ISC_2_M_Intro and Factor 1 - v2.0.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

1.1. Source Selection Methodology

1.1.1. This is a competitive, Trade-Off Source Selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/content/part-15-contracting-negotiation#i1108639.

1.1.2. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk and Cost/Price. (The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost Factors and Subfactors.) The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW 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 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and Subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

1.1.3. In using a Trade-Off 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 requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. Tradeoffs may be made between Technical/Technical Risk and Cost/Price. This may result in 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/business approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference, and therefore represents the best value to the Government. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

1.1.4. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. 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. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.2.1. By submission of an offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors.

1.2.2. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation or meet a technical requirement may result in a proposal being determined to be unawardable. 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.

2.0. GENERAL INFORMATION

2.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award 1 contract as a result of this solicitation; 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

2.2. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will appropriately address any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP.

2.3. Exchanges With Offerors After Receipt of Proposals

2.3.1. Any exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306, Exchanges with Offerors after Receipt of Proposals.

2.3.2. The Government intends to award without discussions, therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary.

2.3.3. 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.

2.3.4. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions:

2.3.4.1. A Competitive Range will be established.

2.3.4.2. 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.

2.3.4.3. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the Competitive Range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

2.3.4.4. The Source Selection decision will be based on the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) of the Offerors remaining in the Competitive Range at the time discussions are closed. 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 may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

3.0. EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1. Factors and Subfactors

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the most advantageous solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and Subfactors described below. The following evaluation factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Management Approach (Technical/Technical Risk) Subfactor One: Personnel Management Approach Subfactor Two: Program Management Approach Subfactor Three: Sample Scenario Subfactor Four: Transition Approach Factor 2: Cost/Price The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost Factors and Subfactors other than Past Performance.

3.2. Relative Importance

3.2.1. Factors are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 1 (Management Approach) being most important, and Factor 2 (Cost/Price) last in importance. IAW FAR 15.304(e), Factor 1 (Management Approach) is significantly more important than cost or price.

3.2.2. Within Factor 1, the Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1 (Personnel Management) being most important, Factor 2 (Program Management) next in importance, Subfactor 3 (Sample Task) next in importance, and Subfactor 4 (Transition Approach) last in importance

3.3. Cross Reference Matrix

The Cross Reference Matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the Performance-Based Work Statements (PWSs), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L, and Section M. The Cross Reference Matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government is obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

3.4. Technical/Technical Risk Evaulation

3.4.1. The evaluation of Subfactors 1-4 will be IAW paragraph 3.1.2.1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, “Methodology 1: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process”. This 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 Subfactor. The separate technical risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

3.4.2. Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies are defined IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.001, Definitions:

· 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.

· Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful 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.

3.4.3. Technical Rating:

3.4.3.1. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s requirement.

3.4.3.2. Each Subfactor will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on strengths and understanding of the Offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets each Subfactor’s requirements.

3.4.3.3. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Factor.

3.4.3.4. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give evaluation credit/positive consideration (i.e. assign a strength) for performance in excess of threshold (minimum) requirements.

Technical Ratings

3.4.4. Technical Risk Rating:

3.4.4.1. 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, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.4.4.2. The evaluation will address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks, proposed mitigation, and why the proposed mitigation is or is not manageable.

3.4.4.3. Each Subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

3.4.4.4. Subfactor risk ratings will not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the Factor.

3.4.4.5. The Government will not be bound by the Offeror’s proposed acceptable level of risk mitigation or proposed risk rating determination. The Government will make the final determination of the technical risk rating assigned in the evaluation.

Technical Risk Ratings

3.5. Cost/Price Evaluation

3.5.1.

4.0. FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT APPROACH/RISK (Technical/Technical Risk Factor) The Management Approach/Risk Factor assesses the Offeror’s approach to effectively and efficiently accomplish the work specified in the Performance Work Statements (PWSs), thereby demonstrating understanding of contract requirements. Through this factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work specified in the PWSs and the inherent challenges associated with accomplishing the objectives of this contract. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed approach effectively and efficiently fulfills the subfactors listed below. The Offeror’s degree of understanding of the requirements will be assessed in all Management Approach/Risk Subfactors.

Proposals will be evaluated against the following Subfactors:

4.1. Subfactor 1: Personnel Management Approach

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for providing a qualified, stable workforce to perform the requirements of the PWSs for the duration of this contract.

