3- C-LGIP Section M 20201001.pdf

FA820320R0007

1 October 2020

C-LGIP Section M

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M Content:

1 Source selection 2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 3 Volume I – Contract Documentation 4 Volume II – Technical 5 Volume III – Past Performance 6 Volume IV – Price Proposal 7 Pre-award Survey 8 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 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 https://www.acquisition.gov). Failure to meet a requirement of this solicitation may result in an offer being determined Unawardable 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.

1.2 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. Each offeror who is awarded a C-LGIP IDIQ contract will receive a task order for $1,000.00, the minimum guarantee, to provide a Contractor Management Plan (CMP) in accordance with CDRL A015, due within 15 calendar days of task order award. The Government has no obligation beyond the minimum guarantee to any awardee of a C-LGIP IDIQ contract. The Air Force reserves the right to award some, one, or no contracts as a result of the Request for Proposal (RFP) if it is in the best interest of the Government. If the Air Force determines not to award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

1.3 Unawardable Offers

The Air Force may determine a proposal Unawardable that, as a result of its evaluation, receives an Unacceptable or No Confidence rating in the evaluation factors or subfactors identified in this document. Likewise, the Air Force may determine a proposal Unawardable that fails (see Section M para. 3 and 6.1) to demonstrate comprehension of the complexity and risks of the program, including contract terms and conditions. Once a proposal is deemed Unawardable, the proposal will not be evaluated further.

C-LGIP Section M

1.4 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. However, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 Factors and Subfactors

For award purposes, offers will be evaluated based on the following factors and subfactors, listed in descending order of importance. Award of C-LGIP IDIQ contracts will be made to the offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Capabilities Subfactor 2: B-52 C-LGIP Task - Combined Technical/Technical Risk

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors for award of basic multiple award IDIQ contract

The relative importance of each factor 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 (TEP) is last in 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.

2.3 Relative Importance of Factors for award of the B-52 C-LGIP task order

Offerors are reminded that an offeror’s B-52 C-LGIP SOW and B-52 Pricing Schedule constitute a response upon which the Air Force may unilaterally issue, without further discussion, a single Task Order. For the purposes of awarding the B-52 C-LGIP 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 (TEP) is last in 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.

3 VOLUME I – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This Volume will be reviewed for completeness and evaluated in a pass/fail type evaluation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L, para’s 4.1 - 4.3. A proposal that fails an evaluation IAW this paragraph may be determined Unawardable.

4 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

Factor 1, Technical, will receive the same overall rating as the rating given to Subfactor 2 (see 4.2) unless Subfactor 1 (see 4.1) receives an Unacceptable rating, in which case the overall rating for Factor 1 will also be Unacceptable.

C-LGIP Section M

4.1 Technical, Subfactor 1 – Technical Capabilities

This subfactor assesses if the Offeror’s Technical Capabilities (limit 30 pages) address:

4.1.1 How the Offeror has (or can obtain), and how they will maintain, management and engineering staff with:

a) qualifications and experience (PWS para. 14.0 and Tables 2, 3 and 4)

b) consistent with what the Air Force requires (PWS para. 14.0 and Tables 2, 3 and 4)

c) among the six landing gear categories (PWS para. 14.2).

4.1.2 Teaming arrangements, if applicable (will not count against page limitation).

4.1.2.1 Teaming Arrangements clearly identify:

a) The scope of the arrangement

b) The type of work to be performed by each party

c) The management plan for coordinating work between each party

e) The conflict resolution plan

f) Other important aspects of the relationship

4.1.2.2 The Government reserves the right to reject any Teaming Arrangement(s) that, in the Government’s opinion, would limit the Government’s ability to pursue its policies on competitive contracting and subcontracting.

4.1.3 Succession Management Plan includes details on how turnover, succession, and training of staff will be handled to meet the qualification and experience requirements for the entire 20-year period of performance.

4.1.4 The Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates their commitment to Small Business Participation and to meeting the Government’s Small Business subcontracting goals as defined in the PWS (para. 11.3). This commitment is supported by:

a) The extent to which Small Business firms are specifically identified in the proposal

b) The extent of commitment to use such firms

4.1.5 Quality Control Plan, in accordance with PWS para. 13.2, addresses how quality will be managed over the entire 20-year period of performance. The Quality Control Plan shall include a detailed and comprehensive approach to meeting the performance thresholds given in the Services Summary table (PWS Appendix, Table 1).

4.1.6 The identification and mitigation of program risks to cost, schedule and/or performance, and any applicable quality standards that will be utilized (e.g. ISO 9001-2000 or equivalent).

Rating for Subfactor 1 will be IAW Table M1:

TABLE M1 – TECHNICAL RATING

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

C-LGIP Section M

4.2 Technical, Subfactor 2 – B-52 C-LGIP Task

This subfactor will be used to assess the Offeror’s Statement of Work (limit 40 pages) submitted in response to the Statement of Objectives for the B-52 C-LGIP Task accompanying the RFP.

