ISC_2_M_intro v2.2.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, 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, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. (The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost Factors and Subfactors other than Past Performance.) 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, Past Performance 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 and/or Past Performance 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.

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 Subfactor Two: Program Management Subfactor Three: Sample Task Subfactor Four: Transition Approach Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

3.2. Relative Importance

3.2.1. Factors are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Management Approach) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) last in importance.

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

3.2.3. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

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.