4.1.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s personnel management approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L paragraphs 4.1. through 4.1.6.

4.1.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which the Offeror’s personnel management approach and experience demonstrate the ability to provide a qualified, stable workforce for the duration of this contract.

4.1.3. The Subfactor evaluation includes an evaluation of the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation plan as required by FAR Provision 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

4.1.4. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment for Subfactor 1. The evaluation will include reviewing the risk assessment for completeness, as well as reviewing each risk and determining the extent to which the corresponding proposed mitigation techniques eliminate or reduce the probability of the risk occurring and/or the severity of the consequences.

NOTE: The evaluation of the Offeror’s risk assessment is not the same as the Subfactor Risk Rating.

4.2. Subfactor 2: Program Management Approach

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g. concepts, plans, practices, internal procedures, innovations, etc.) to efficiently and proactively manage performance of this contract.

4.2.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s program management approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L paragraphs 4.2. through 4.2.7.

4.2.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based the extent to which the Offeror’s program management approach and experience demonstrate the ability to effectively provide high quality services and products in a timely manner.

4.2.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment for Subfactor 2. The evaluation will include reviewing the risk assessment for completeness, as well as reviewing each risk and determining the extent to which the corresponding proposed mitigation techniques eliminate or reduce the probability of the risk occurring and/or the severity of the consequences.

NOTE: The evaluation of the Offeror’s risk assessment is not the same as the Subfactor Risk Rating.

4.3. Subfactor 3: Sample Scenario

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s responses to the sample scenario. The intent of the sample scenario is for the Offeror to demonstrate the proposed processes in a real-world scenario to aid the Government in determining the Offeror’s level of understanding of contract requirements.

4.3.1. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s responses to the sample scenario demonstrate familiarity, experience, technical expertise, and competence to accurately, effectively, and efficiently resolve and implement the sample scenario.

4.3.2. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s responses clearly and comprehensively address the information required by the instructions accompanying each stage of the scenario.

4.3.3. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which sample scenario responses synthesize the processes proposed by the Offeror in Subfactors 1 and 2, i.e. would the processes proposed in Subfactors 1 and 2 reasonably lead to the proposed solution for the sample scenario.

4.3.4. The evaluation of the responses for the 2 stages of the scenario will result in a single rating.

4.4. Subfactor 4: Transition

This Subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for transition of responsibility with minimal program impact and disruption.

4.4.1. The Phase-in evaluation assesses the Offeror’s ability to seamlessly transition the workload from ISC 1.0 with minimal impact and disruption, ensuring complete requirements coverage throughout the transition.

4.4.1.1. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s Phase-in approach clearly and comprehensively addresses the information required by Section L paragraphs 4.4.1. through 4.4.2., meets the transition requirements in the basic PWS, and demonstrates that the proposed transition strategy can be successfully executed by the Offeror’s proposed completion date.

4.4.1.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which the Offeror’s transition approach and experience demonstrate effective and efficient transition of resources and personnel onto this contract, establishment of necessary and viable management processes and structures, the ability to provide full continuity of mission support during the Phase-in period, and the effectiveness of any proposed innovative approaches to minimize cost or streamline the process.

4.4.2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s strategy for enabling the Government to maintain full and open competition on future contracting actions, minimize life-cycle costs, and perform sustainment and acquisition for ICBMs.

4.4.2.1. The requirement is met when tables # through # of the Government Rights in Data and Software (GRIDS) for each awardable task order (Section J, Attachments #-#), are filled out completely and correctly IAW the instructions in the GRIDS document and IAW DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, Rights in Technical Data--Noncommercial Items, 252.227-7014, Rights in Noncommercial Computer Software and Noncommercial Computer Software Documentation, 252.227-7015, Technical Data--Commercial Items, and 252.227-7017, Identification and Assertion of Use, Release, or Disclosure Restrictions.

4.4.2.2. Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed based on the extent to which the proposed GRIDS strategy and any proposed limitations on data or software enable the Government to maintain full and open competition on future contracting actions, minimize life-cycle costs, and perform sustainment and acquisition for ICBMs.

4.4.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s risk assessment for Subfactor 4. The evaluation will include reviewing the risk assessment for completeness, as well as reviewing each risk and determining the extent to which the corresponding proposed mitigation techniques eliminate or reduce the probability of the risk occurring and/or the severity of the consequences.

NOTE: The evaluation of the Offeror’s risk assessment is not the same as the Subfactor Risk Rating.