ATLAS_3-Section_M.pdf

ATLAS 3

SECTION M’S - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

(a) Basis for Contract Award: This is a competitive multiple award best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)—Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) (refer http://farsite.hill.af.mil). Failure to meet a requirement (i.e. submission of a non-conforming proposal) may result in an offer being determined unacceptable and excluded from further consideration.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale, but it is noted that providing an exception list and rationale may still result in a submission being deemed non-conforming. The AF will evaluate and select offer(s)—from concern(s) determined responsible (FAR – Part 9)—based upon an integrated assessment of the Proposals. A best value basis means price and non-price factors will be considered (utilizing a tradeoff source selection process) in light of the Air Force’s perception of its best value and it may make award to other than the lowest priced or most highly-rated proposal.

(b) Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Air Force anticipates a minimum of two (2) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity awards as a result of this Solicitation, and will strongly consider more. The Air Force reserves the right to award no contracts as a result of the RFP if it is in the best interest of the government.

(c) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers: The Air Force may reject any proposal that, as a result of its evaluation, is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions,such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

(d) Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

(a) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) For award purposes, offers will be evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors, listed in descending order of importance. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Sub-factor 1: Technical Capabilities Sub-factor 2: KC-135 MLG Upper Side Brace Redesign Task

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors for award of basic multiple award IDIQ contract: The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1 (Experience/Relationships) and Subfactor 2 (KC-135 MLG Upper Side Brace Redesign Task) are approximately equal in relative importance. However, in the event that adverse past performance information (supporting a rating below “Satisfactory Confidence”) comes to light and an Offeror’s response (previously or subsequently) doesn’t alleviate the concern, the offeror may be excluded from further consideration based solely on a Limited or No Confidence past performance evaluation.

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

(3) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors for award of the KC-135 task order: Offerors are reminded that an offeror’s KC-135 MLG Upper Side Brace Redesign SOW and Task Order Pricing Schedule constitute a response upon which the Air Force may unilaterally issue, without further discussion, a Task Order. For the purposes of awarding the KC-135 task order, Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance.

(b) Factor 1 – Technical: The technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. The Technical Rating will be assessed for Technical sub-factor 1. The Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating will both be assessed for Technical sub-factor 2, and have equal impact.

(c) Sub-factor 1 – Technical Capabilities: This sub-factor assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s Technical Capabilities (limit 25 pages) address: (1) the requirements identified in ATLAS’s Performance Work Statement (PWS) Para 3.2, and Tables 1 and 2, identifying the Offeror’s proposed staff to accomplish the work identified in PWS Paragraphs 1.1. and 1.2; and teaming arrangements to achieve ATLAS’s objectives.

(1) The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate:

(i) That the Offeror has, or can obtain, management and engineering staff with the (i) qualifications and experience (PWS, Para. 3.2. & Tables 1 and 2.), (ii) at a level consistent with that required (PWS, Para 3.2.7) by the Air Force, (iii) among the six landing gear functional category (PWS, Para. 1.1.) disciplines.

(2) Technical Rating for this subfactor will be in accordance with Table M1.

TABLE M1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable 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.

(d) Subfactor 2 – KC-135 MLG Upper Side Brace Redesign Task: This sub-factor will assess an Offeror’s Statement of Work (limit 25 pages) submitted in response to the RFP’s Statement of Objectives, Section J attachment, contemplating the KC-135 MLG Upper Side Brace Redesign Project.

(1) The Offeror’s proposed SOW must demonstrate:

(i) Proposed solution: Explain solution and its relationship to the overarching problem and the SOO’s objectives.

(ii) Deliverables: Clearly identify what will be delivered as part of the task order.

(iii) Implementation approach: While a full implementation plan is beyond the scope of the SOW, some explanation of why the proposed solution is believed to be executable and implementable must be provided.

This discussion must consider the challenges the customer (which, in most cases, will be 417 SCMS) faces with respect to: systems engineering and OSS&E responsibility, “color of money” restrictions, asset availability, aircraft accessibility, etc. Key questions to answer: 1) Can the project execute successfully? 2) After the project is complete, can the USAF then successfully use the project deliverables to gain the benefit sought or resolve the problem described by the SOO?

(iv) Key resources utilized (subcontractors, personnel, et al.): Explain utilization of key resources and relate to the problem, objectives, deliverables, and schedule.

(v) Risk: Focus on (1) the probability that elements of the proposed solution will not occur as planned (2) the anticipated impact on the order’s problem, objectives, and deliverables, and (3) the proposed risk mitigations for cost, schedule and performance. Key question to answer: If the task order does not go as planned, what will be done to get back on track?

(vi) Integrated Master Schedule (identifying critical paths): Explain solution’s time-frame and relate the schedule to the problem, objectives, and deliverables; emphasize critical tasks, paths and key moments.

