Attach_13_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award through Source Selection

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR website, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements, affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this effort; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 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 high or 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.

1.4 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 does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2.0 below.

1.5 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government intends to maintain a competitive environment by encouraging the use of open teaming arrangements and encouraging offerors to support access to Government-furnished property (GFP) and GFP related capabilities residing in contractor laboratories to help eliminate, to the maximum practical extent, any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP. The Government will implement a No Exclusive Teaming Arrangements H Clause to prohibit exclusive teaming arrangements to help alleviate co-use issues with GFP known to be encumbered on current efforts.

1.6 Discussions

The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, 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 remains in the competitive range 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 may affect the offeror’s ratings.

2.0 Factors and Subfactors used for Evaluation

A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. 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 I: Technical

Subfactor One: Technical Expertise

Subfactor Two: Transition

Subfactor Three: Program Management

Factor II. Cost/Price

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the Technical factor, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, when combined are significantly more important, than cost/price. However, cost/price will contribute to the selection decision. Within Factor I, subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

2.2 Technical Assessment

The evaluation of the technical proposal provides for two distinct but related assessments: Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the evaluation of each Technical subfactor. The Technical Rating includes consideration for:

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.

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)

The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements. The Government will also evaluate how BOE’s support the offeror’s technical approach.

2.3 Technical Rating

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

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

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

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

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

2.4 Technical Risk Rating

Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color adjectival rating) described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival 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.

2.5 Proposal Evaluation

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

2.5.2 Volume I, Factor I: Technical

Each offeror’s written technical proposal and responses for each awardable task order, shall have a technical evaluatation performed to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks.

2.5.2.1 Subfactor One: Technical Expertise (PWS Attachments 1 – 8) This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities to provide a sufficient level of technical expertise required to maintain Ground Subsystems operational readiness. The government will evaluate the offeror’s processes and methodologies for providing the required technical expertise to include Subject Matter Expert(s), Recruitment and Retention Plan, and Technical Skill Mix Approach. The government will evaluate if these processes and methodologies are sound, feasible, effective, and demonstrate explicit evidence of the full capability and experience their team possesses for performing activities to satisfy or exceed each task order PWS requirements.

2.5.2.1.1 Technical Description and Approach

For each awardable task the Government will evaluate how the offeror’s technical description and approach identifies capabilities and evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of the PWS .

2.5.2.1.2 Subject Matter Experts (SME)

For each awardable task order the Government will review the offeror’s summary of work to be performed, special expertise, knowledge, tools, etc., and SMEs required to meet the requirements of each task order PWS.

Specifically, the government will evaluate the offerors descripton of its SME(s) as defined in section L paragraph 3.3.1.2.1, including number of years of experience and any professional certifications.

2.5.2.1.3 Recruitment and Retention Plan

For each awardable task order the Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for recruiting and retaining technical expertise to include subcontractors. Specifically, the Government will consider how technical experts are grown, promoted and retained within the company; how the company will recruit new technical expertise; and historical turnover rates and turnaround time to fill gaps in technical support.

2.5.2.1.4 Technical Skill Mix Approach

For each awardable task order the government will evaluate labor categories compared to total labor hours to determine the adequacy of the offeror’s proposed skill mix. Programatic and other business functions will count towards the total hours in the calculation. The Government will evaluate the technical skill mix approach, as provided in Section J Attachemt 9, as well as the explanation and rationale to verify a correct balance and adequate level of total hours support is available to sustain the Ground Subsystems.

2.5.2.2 Subfactor Two: Transition (PWS Attachment 1, 1.4.12)

The purpose of including Transition as a subfactor is to ensure necessary deliverables are provided with minimal Government intervention. Note, there could be many companies involved with transition (incumbent, subcontractors, and/or new awardee).

2.5.2.2.1 Transition Plan

The government will evaluate the Transition Plan to ensure the offeror demonstrates understanding, capability, and resources needed to transition all required tasks within 6 months after contract post award conference while ensuring no impact to ongoing GSSC activities. The Government will consider the offeror’s understanding of all Minuteman III Ground Subsystems supported by GSSC 2.0 and understanding of all tasks and associated timelines for those tasks.

2.5.2.2.1.1 The government will evaluate the Transition Plan’s objectives and rationales; tasks to be transitioned and how they will be transitioned; transition schedule, to include data products to be provided, with milestones that provide clear measurement toward progress in implementing the transition plan and completing the transition; entry and exit criteria for the milestones; and transition risk register with actionable mitigation plans tied to milestones on transition schedule.

2.5.2.2.1.2 The government will evaluate the offeror’s description of products required from the incumbent or other contractors/companies to perform all task orders as described in the PWS.

2.5.2.2.1.3 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s knowledge and capability to perform the work, description of the facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel as well as their approach to obtain and effectively utilize facilities, equipment (including encumbered GFP), and qualified personnel necessary within 6 months of contract post award conference.

