Att09_SectionM.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

REMOTE VISUAL ASSESSMENT (RVA) II

SOURCE SELECTION

1. SOURCE SELECTION

Basis for Contract Award This acquisition is a best value, trade-off source selection, utilizing the source selection procedures in FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 4 March 2011, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure MP5315.3 – Source Selection, revised 21 April 2014. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR website, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents, 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 - 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; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The government intends to award one contract for the Remote Visual Assessment II (RVA II) Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) 1 base and EMD 2 option efforts. 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.

Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis to determine whether an offeror’s proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed. The Government may reject any proposal that may be evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal may be deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

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 not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP The Government will eliminate to the maximum practical extent any unfair competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP). The cost to move or modify any GFP from an old location to a new location will be included in the cost of the contract.

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 (EN) 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, or effect changes to the ratings.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. 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

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Technical and Past Performance are equally important and Cost/Price is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are equal in order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1), Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors, all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

Strengths, weaknesses, significant weakness, and deficiencies are defined as:

Strength: 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 5.21) Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001, Definitions and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.22) Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001, Definitions and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.17) Deficiency: 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. (See FAR 15.001, Definitions and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.4) Factor 1 – Technical The Technical evaluation 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 Technical subfactor. The separate Technical Risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Offerors shall describe their approaches and capabilities and explain how they will use their approaches and capabilities to accomplish/meet requirements, and not merely restate requirements.

Technical Rating The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor.

Technical Subfactors 1-4 will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures as shown in Table 1 – Technical Ratings excerpted below. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Table 1- Technical Ratings

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Technical Risk Rating Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk Ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures and as shown in Table 2– Technical Risk Ratings excerpted below. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach (process/methodology) in meeting the requirement. Any proposal receiving a High Technical Risk Rating will be deemed un-awardable. 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 2- Technical Risk Ratings Technical Risk Ratings

Subfactor 1: RVA II Integration (PWS Section 3 and TRD in entirety) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability and approach (processes / methodologies) to integrate RVA II technical capabilities into the current RVA architecture.

The proposed solution will be evaluated in terms of technical capability and minimal impact to RVA system operation.

The proposed approach (processes / methodologies) must be sound, effective, and clearly demonstrate technical capabilities per the RVA II EMD PWS sections listed above.

This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal addresses the PWS/TRD requirements listed above.

The requirement is exceeded when the offeror's proposal substantiates capabilities and an approach to increase efficiency and seamlessly complement the RVA system while maximizing value.

Subfactor 2: VMS with Data Rights (PWS 1.2, all of Section 3, and TRD 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.7, 3.10) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability and approach (processes / methodologies) to provide Video Management Software (VMS).

The proposed solution will be evaluated for in terms of technical capability, and the government evaluation of the GRID (attachment 4).

The proposed approach (processes / methodologies) must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate technical capabilities per the RVA II EMD PWS sections listed above.

This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal addresses the PWS/TRD requirements listed above.

The requirement is exceeded when the offeror's proposal substantiates capabilities and an approach to increase efficiency and seamlessly complement the RVA system while providing minimal software data rights risks.

Subfactor 3: LF Video Auto-Activation (PWS 1.2, all of Section 3, and TRD 3.1, 3.1.6 ) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability and approach (processes / methodologies) to provide LF Video Auto-activation upon OZ/IZ alarms into the current RVA architecture.

The proposed solution will be evaluated in terms of technical capability.

The proposed approach (processes / methodologies) must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate technical capabilities per the RVA II EMD PWS/TRD sections listed above.

This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal addresses the PWS/TRD requirements listed above and the threshold KPP.

The requirement is exceeded when the offeror's proposal substantiates capabilities and an approach to increase efficiency and seamlessly complement the RVA system while minimizing NUC safety/surety concerns.

Processes/methodologies that minimize NUC safety/surety/Cybersecurity concerns are eligible for an outstanding technical rating.

