ATT_2_RVA_CLS_Section_M.pdf

Attachment 2

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

REMOTE VISUAL ASSESSMENT CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1. This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for solutions that exceed required minimum thresholds. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, who is deemed technically capable in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. While the Government 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 select one contractor for the Remote Visual Assessment

(RVA) Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) program. However, the government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the government’s best interest.

1.3 Major Proposal Revisions:

If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The government will evaluate the factors and subfactors described below. The government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical Proposal

Subfactor One: Software Updates Subfactor Two: Transition Strategy Subfactor Three: Plan to Meet Performance Requirements Subfactor Four: RVA Operation Center Transition Subfactor Five: RVA Display Feed to Wing Command Post (Awardable Task)

DRAFT

Subfactor Six: RVA Display Feed into TF214 / Head Quarters (HQ) 20 AF Tactical Operations Center (Awardable Task)

Subfactor Seven: Information Security / Information Assurance Subfactor Eight: RVA Technical Areas

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1.1. An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as defined in Section 2.2 below.

2.1.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

2.1.2.1. If the lowest priced offeror is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance and meets all the other requirements of this solicitation, an award will be made to that offeror.

2.1.2.2. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.2.2.1. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.2.2.2. Set a competitive range that may include all of the offerors up to and including the first acceptable offeror; or

2.1.2.2.3. Continue evaluating additional offerors

2.1.2.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.1.2.4. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

2.2. Factor One - Price

2.2.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness (3) balance, (4) realism (on selected portions, see next page) and (5) Total Evaluated Price.

2.2.2. Completeness: The government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.2.3. Price Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 – Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. The proposed prices and all labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.2.4. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

2.2.5. Realism: Realism will only be evaluated on the cost-type CLINs, with the exception of the Cost-Reimbursable-No-Fee (CRNF) CLINs which will be evaluated at the time costs are incurred. The government will evaluate 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 an offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the government may consider the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable technical subfactors to be a leading cause of an unrealistic offer. 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).

2.2.6. Basis of Estimate (BOE): The offeror’s basis of estimate will be evaluated for reasonableness, realism, and balance as defined above. If any element of the offeror’s BOE is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable, or it does not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable. This will be applicable to all priced cost-type CLINs.

2.2.7. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP is the sum of the following:

2.2.7.1. All Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) CLINs at their estimated or Most Probable

Cost plus proposed fee (X001, X002)

2.2.7.2. Evaluated awardable tasks Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs as proposed (X010, X011)

2.2.7.3. Travel and Incidental Materials shall be under a CRNF CLIN and will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. The government will establish a ceiling for each individual CRNF CLIN and shall verify that they are billed in accordance with FAR 31.205-46 and other applicable guidance. (X003, X004)

2.2.7.4. Contract Data Requirements List shall be under a Not-Separately-Priced

(NSP) CLIN and will not be evaluated as part of the total evaluated price. For proposal purposes, include CDRL pricing as part of CLIN X001. CDRLs for Over & Above activities will be negotiated at the time the task is called for by the contracting officer. (X006)

2.2.7.5. The awardable tasks will be included in the TEP at the proposed price.

Evaluation of the options will not obligate the government to exercise these options. The priced options may be exercised at the government’s sole discretion and the offeror will be required to perform at the proposed price.

(X009, X010)

2.2.7.6. In order to account for Over and Above work and options (other than the awardable tasks) in the TEP notional hours and labor mix will be applied against the Fixed-Price-Labor-Rate Matrix (see RFP Section J) and included in the TEP. Negotiations will be finalized after award if options are exercised.

The notional labor mix and notional hours will not be disclosed to the offerors at any time. (X005, X007, X008, X009, X012)

2.2.8. As portions of this contract are other than Firm-Fixed-Price, the government will evaluate whether the offeror has a government approved accounting system.

Failure to possess or obtain government approval of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award. If the offeror does not currently have government approval of its accounting system, it will be subject to a Pre-Award Survey.

2.3. Factor Two – Technical Capability

2.3.1. Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the government. The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Technical Order language for the technical volume.

The PWS is the government’s minimum requirements for the RVA CLS program.