This Subfactor will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed SOW demonstrates:

4.2.1 Proposed Solution and Deliverables: Solutions are clearly explained, the relationship to each of the SOO’s objectives is detailed (to include who will perform each aspect of the solution), and all task order deliverables are clearly identified.

4.2.2 Key Personnel: The Key Personnel, and any other applicable labor categories that will be utilized for this task, are identified and details provided for how they will be used to meet objectives, deliverables, and schedule.

4.2.3 Government Rights in Data: For any proposed limitations (if any) on technical data deliverables, and/or rights in technical data, in the Offeror’s proposal (e.g. Restricted Rights, Limited Rights, Specifically Negotiated License Rights) the Offeror clearly explains the extent to which, even with these limitations in place, the Government will be able to: 1) maintain full and open competition on future contracting actions and 2) allow the Government to independently perform tasks associated with the Comprehensive Landing Gear Integrity Program, even after the C-LGIP contract period is complete.

4.2.4 Risk Analysis and Mitigation: Obstacles the program is likely to encounter are identified, along with their impact on the program and what can be done to avoid them or recover from them. The Offeror’s proposal explains the:

a) Probability that elements of the proposed approach will not occur as planned

b) Anticipated impact on the order’s problem, objectives, and deliverables, and

c) Proposed risk mitigations for cost, schedule, and performance.

4.2.5 Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The WBS describes the necessary elements of the proposed solution in relation to the objectives and deliverables, and indicates who will perform each element of the WBS. The IMS shows its relationship to the WBS elements, and clearly indicates the critical path and deliverables for the duration of the task.

Rating for Subfactor 2 will be IAW Table M2:

TABLE M2 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/TECHNICAL RISK RATING

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

C-LGIP Section M

Risk ratings definitions, as used in Table M2, will be IAW the descriptions below:

5 VOLUME III – PAST PERFORMANCE

5.1 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected to rate the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Rating for Factor 2 will be IAW Table M3:

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

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.

TABLE M3 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS RATING

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.

C-LGIP Section M

5.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers the 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 Section M para. 2. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Air Force has in the 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.

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 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.

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 the Technical scope/requirements. 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 1 – C-LGIP Project Submissions.xlsx) to determine the project’s relevancy. A relevant contract is similar in size, scope, and complexity to C-LGIP task orders. C-LGIP’s task order scope includes experience in the six functional categories listed in Section L para. 5.0.1.

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 determined to the maximum extent practicable. The Government will use Table M4 when assessing recent contracts for relevancy:

TABLE M4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING

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.

C-LGIP Section M

5.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy 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 a "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 efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "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 “Neutral Confidence”) to which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to previously respond (FAR 15.306(b)(1)) will be communicated to the Offeror. A rating of “Neutral Confidence”, as described, will not be considered adverse past performance.

6 VOLUME IV – PRICE PROPOSAL

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated IAW paragraphs 6.1 and 6.2 below.

6.1 Cost/Price

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in a pass/fail type evaluation. (Example: If the Government were to evaluate for Balance, and the Price Proposal were determined to be Unbalanced, the Offeror’s proposal may be determined Unawardable.) A Price Proposal that fails an evaluation under 6.1 may not be evaluated further.

6.1.1 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 (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

6.1.2 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

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

C-LGIP Section M 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.

6.1.3 Price Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of the Offeror’s proposed Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) 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 the Offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical Subfactors. 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.

6.1.4 In accordance with 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. Unburdened labor rates, fringe, and overall benefits will be reviewed to confirm they are commensurate with industry standards for personnel with the required qualifications. Lower 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.

6.2 Factor 3 – Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

6.2.1 The TEP will be calculated for award purposes only and will not be contractually binding;

however, the proposed Burdened Hourly Rates will be contractually binding as not-to-exceed (NTE) rates for future orders. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

a) Multiplying Government-generated notional hours (Government-generated notional hours will not be disclosed outside of the Government) against each offeror’s proposed not-to-exceed (NTE) Burdened Hourly Rates for all ordering periods, and

b) Adding the total proposed price from the B-52 C-LGIP Pricing Schedule (see 6.2.2).

6.2.2 The CRNF Travel CLIN will be normalized at zero dollars for all offerors for the purpose of calculating TEP. (The Government will verify that all associated costs are reasonable at the time of task order award and billed in accordance with FAR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred.)

6.3 Accounting System Approval

Since some Cost Reimbursable CLINs are being considered, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror’s accounting system is adequate. If accounting system approval

C-LGIP Section M is not present at the time of proposal, award may be, at the Government’s discretion, contingent upon positive resolution of a pre-award survey of the Offeror’s accounting system.

6.4 Incomplete submission

A price proposal with a no-bid, or omitted, rate may be considered an incomplete price submission and determined to be Unawardable.

7 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

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

8 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In addition to meeting the identified factors and subfactors, in order for offerors to be considered awardable, they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Sections 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 determined Unawardable and removed from consideration for award.