Attachment_2-HSEP_Section_M-_FINAL2.pdf

Hardness Surveillance Electromagnetic Pulse (HSEP) Program 16 July 2015

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR AWARDS

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 exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible 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.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for the Hardness Surveillance Electromagnetic Pulse (HSEP) Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the 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:

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical Proposal

Subfactor One: Program Management Plan (PMP) Subfactor Two: Resource Management and Transition Plan

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1.1. A 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.

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

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805

2.1.2.1. A minimum of two lowest priced offers will be evaluated, unless fewer than two offers are received.

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

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

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

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

2.1.2.3.3. Continue evaluating additional offerors

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

2.1.2.5. 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) Reasonableness, (2) Balance and

(3) Total Evaluated Price.

2.2.2. 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.

2.2.3. Balance -- Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more elements, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.2.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following: (Where ‘X’ represents the base (‘0’) through option period four (‘4’)

2.2.4.1. CLIN X001 and X002 at the proposed Firm Fixed Price (FFP).

2.2.4.2. CLIN X003 will be a Cost Reimbursable line item. For evaluation purposes only this CLIN will be normalized and evaluated at $0 for all offerors. This

CLIN will be funded and authorized as requirements materialize and reasonableness will be determined by the ACO at that time.

2.2.4.3. CLIN X004 is Not Separately Priced (NSP) and the price for this item is assumed to be included in the other line items.

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 PWS or Technical Order language for the technical volume. 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 a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the following ratings:

2.3.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable”.

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 sub-factors:

2.3.4. Sub-factor One: Program Management Plan (PMP)

2.3.4.1. The offeror’s PMP shall be evaluated based on offeror’s approach for meeting the requirements set forth in the PWS Sections 2, as identified below:

i. Program Planning (PWS Para. 2.1.1 & 2.1.2)

ii. EMP Hardness Testing (PWS 2.2.1 & 2.2.2)

iii. Field Activities (PWS 2.2.3.1, 2.2.3.3 & 2.2.3.5)

iv. EMP Hardness Reporting (PWS 2.3.1, 2.3.2 & 2.3.3)

2.3.4.2. The PMP is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in each of the Sections listed above have been defined and satisfied;

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

(B) an explicit understanding and effective approach to all contractor management aspects of the HSEP program; and (C) that the plan is practical and achievable.

2.3.5. Sub-factor Two: Resource Management and Transition Plan

2.3.5.1. The Resource Management and Transition Sub-factor consists of two plans entitled: Resource Management Plan; and Transition Plan.

2.3.5.2. The Resource Management Plan shall adequately address Resource Management and Staffing requirements in the PWS to clearly demonstrate ability to:

2.3.5.2.1. Proposes a reasonable number of personnel to maintain required throughput times (PWS 2.1.1).

2.3.5.2.2. Proposes a reasonable plan to address security requirements outlined in PWS Section 5. Include number of personnel with Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certification (PWS Para. 5.3).

2.3.5.2.3. Proposes a reasonable mix of labor categories and

experience/education levels to maintain the HSEP described in this requirement (PWS Section 2). Include a definition of labor categories and associated experience/education.

2.3.5.2.4. Proposes a viable organizational structure, including clear lines of authority and roles and responsibilities of key personnel.

2.3.5.2.5. Proposes a reasonable plan to acquire required Contractor Furnished Equipment (PWS Para. 8.4)

2.3.5.2.6. Resource Management is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology for staffing to meet all requirements in the time frame required; (B) a comprehensive and practical overall strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations.

2.3.5.3. Transition Plan - The offeror’s proposed transition plan shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS Section 9 criteria are met.

2.3.5.3.1. The Transition Plan is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology for staffing to meet all requirements of an orderly transfer or stand up of new workload and continuous operation without negative impact on Government operations in the time frame required; (B) a comprehensive and practical overall strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations.

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 three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.4.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP.

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. 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 Section L 6.2.

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. Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or

Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates should be equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for NAICS 541330. For offerors that do not possess three years of consecutive recording data, submit this information for the time period you do possess. Other comparable data from a recognized agency, such as workers compensation, insurance rates, etc, for the same time period is also acceptable.

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

3. 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.

4. 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 evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.