KC-135_CCR_Section_M.pdf

II. Evaluation Criteria for Award (Section M)

Modified Delphi Criteria will be used to evaluate each proposal as laid out in the Modified Delphi Spreadsheet. Both category weighting (for Technical, Past Performance, and Price) and individual criterion weighting are set forth in the attached Modified Delphi Spreadsheet according to the priorities of the Government program office.

After proposal receipt, individual criterion scoring for each proposal will be accomplished in accordance with the ratings provided in the sections below. Such individual criterion scores will then be multiplied by the applicable individual criterion weightings and then added together to obtain a total criteria score for the category. This total criteria score is then converted to a percentage of the maximum possible criteria score, and then multiplied by the category weighting to obtain the overall category score.

The three overall category scores are then summed to obtain a total Modified Delphi score which will be used to make the award decision as set forth in the attached Modified Delphi Spreadsheet.

Award will be made to the offeror with the highest Modified Delphi score at an affordable & reasonable price. In the event the highest Modified Delphi score offeror is not affordable & reasonable, then a best-value award will be made to the next highest Modified Delphi score offeror at an affordable & reasonable price.

1. Modified Delphi Criteria will be used to evaluate the offerors' proposals. The SOW, Technical Approach, Key Resources, and Integrated Master Schedule will be evaluated and assigned a score utilizing the methods in paragraph (a). Risk will be evaluated and assigned a risk score utilizing the schedule in paragraph (b). Past performance scoring will be in accordance with paragraph (c). Price will be evaluated and receive a score consistent with paragraph (d).

a. The Contractor's SOW, Technical Approach, Key Resources, and Integrated

Master Schedule will be rated utilizing the following schedule:

0 (Unacceptable) = Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable. The proposal contains weaknesses that would be detrimental to the Government; this score shall also be used if any consideration in the element is deficient such that the element would be adversely effected beyond any significant benefit that might be received by the other considerations in the element.

1 (Marginal) = Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains one or more weaknesses that would be detrimental to the Government, regardless of any consideration in the element which may exceed the objectives in a manner that could be beneficial to the Government.

2 (Acceptable) = Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. All considerations in the element meet the objectives, or can meet the objectives accompanied with government oversight and/or proper risk mitigation.

3 (Good) = Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength. The preponderance of considerations in the element exceed the objectives in a manner that would be beneficial to the Government, while no considerations in the element exhibit significant weaknesses that would be detrimental to the government.

4 (Outstanding) = Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths. The preponderance of considerations in the element exceed the objectives in a manner that would be beneficial to the Government, while no considerations in the element exhibit any weaknesses.

b. The Risk Score represents the evaluator's rating of the SOW and Technical

Approach to successfully complete the task in the areas of cost, schedule, or performance. Issues due to: (A) unmitigated or unaddressed risk elements; or

(B) unmitigated or unaddressed foreseeable risk (should have been addressed but wasn't); and the impact on objectives will also be considered. Risk will be rated utilizing the following schedule:

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

1 (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.

2 (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.

3 (Low) = Proposal contains 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.

c. Past performance will be scored by considering the quality, recency, and relevancy of the past performance contracts. The Government may seek past performance information based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources (note that contracts that do not satisfy the recency requirement outlined in this RFP will not be considered).

Contracts will be evaluated as a composite of a vendor's performance on the contracts considered and the relevancy of each contract/negotiated agreement/task, as outlined in this Section. The offeror’s consistency of performance & relevancy will also be weighted.

Scoring for contract relevancy will be rated utilizing the following schedule:

0 (Not Relevant) – Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

1 (Somewhat Relevant) – Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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

Scoring for contract performance will be rated utilizing the following schedule:

0 (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. Performance 1) did not meet contract requirements and critical aspects of the program suffered or 2) past/present performance efforts did not involve the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, consideration for integrated life cycle management (ILCM) requirements, and qualification requirements that this solicitation requires.

1 (Limited Confidence) – Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Performance 1) met some contract requirements; critical deliverables were provided but aspects of the program suffered or 2) past/present performance efforts involved only some of the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, consideration for ILCM requirements, or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires.

2 (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.

3 (Satisfactory Confidence) – Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Performance 1) met all contract requirements; program execution was successful or 2) past/present performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, consideration for ILCM requirements, or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires.

4 (Substantial Confidence) – Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Performance 1) generally met all contract requirements, but certain elements of the contractor’s performance exceeded contract requirements in a manner that was beneficial to the Government or 2) past/present performance efforts involved much of the magnitude of effort, complexities, scope, implementation requirements, consideration for ILCM requirements, or qualification requirements that this solicitation requires. The past/present effort has also implemented begun implementation, or has been properly positioned for implementation onto the airframe or resulted in mitigation of technical or logistical risk for the weapon system. The effort also addressed landing-gear needs that are applicable to USAF landing gear or resulted in demonstrated cost avoidances.

d. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculations:

i. CLIN’s:

1. The TEP Calculation will consist of pre-chosen Firm Fixed

Price (FFP) CLINs and Cost Reimbursable No-Fee (CR) CLINs, determined prior to the receipt of proposals. The TEP will be used to evaluate the best value to the Government.

2. No adjustments will be made to the proposed hours

ii. TEP Points Calculation

1. The offeror with the lowest price will receive a maximum score of five, and the other (higher priced) offeror will receive a score proportional to the price difference between its offer and the low price offer. Specifically, the score for the high price offeror will be calculated by:

• Score = 5 x (low price/high price)