(2) Technical Rating. The offeror’s technical solution for subfactor 2 will be rated separately from the risk associated with the technical approach. The Technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Technical evaluations shall utilize the rating listed in Table M2.

TABLE M2—Technical Rating

Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

(3) Technical Risk Rating: Proposal Risk will be evaluated for Technical subfactor 2. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical subfactor 2 will receive risk ratings excerpted in Table M3 below. They focus on the risks of the offeror’s proposed technical approach to subfactor 2. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation, if any is proposed and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE M3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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 weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

(e) Factor 2 – Past Performance: The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments excerpted (Table M4) below.

(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 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 subfactors taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002(a). The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Air Force has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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 Contract 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.

(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 completed within the past five years (5) 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 how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical (reference M002a). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevancy of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the projects submitted by an offeror (Section L, Attachment - One, Project Submissions) to determine the project’s relevancy. A relevant contract is similar in size, scope, and complexity to ATLAS task orders. ATLAS’s task order scope includes measurable improvements in safety, capability, performance, and cost reductions in six functional categories (Landing Gear Structures, Rolling Stock, Antiskid, Materials, Processes, and Business/Data). Note that the relevance of a particular offeror’s project is expected to be self-evident. Relevancy of CPARS reports, or data independently obtained by the evaluators will be

TABLE M4 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

determined to the maximum extent practicable. The Government will use the following relevancy ratings and definitions when assessing recent contracts:

The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

(3) Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Note that adverse past performance information (supporting a rating below “Satisfactory Confidence”) to which an offeror has not had an opportunity to previously respond (FAR 15.306(b)(1)) may be communicated to the offeror. A rating of “Neutral Confidence”, as described, will not be considered adverse past performance.

(f) Factor 3 – Price

(1) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the Labor Hour Rates (LHR) submitted by labor categories for the ATLAS 3 ordering period and KC-135 task order price schedule.

(2) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in

FAR 15.404.

(i) Balance: Price analysis techniques and evaluation of the information in the Cost/Price Volume will be used to determine if the prices for the proposed effort are balanced or unbalanced.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total solicitation effort price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line items are significantly over or under-stated. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and result in a higher proposal risk rating or the offer may be rejected if the Air Force determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to it (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

TABLE M5 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

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.

(ii) Price Reasonableness: Price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. 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 Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). In general, price reasonableness is an assessment of whether or not the price is too high. Unreasonably high pricing may give the government cause to eliminate a proposal from consideration.

(iii) Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs. 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(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical sub factors.

Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. If the Government feels the offeror’s probable cost differs from its proposed cost the Government reserves the right to utilize the probable cost for purposes of best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost type rates will be identical to the fixed price type rates in the Labor Rate Matrices. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government feels it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

(iv) Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: In accordance with Section L FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements and allows the offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Base labor rates, fringe, and overall benefits will be evaluated and compared against current standards. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal.

(3) The Government will compute a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror. The Government will compute a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror. It will be the sum of the CLINs of the KC-135 MLG Upper Side Brace Redesign pricing and the hourly rates that will be used to price all other task orders under the anticipated contract. Though the government does not guarantee any specific number of task orders will be accomplished under the subject contract, it is estimated for the purpose of this evaluation that there will be 6 task orders per year. The government is using an estimate of 20,000 notional hours per estimated task order to include in the TEP calculation. Since the proposed rates cover different calendar years, the government will take an average of the proposed rates for each labor category. The average will include all the proposed rates for all the years with the highest and lowest rate for all the proposed years removed. The result will be an average rate that will be applied to 600,000 total notional hours. The notional hours have been pre-determined and were derived from an average workloading percentage for each category based on historical orders. . The calculation of the average rates multipled by the notional hours, added to the proposed price of the KC-135 task will generate the TEP. The notional hour allocations across the labor categories will not be disclosed to the offerors.

The TEP is for evaluation purposes only and is not contractually binding, but the amounts proposed for the KC-135 task CLINs and the submitted hourly rates are contractually binding. The offeror shall provide an hourly rate for all labor categories listed on the Labor Hour Pricing Worksheet of the RFP.

Again, the offeror must ensure that all hourly rates entered are for the applicable period of performance for each labor category and skill level listed in the TEP worksheet. The fixed price hourly rates are fully burdened maximum hourly rates for each labor category/skill level identified for the period of performance identified (all possible costs, overhead, G&A, profit, et cetera) & the cost rates are unburdened rates. The awarded rates will be maximum rates and the contractors may not exceed the rates in proposing any task order issued hereunder. However, contractors may reduce the rates on proposals for individual task orders issued. Offerors must propose a single composite maximum rate for each labor category skill level regardless of the labor source for prime and/or team members. Again, these rates will be contractually-binding throughout the life of the contract as they are applicable to the appropriate period and shall not be exceeded. A “no bid” or omitted rate will result in an unacceptable proposal evaluation.