DRAFT_Section_M_30_March_2018.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

METAL PLATING

30 MARCH 2018

Table of Contents

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

1.3 DISCUSSIONS

1.4 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 Technical and Past Performance Evaluations

2.2.2 Technically Acceptable Offerors

2.2.3 Technically Unacceptable Offerors

2.3 COST OR PRICING RELATED DATA

3.0 VOLUME I – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

3.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION

3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Core Metal Plating Processes:

3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Professional Certifications and/or Licenses

3.1.3 Subfactor 3: Transportation

3.1.4 Subfactor 4: Handling / Storage / Preservation / Packaging and Shipping

4.0 VOLUME II - FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

4.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

4.2.1 Recency Assessment

4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

5.0 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

Metal Plating, Section M 21 March 2018

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This source selection will be 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), Department of Defense

(DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 1 Apr 2016 and Air Force Mandatory

Procedures 5315.3 dated 27 Jan 2017. These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will award basic IDIQ contract(s) to “all qualified” offerors. An offeror is a “qualifying offeror” if: (a) it is deemed responsible

IAW FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, (b) its proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), (c) is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to be “acceptable” and (d) the contracting officer has no reason to believe that the contractor would offer anything other than a fair and reasonable price. 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 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award to “all qualified” offerors for the Metal Plating program.

1.3 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

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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 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 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 provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Core Metal Plating Processes

Subfactor 2: Professional Certifications and/or Licenses

Subfactor 3: Transportation

Subfactor 4: Handling/Storage/Preservation/Packaging and Shipping

Factor 2: Past Performance

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

2.2.1 Technical and Past Performance Evaluations

An evaluation of “Factor 1 – Technical” and “Factor 2 – Past Performance” will be performed simultaneously. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability.

2.2.2 Technically Acceptable Offerors

If a sufficient number of offeror(s) as determined by the Government are

“qualified” (i.e. technically acceptable, have satisfactory past performance, and meet all other requirements of the solicitation), the Government reserves the right to award to those offerors without discussions.

2.2.3 Technically Unacceptable Offerors

If a sufficient number of offeror(s) as determined by the Government are “not qualified” (i.e. technically acceptable, do not have acceptable past performance or do not meet all other requirements of the solicitation), then the SSA may:

a) Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

b) Not make any awards.

2.3 Cost or Pricing Related Data

FAR 15.304(c)(1) requires "price or cost to the Government shall be evaluated in every source selection (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(A) (ii) and 41 U.S.C. 3306(c)(1)(B))";

however, approval to deviate from FAR 15.304(c)(1) and waive price/cost as a source selection evaluation factor for the basic Metal Plating MAC IDIQ contract(s) has been authorized IAW DPAP Class Deviation 2018-O0006 dated December 13, 2017.

The qualifying offeror(s) is not required to disclose price/cost in response to the solicitation. However, qualifying offerors will still need to provide cost or price at the time of competition on the individual delivery orders IAW the ordering procedures established in the basic IDIQ Statement of Work (SOW).

3.0 VOLUME I – FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

3.1 Technical Evaluation

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. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. 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 discussion. The offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors.

3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Core Metal Plating Processes

Description: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate/describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Metal Plating Basic IDIQ SOW core sections/requirements 3.1.1 thru 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.1.10, and 3.1.12.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Metal Plating Basic

IDIQ SOW core sections/requirements 3.1.1 thru 3.1.4, 3.1.6, 3.1.7, 3.1.10, and

3.1.12.

3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Professional Certifications and/or Licenses

Description: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate/describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Metal Plating Basic IDIQ SOW section/requirement 3.2.2.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Metal Plating Basic

IDIQ SOW section/requirement 3.2.2.

3.1.3 Subfactor 3: Transportation

Description: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate/describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Metal Plating Basic IDIQ SOW section/requirement 4.3.2.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Metal Plating Basic

IDIQ SOW section/requirement 4.3.2.

3.1.4 Subfactor 4: Handling / Storage / Preservation / Packaging and Shipping

Description: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate/describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Metal Plating Basic IDIQ SOW sections/requirements 4.3.3 as part of their technical approach and capability demonstration/description.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Metal Plating Basic

IDIQ SOW section/requirement 4.3.3 as part of their technical approach and capability demonstration/description.

4.0 VOLUME II - FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 Past Performance Evaluation

Offerors must use the Past Performance Information (PPI) Tool when developing their Past Performance Volume.

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 offeror shall submit past performance information for their organization on a minimum of three (3) and maximum of five (5) recent and relevant contracts with U.S. Government Agencies and/or commercial sources. Past performance examples that exceed this limitation will not be evaluated.

Past performance will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table 2.

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE 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 or unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

4.2 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. 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 Subcontracting 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.

4.2.1 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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.2.2 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 past performance information for their organization – not major and critical subcontractor(s). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(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, including joint venture partners. The past performance information submitted and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the relevancy definitions in Table 3 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

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.

5.0 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. 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 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 provide complete supporting rationale. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall include the following:

Signed copy of the Model Contract/Solicitation

Completed Sections A through K

Signed amendments to the solicitation (if any).

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.

Limitations on Subcontracting

Exceptions to Terms and Conditions (if any).

Completed Authorized Offeror Personnel

Completed Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable

Designations