Subfactor 4: Response vehicle link distance (PWS 1.2, all of Section 3, and TRD 3.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s capability and approach (processes / methodologies) to provide Response vehicle LF Video link distance of 1.5 miles (minimum) Line-Of-Site (LOS) from LF.

The proposed solution will be evaluated in terms of technical capability.

The proposed approach (processes / methodologies) must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate technical capabilities per the RVA II EMD PWS/TRD sections listed above.

This requirement is met when the offeror's proposal addresses the PWS/TRD requirements listed above and the threshold KPP.

The requirement is exceeded when the offeror's proposal substantiates capabilities and an approach to increase efficiency and seamlessly complement the RVA system while maximizing response vehicle range.

Processes/methodologies Response vehicle link distances covering the entire Battlefield are eligible for an outstanding technical rating.

Factor 2 - Past Performance The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures and as shown in Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments excerpted below.

Table 3- Performance Confidence Assessments

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 and Cost/Price Factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in Evaluation Factors, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Past Performance Questionnaires, 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.

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 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor, including their relative order of importance stated in Evaluation Factors, Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to the contractor’s role, similarity, and complexity of the effort accomplished by the contractor, subcontractor, and/or teaming partner on previous/current contract efforts of similar magnitude and complexity in areas related to strategic nuclear weapon systems. The Government will consider the contractor's experience with integrating highly complex system-of-systems interfaces and managing multiple simultaneous baselines. Past performance for a subcontractor and/or teaming partner will only be considered if that same subcontractor and/or teaming partner is to perform a similar function on the proposed effort. Higher relevancy, based on Table 4 below, will have a corresponding impact on the offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating. Contracts will be evaluated individually, but the relevancy/performance of the offeror’s program team may also be considered in aggregate. The relevancy ratings will be integrated in the overall confidence assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s), and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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. The Government will use information provided by each offeror and information obtained from other sources to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following Table 4 – Relevancy Assessment when assessing recent, relevant contracts in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures:

Table 4- Relevancy Assessment

RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), Proposal evaluation, the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. 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. The Government will use the following Quality Assessment Ratings identified in Table 5 – Performance Quality Assessment when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 5- Performance Quality Assessment

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 and Cost/Price Factor, 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 "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent 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 an "Unknown 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.

Factor 3 - Cost/Price Pricing The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (where evaluated, see below), Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be the sum of specified Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN). The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the CLIN prices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Price Reasonableness: The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs. The CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. All other CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness in accordance with the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal analysis techniques. Generally, adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee (CPFF) and Cost-Plus-Incentive-Fee (CPIF) 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), Proposal Analysis Techniques and 2.101, Definitions). 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 may 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 determines 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 in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

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, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Total Evaluated Price. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the following elements:

CPFF (0001) at the proposed or probable (if the probable cost differs from the proposed cost) estimated Base Cost plus proposed fixed fee.

CPIF (1001) at the proposed or probable (if the probable cost differs from the proposed cost) estimated Base Cost plus the Target Incentive Fee of the proposed cost as designated in Section L of this RFP.

FFP (0003, 1003, 1005, 1006) at the proposed fixed price.

CRNF (0004, 1004) the contractor shall propose an estimated amount; however, these CLINs will be normalized at zero dollars for purposes of this evaluation.

NSP (0002, 1002) the cost of these CLINs is assumed to be encompassed in the other evaluated CLINs. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable and billed in accordance with FAR 31 and other applicable guidance and Contract Cost Principles/Procedures at the time they are incurred.

Basis of Estimate (BOE): The Priced BOE will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance. If any element of the offeror’s BOE is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable, or not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable. This will be applicable to CLINs 0001 and 1001.

All Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs will not be evaluated as part of this proposal. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred.

Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: 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. 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.

PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection to determine contractor responsibility to meet cost accounting reporting requirements. Results of the PAS (if conducted) may be evaluated to determine an offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. If an offeror can demonstrate its ability to meet cost accounting requirements a PAS may not need to be conducted.

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as 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.

image1.emf