TMQ53SectionMFinal15Sep14.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M1.0 Source Selection

M1.1 Basis for Contract Award This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with 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, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, 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 lowest price technically acceptable proposal. 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.

M1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the AN/TMQ-53 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

M1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFPUse of Government property not already identified as part of this RFP is not authorized.

M1.4 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 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M1.4.1 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. If an offeror’s proposal is eliminated or otherwise removed from the competitive range, no further revisions to that offeror’s proposal shall be accepted or considered.

M1.5 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. Relative Importance of Factors: all evaluation factors other than Cost or Price, when combined, are approximately equal to Cost or Price.

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Management Approach and Transition Subfactor 2: Technical Approach Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan Factor 2: Price Factor 3: Past Performance

M2.2 Evaluation Methodology All factors may be evaluated in parallel. The following approach will be utilized to evaluate proposals

Step 1: Evaluate Factor 1 for technical acceptability and Factor 2 for price reasonableness.

Step 2: Rank technically acceptable proposals by price, including option prices.

Step 3: Assess Factor 3, past performance of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror. If the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror’s past performance is not acceptable, then assessment will continue to the next lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror until an offeror is found to be acceptable in past performance.

Step 4: Award will be made to the offeror with the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptable ratings for the non-price factors, and who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104.

Evaluation Notices may be submitted during the evaluation period, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. However, initial proposal should include best terms as there may not be an opportunity to revise proposals.

If found unacceptable, outside the competitive range, or otherwise eliminated from the competition at any point of the evaluation period, a notification shall be submitted to the unsuccessful offeror.

M3.0 Volume I – Executive Summary Any summary material presented in the Executive Summary shall not be considered as meeting the requirements for any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

M4.0 Volume II – Technical Capability Proposal

M4.1 Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to all portions of the PWS. The Government may make a final determination as to the offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror. Award will be made to the offeror with the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptable ratings for the non-price factors.

M4.2 Factor I – Technical Capability The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

M4.3 Technical Capability Factor

M4.3.1 Subfactor 1: Management Approach and Transition The offeror shall assess their technical risk separately in each plan in this subfactor using established risk management processes. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when each risk assessment demonstrates aspects of the proposed plan, which have the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance have been addressed and rated (using the Technical Risk Ratings table below) with rationale for each risk and its rating, including quantitative estimates of the impact on cost, schedule, and performance with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance. 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.

Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Low

Has 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

Can 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

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.

M4.3.1.1 Program Management Plan (PMP). The offeror’s proposed PMP, containing only the elements requested by Section L, shall be evaluated to ensure that PWS criteria is met.

1. The support concept and Spares Management Program (PWS Section 6.3.1) will be evaluated to determine if it meets the requirements of the PWS.

2. The Repair Management Process (PWS Section 6.4) will be evaluated to determine if it meets the requirements of the PWS.

3. The Transportation Plan (PWS Section 6.8) will be evaluated to determine if it meets the requirements of the PWS.

4. The offeror’s management process to ensure high quality sustainment support services throughout the term of this contract (PWS Section 5.1) will be evaluated to determine if it meets the requirements of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror has clearly articulated their ability to understand the requirement and substantiated their ability to perform the work in the applicable paragraphs of the PWS. In addition, the proposed PMP shall be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the full capability their team possesses for performing the stated activities to meet PWS requirements. Finally, after mitigation, the PMP demonstrates a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M4.3.1.2 Transition Plan. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s detailed and comprehensive Transition Plan, which shall include the four elements listed below, to ensure PWS Section 4.1 criteria is met.

1. A plan and milestone chart to manage and accomplish a seamless contract phase-in process and employee orientation to ensure successful contract performance at the end of the specified phase-in period.

2. A comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to include timeframes, inventory relocation, capital investment considerations, including installation of indoor and outdoor components of the mock-ups from incumbent contractor

3. A plan for coordinating with the Government for the transfer and accounting of Government Furnished Property and Equipment.

