationships; defines the process to make the appropriate changes to the

Teamcenter environment; defines the format of data to be imported; and defines and outlines the data validation process(s) with a low or moderate risk.

4.3.2.3 The most highly rated offeror must also provide an exceptional solution to define specific data exchange requirements to allow the CCB data and relationships to reside in Teamcenter; define the detailed process(s) to for making database changes to Teamcenter in a production environment; define specific ADES format requirements; and define the process(s) to overcome manual validation for complete/accurate data with a low risk.

4.3.3 Subfactor C: Sample Task #3 – Serial Number and Unit Configuration Tracking Plan:

Subfactor C will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2 of this document.

4.3.3.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s proposed approach detailing how the tasks identified in

Sample Task #3 will be executed and fulfilled to create a Serial Number and Unit Configuration

Tracking Plan.

4.3.3.2 Subfactor C is met when the offeror adequately describes the nature of the serial number tracking spreadsheet in relation to a top-level aircraft; describes the functionality needed within Teamcenter to track serialized components; describes the process(s) of getting to a serialized configuration of a product from its engineering definition; describes the order of creating and loading serialized data into

Teamcenter; describes the change impacts of TCTOs and Flight Hours on serialized configurations with a low or moderate risk.

4.3.3.3 The most highly rated offeror must also provide an exceptional solution that describes the detailed relationships of the data items in the serial number tracking spreadsheet as it pertains to the A-

10 top-level aircraft configuration; describes the needed functionality to track/maintain A-10 aircraft unit configurations and which modules/features within Teamcenter will be required; describes the detailed process(s) of creating and maintaining the unit configurations from the EBOM in specific module(s) of Teamcenter; describes the sequential data loading steps and data exchange formatting details to load the serial number tracking spreadsheet into specific Teamcenter module(s); describes the detailed impacts of a TCTO and flight hours across all components of the unit configuration with low risk.

4.3.4 Subfactor D: Task Requirements: Subfactor D will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2 of this document.

4.3.4.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s proposed approach detailing how the requirements contained in each PWS subparagraph listed in Section L, paragraph 4.3.4.1 will be executed.

4.3.4.2 Subfactor D is met when the approach illustrates adequate solutions to the requirements contained in each PWS subparagraph listed in Section L, paragraph 4.3.4.1 with a low or moderate risk.

4.3.4.3 The most highly rated offeror will illustrate exceptional solutions that exceed the requirements contained in each PWS subparagraph listed in Section L, paragraph 4.3.4.1 while also providing convincing rationale that the support will benefit the A-10 SPO’s Teamcenter PLM data management and to what degree.

4.3.4.4 Risk will be evaluated based on the Government-assessed ability to accomplish the proposed approach.

4.3.5 Subfactor E: Management Approach: Subfactor E will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2 of this document.

4.3.5.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s proposed approach detailing how the requirements contained in each PWS subparagraph listed in Section L, paragraph 4.3.2.1 - 4.3.2.7 will be executed and fulfilled.

4.3.5.2 Subfactor E is met when the offeror’s proposal illustrates an adequate approach that meet the requirements contained in each PWS subparagraph listed in Section L, paragraph 4.3.2.1 - 4.3.2.7 with a low or moderate risk.

4.3.5.3 The most highly rated offeror will illustrate an exceptional approach that exceed requirements contained in each PWS subparagraph listed in Section L, paragraph 4.3.2.1 - 4.3.2.7.

4.3.5.4 Risk will be evaluated based on the Government-assessed ability to accomplish the proposed approach.

4.4 Technical Subfactors Rating

4.4.1 Quality Rating: Subfactors A, B, C, D and E will receive one of the color ratings described in

DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the subfactors’ requirements.

Table 2A. Technical Rating Method

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

4.4.2 Risk Rating: Subfactors A, B, C, D and E will receive one of the technical risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. The Government will not be bound by the offeror’s proposed acceptable level of risk mitigation or proposed risk rating determination and the Government will make the final determination of the technical risk rating assigned in the evaluation.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

5.0 Factor 2: Past Performance: The past performance evaluation results in an assessment and rating of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

5.1 Past Performance Evaluation Methods: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The past performance evaluation will consist of an assessment of recency, relevancy, and quality as outlined below. 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

5.2 Past Performance Evaluation

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

5.2.2 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 relate to this solicitation’s requirements. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance (including joint venture partners and major subcontractors) will be made using the relevancy definitions described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Past Performance

Relevancy Rating, excerpted below. 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.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

5.2.3 Quality Assessment: The Government will evaluate the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts).

5.2.3.1 Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns and the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business

Concerns, as applicable.

5.2.3.2 A quality determination will be made using the quality assessment rating descriptions in the table below. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating or any unfavorable comment received from other sources. 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. Quality assessment changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

Quality Assessment Rating Description

EXCEPTIONAL During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P123_5649 file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b522198

MARGINAL 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.

UNSATISFACTORY During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

5.3 Past Performance Rating: The past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance

Confidence Assessments, excerpted below. Performance confidence is rated at the overall past performance factor level as a result of the assessments of the offeror’s past performance recency, relevancy, and quality

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

Neutral Confidence 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 offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

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 basic requirements (basic award) and all options. In order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17, the Government will evaluate the Option to Extend Services under

FAR Clause 52.217-8 as part of the total price. Offerors are required to price the base and option

CLINs, including the CLIN for the potential six-month extension of services period. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

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 award purposes only and will not be incorporated into the contract at award. The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be computed as the sum of all CLINs, including the six-month extension of services. The TEP inputs for CLINs X001 – X005 will be calculated by applying the proposed unit price to one of the quantities within each CLIN.

6.2 Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s cost/price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to not award to those proposals deemed unaffordable.