2.5.2.2.1.4 The government will evaluate the adequacy of data products needed to include, but not limited to: Data products; unique data/hardware required to effectively perform tasks; a description of how data will be used and incorporated; a list of products to be provided, reviewed and available for use; items requiring training;

recommended communication method(s); recommended delivery format for each data item; and Intellectual Property that is known.

2.5.2.3 Subfactor Three: Program Management

This subfactor will evaluate the offerors Program Management Plan (PMP), Subcontract Management Plan, and Small Business Participation Plan. The purpose of this subfactor is to ensure the offeror’s approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities are a sufficient level for Ground Subsystems support. The government will evaluate if these processes and methodologies are sound, feasible, effective, and demonstrate explicit evidence of the full capability and experience their team possesses.

2.5.2.3.1 Program Management Plan (PWS, Attachment 1, 1.4.3)

The government will evaluate the processes and methodologies as described in the offerors program management plan to assist the government in reporting and managing cost, schedule and performance. Evaluation will include the adequacy of General Sustainment level support and other awardable task order level support, as well as, the offeror’s approach to integration (1.4.3.3.1), scope (1.4.3.3.2), schedule (1.4.3.3.3), cost (1.4.3.3.4), and human resource (1.4.3.3.5) management. The evaluation will also include the adequacy of the plans relationship to the contractor work breakdown structure, milestones and equipment/facilities.

2.5.2.3.2 Subcontract Management Plan (PWS, Attachment 1, 1.4.3.3.6) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s teaming arrangment status with its subcontractors (e.g. on contract, in negotiations, etc.). Evaluation will include time frames for subcontract awards and associated contractor agreements and rationale.

2.5.2.3.3 Small Business Participation Plan (PWS, Basic, 2.18) The Small Business Participation Plan is considered to be acceptable when the offeror clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Participation targets as defined in the PWS. The evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan will include the extent to which such firms are specifically identified in the offeror’s proposal; the extent of commitment to use such firms (e.g. enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones); and the extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition. The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan required in FAR Clause 52.219-9.

2.5.3 Volume II, Factor II: Cost/Price

Each offeror’s cost proposal shall follow the Task Order and WBS format provided at the end of each task order

PWS.

The Pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (on portions of the volume as detailed below), Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. 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 and rates proposed in the Labor Rate Matrices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

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

2.5.3.2 Price Reasonableness. All task orders and CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. 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.

2.5.3.3 Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) 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). Any proposed task order that is under the provided budget in Section L, Table 1 relays an unrealistic bid and may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404- 1 will be utilized. If the Government evaluates the offeror’s probable cost as different 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 Matrix. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates.

If this is not the case or the Government determines it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

2.5.3.4 Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit Task Order or 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.

2.5.3.5 Awardable Task. The cost and technical teams will perform an integrated assessment on Awardable Tasks. The Awardable Tasks pricing will be included as part of the TEP evaluation. Awardable Tasks may be awarded at contract award and the offeror will be held to the prices submitted. However, the Government reserves the right to not award these tasks.

2.5.3.6 Total Evaluated Price, Section J Attachment 14. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the eight (8) awardable tasks (General Sustainment, IOSSP Sustainment, HAC/RMPE CLS, Codes, Trainers CLS, GMATS CLS, SACCS CLS, ALCS Sustainment) for the Basic and all ordering and option periods. All rates and labor categories shall conform to the labor rate matrix.

2.5.3.7 Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications/Task Orders for all specified pricing arrangements. Fully loaded rates are inclusive of base labor rates and all applicable direct and indirect costs less profit which will be included as a separate percentage for each pricing arrangement.

2.5.3.8 Basis of Estimate (BOE): The offeror’s priced BOE for all awardable tasks will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance. If the offerors fee or price is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable or not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable.

2.5.3.9 Professional Employee Compensation Plan: IAW with FAR Provision 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

3.0 REPRESENATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Data Rights Evaluation Criteria

a. The Government will review (1) the completeness, correctness of Government asserted rights of tables 1 through 4 in Section J, Attachment 2A-H, Government Rights in Data (GRID) of the solicitation and (2) the data rights therein to ensure they are complete and correct in accordance with DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7017. An incomplete or incorrect submission may result in a rejection of the proposal.

b. The offeror proposes, in accordance with Section J, Attachment 2A-H, (GRID), rights in data that satisfies the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s completed GRID document to ensure all sections are completed correctly. The analysis conducted by the offeror (including all assumptions made) demonstrates that the quantity associated with the licenses for commercial item technical data and computer software the Offeror proposes to deliver to the Government listed in Table 2 of its completed Section J, Attachment 2A-H (GRID) will be sufficient for the Government to successfully execute all programs that comprise the AFNWC nuclear enterprise.

c. The Government will evaluate the extent to which any limitations on rights in technical data, computer software, or computer software documentation (e.g., Government Purpose Rights, or Limited Rights) negatively impact immediate and potential future costs of using such data, including potential impacts on future competitive contracting actions. Proposals that include Government Purpose Rights or Limited Rights data may be negatively impacted based on the Government’s estimate of future costs.

4.0 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5.0 REVIEWS AND VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.

6.0 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.