The successful offeror’s technical proposal shall be incorporated into the contract by reference.

2.3.2. The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor.

2.3.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. The offeror is reminded that the government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the government may hold discussions if necessary. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2.3.4. Subfactor One: Software Updates

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an established, feasible, and effective plan to support software / operating systems, IAW PWS 3.2.1.3.7, through updates and administration to meet RVA performance requirements as outlined in Section 3 of the PWS for the following items:

SiteCommanderTM Software Licenses RVA edge video recorder and associated software at each LF site RVA network video recorder and associated software at each MAF site WindowsTM Server 2008 rev 2 RedHat 6 EnterprisesTM’ Licenses Any other relevant RVA software or operating systems that become relevant to meet RVA software requirements

2.3.5. Subfactor Two: Transition Strategy

feasible, and effective transition strategy in accordance with the Section 3.2.1.3.9 bullet titled Transition Strategy in the PWS.

2.3.6. Subfactor Three: Plan To Meet Performance Requirements

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail an established, feasible, and effective approach to meet the performance requirements detailed in accordance with Section 3 of the PWS.

2.3.7. Subfactor Four: RVA Operation Center Transition Plan

feasible, and effective approach in accordance with Section 3.2.1.3.8 titled RVA Operation Center in the PWS.

2.3.8. Subfactor Five: RVA display feed to Wing Command Post (Awardable Task)

The plan is acceptable when the offer demonstrates in detail, an established feasible and effective approach detailed for Option 5 of the PWS.

2.3.9. Subfactor Six: RVA display feed into TF214/Head Quarters (HQ) 20 AF Tactical Operations Center (Awardable Task)

The plan is acceptable when the offer demonstrates in detail, an established feasible and effective approach detailed for Option 4 of the PWS.

2.3.10. Subfactor Seven: Information Security / Information Assurance feasible, and effective approach that either the prime or its identified subcontractors will have in satisfying information assurance, controls, user administration, network administration roles, and the technical approach to maintain MAC III certification requirements in accordance with PWS Section 3.2.6 Information Security / Information Assurance, 3.2.6.2 Certification & Accreditation, 3.2.6.3 Certified Personnel, and 3.2.6.3.1 Information Assurance Officer.

2.3.11. Subfactor Eight: RVA Technical Areas

feasible, and effective approach that either the prime or the identified subcontractors will have in meeting the following RVA technical areas:

RVA network administration greater than 2,500 network components in accordance with Section 1.3 of the PWS

Provide over-the-air and on-site troubleshooting and repair of the RVA system in accordance with Section 1.3 of the PWS

RF transmission tower maintenance and all other associated tower maintenance in accordance with Section 1.3 of the PWS

Point-to-point radio installation, maintenance, and repair in accordance with Section 1.3 of the PWS

Fixed and Pan-Tilt-Zoom camera installation, maintenance, and repair in accordance with Section 1.3 of the PWS

Video transmission, compression, and recording in accordance with Section 1.3 of the PWS

ICBM Weapon System processes and controls

2.4. Factor Three – Past Performance

2.4.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or through the use of government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.4.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than ten years old. The government will not consider performance on contracts / task orders where performance was concluded more than ten years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.4.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same type(s) of services described in this RFP. The offeror shall not submit more than 5 contracts for the prime and subcontractor (15 page limitation). The offeror shall address any performance problems / issues as instructed in 5.1.1 of Section L and explain the corrective action taken and the current status.

2.4.2. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following 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.”

2.5. CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

2.5.1. This volume will be reviewed for completeness. Incomplete documentation may be considered non-responsive. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the model contract, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by part 6.2 of Section L.

2.5.1.1. The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources.

Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

2.5.1.2. The proposal shall contain evidence that the offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting in accordance with FAR 52.219-14.

2.5.1.3. The Property Management Plan shall comply with applicable clauses, regulations and PWS requirements.

3. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all the solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being deemed ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

Failure to complete and certify section K clause 252.227-7017 will render the offeror ineligible for award.

Failure to include a summary response as required by clause 252.227-7028 will render the offeror ineligible for award.

4. DISCUSSIONS

It is the government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period, 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.