4. A reasonable methodology to maintain the AN/TMQ-53 at an availability up-time-ratio (UTR) of 96% on day 1 after transition is complete

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposed Transition Plan is reasonable and logical for performance of the tasks set forth in the PWS. In addition, the Transition Plan demonstrates that each task can be accomplished with the resources proposed, substantiates a complete understanding of, does not conflict with, and can reasonably be expected to satisfy the requirements set forth in the PWS and the solicitation. Finally, after mitigation, the Transition Plan demonstrates a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M4.3.1.3 Proof of ISO 9001 or Offeror’s Plan to Obtain ISO 9001. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proof of ISO 9001 or plan to obtain ISO 9001.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met if the ISO 9001:2008 certificate is current – or – the plan must be realistically achievable and provide a level of detail and supporting documentation to demonstrate that each task can be accomplished with the resources proposed. In addition, the offeror’s plan to keep the ISO 9001 certification current must demonstrate a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to obtain ISO 9001:2015 or any other ISO update that may occur. Finally, after mitigation, the plan(s) demonstrates a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M4.3.2 Subfactor 2: Technical Approach This subfactor evaluates three sample scenarios. The Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the offeror’s response to the sample scenarios. If an offeror fails to reach the minimum threshold for acceptability on any sample scenario, the offeror will be deemed technically unacceptable for that scenario, and therefore technically unacceptable overall.

M4.3.2.1 Sample Scenario #1: Shipping Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the response clearly demonstrates quality and thoroughness of the offeror’s solution. In addition, the offeror’s solution synthesizes the solution activities required to successfully resolve and implement the sample scenario. The offeror’s response to this sample scenario demonstrates familiarity, corporate experience, technical expertise and competence to accurately, effectively and efficiently understand, and interpret shipping and customs regulations in order to perform shipping tasks in accordance with paragraphs 6.2.4 and 6.8 of the

PWS.

M4.3.2.2 Sample Scenario #2: Obsolescence Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the response clearly demonstrates quality and thoroughness of the offeror’s solution. In addition, the offeror’s solution synthesizes the solution activities required to successfully resolve and implement the sample scenario. This requirement is met when the offeror’s response to this sample scenario demonstrates familiarity, experience, technical expertise and competence to accurately, effectively and efficiently update the AN/TMQ-53 hardware configuration baseline with an Iridium modem that meets all of the requirements of the TRD and does not degrade the Operational Safety, Suitability & Effectiveness of the AN/TMQ-53.

M4.3.2.3 Sample Scenario #3: Software Upgrade Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the response clearly demonstrates quality and thoroughness of the offeror’s solution. In addition, the offeror’s solution synthesizes the solution activities required to successfully resolve and implement the sample scenario. This requirement is met when the offeror’s response to this sample scenario demonstrates familiarity, experience, technical expertise and competence to accurately, effectively and efficiently update the AN/TMQ-53 software configuration baseline with a new operating system and new Automated Observing System software that meets all of the requirements of the TRD and does not degrade the Operational Safety, Suitability & Effectiveness of the AN/TMQ-53.

M4.3.3 Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s detailed Staffing Plan.

1. Team organization – the Staffing Plan will be evaluated to determine if the proposed team organization and written rationale demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively meet the requirements of the PWS.

2. Key Personnel Skill Level and Experience – the proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed key personnel skill levels, education, and experience with CLS services, specifically related to weather systems, demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively meet the requirements of the PWS.

3. Skill Sets and Experience – the proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed skill sets and experience with CLS services specifically related to weather systems for the remainder of personnel demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively meet the requirements of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when: (1) the offeror has provided everything asked for in Section L, (2) the plan contains a detailed, sound, and comprehensive narrative with rationale used to develop the organizational structure that is reasonable and logical for performance of the tasks set forth in the PWS, (3) the plan, including resumes, demonstrates that key personnel have at least three continuous years of experience in the past five years in the following areas: Shipping/Customs, Obsolescence, Iridium, Information Assurance, Technical Manuals, Helpdesk troubleshooting, software integration, and experience supporting tactical systems, (4) the plan outlines experience with AOS software and IUID markings, and (5) the proposed staffing approach demonstrates a complete understanding of, does not conflict with, and can reasonably be expected to satisfy the requirements set forth in the PWS and the solicitation.

M5.0 Volume III – Price Proposal

M5.1 Evaluation Criteria.

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Price reasonableness

(3) Balance, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced may not be considered for award.

M5.1.1 Completeness The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the RFP, notably Section L. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

M5.1.2 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. No presumption of reasonableness shall be attached to the incurrence of price by an offeror. The proposed prices and all labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M5.1.3 Balance Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit Contract Line Item Number (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. Per FAR 15.404-1(g)(3), if the Government determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

M5.1.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

A TEP will be calculated for use in evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be the summation of all firm-fixed priced CLINs, including the six-month option to extend services (clause 52.217-8); calculation method of each CLIN total is discussed below. The Government will use the TEP for evaluation purposes only; the TEP is not representative of the actual contract value.

(a) CLIN 0001 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN 0001 by selecting a notional quantity of systems (undisclosed to offerors) from the TEP Worksheet and multiplying that quantity of systems by a Government selected notional number of months (undisclosed to offerors) for each year of CLIN 0001. Different notional quantities can be used for different notional number of months within a specific year of CLIN 0001, and this may be completed for each of the years (including the six-month option to extend services (clause 52.217-8)). All offerors will be evaluated using the same undisclosed quantity and months. The Government will input the notional quantities of each CLIN year in the appropriate cell in the TEP worksheet, and they will be added together.

(b) CLIN 0002 AN/TMQ-53 System Repairs The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN 0002 by selecting a notional quantity for each system repair part (undisclosed to offerors) for each year. Different notional quantities can be used for different years. All offerors will be evaluated using the same undisclosed quantity. The notional quantities will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed system repair prices, and they will be added together.

(c) CLIN 0003 AN/TMQ-53 System Spares The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN 0003 by selecting a notional quantity for each system spare part (undisclosed to offerors) for each year. Different notional quantities can be used for different years. All offerors will be evaluated using the same undisclosed quantity. The notional quantities will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed system spare prices, and they will be added together.

(d) CLIN 0004 Software Licenses The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN 0004 by selecting a notional quantity for software licenses (undisclosed to offerors) for each year. Different notional quantities can be used for different years. All offerors will be evaluated using the same undisclosed quantity. The notional quantities will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed software license price, and total prices for each year will be added together.

(e) CLIN 0005 AN/TMQ-53 Systems – New The Government will evaluate the price for CLIN 0005 by selecting a notional quantity for systems (undisclosed to offerors) for each year. Different notional quantities can be used for different years. All offerors will be evaluated using the same undisclosed quantity. The notional quantities will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed system prices, and they will be added together.

(f) CLIN 0006 Data

The Government will include the offeror’s proposed CDRL price in the TEP.

(g) CLIN 0007 Project Management The Government will evaluate the price for the Project Management CLIN by selecting a notional number of labor hours and labor categories (undisclosed to offerors) and multiply the respective fully burdened Fixed Labor Rates (offeror provided rates from the Fixed Rates Tables located in the Project Mgmt tab of the Pricing Workbook) by the undisclosed hours. Different notional number of labor hours and labor categories (undisclosed to offerors) can be used from each of the years (including the six-month option to extend services (clause 52.217-8)), and each of the years may be evaluated.

The prices from the ordering periods will be added together.

(h) CLIN 0008 Travel Travel shall be under a Cost Reimbursable – No Fee CLIN and will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. The Government will establish a ceiling price for this CLIN on each Delivery Order and will verify that all travel is billed in accordance with the PWS.

(i) CLIN 0009 Shipping Shipping shall be under a Cost Reimbursable – No Fee CLIN and will not be evaluated as part of the proposal. The Government will establish a ceiling price for this CLIN on each Delivery Order and will verify that all shipping is billed in accordance with the

PWS.

(j) CLIN 0010 Transition The Government will include the offeror’s proposed transition price in the TEP.

M6.0 Volume IV – Past Performance The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 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.”

M6.1 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 solicitation requirements. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2). 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

M6.1.1 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 three (3)years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M6.1.2 Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and 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 Contractor Logistics Support. 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 the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner.1 Any past performance information obtained will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

1 Only the past performance effort which is related to the work the offeror is proposing to perform will contribute to the confidence assessment. Take, for example, an RFP for a contact to manufacture, provide logistical support, and provide user training for “System X.” If an offeror submits recent past performance contracts involving manufacturing effort which is “essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires,” but the offeror is not proposing to manufacture System X (i.e., another team member or subcontractor is proposed to perform System X manufacture), the offeror’s past manufacturing performance would not contribute to the System X manufacturing performance confidence assessment.

TABLE 3- PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M6.1.3 Performance Quality Assessment The Government will perform a quality assessment of offeror’s recent and relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a marginal or unsatisfactory 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. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment Description ACCEPTABLE During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action. Past Performance information that supports Exceptional, Very Good, or Satisfactory ratings or favorable comment.

UNACCEPTABLE During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required. Past Performance information that supports a Marginal or Unsatisfactory rating or unfavorable comment.

NOT AVAILABLE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

M7.0 Volume V – Contract Documentation

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Paragraph 7.0 of Section L (Contract Documentation).

M7.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions In addition to meeting the identified factors and subfactors, in order for offerors to be rated acceptable they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Sections L and M to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award.