Final_-_Section_M_18_May_2018.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

METAL PLATING

18 MAY 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 Acceptable Offerors

2.2.3 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 18 May 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 determined to be a responsible source IAW FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented,

b) it submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and

c) the contracting officer has no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing.

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 Basic IDIQ.

1.3 Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best proposal 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, technical requirements, and 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 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 Unacceptable Offerors

If a sufficient number of offeror(s) as determined by the Government are “not qualified” (i.e., technically unacceptable, 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

Approval to deviate from FAR 15.304(c)(1) and waive price/cost as a source selection evaluation factor for the Basic 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 this solicitation (or in response to the solicitation for the Basic IDIQ contract). The contracting officer shall consider price or cost as one of the factors in the selection decision for each delivery order under the multiple-award contracts IAW FAR 16.505(b)(1)(ii)(E).

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. These ratings are based on the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1. 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, ineligible for award. 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 it is the Government’s intent 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 and describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraphs 3.1.4.1 thru 3.1.4.4.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraphs 3.1.4.1 thru 3.1.4.4.

3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Professional Certifications and/or Licenses Description: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate and describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraph 3.2.2.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraph 3.2.2.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.3 Subfactor 3: Transportation

Description: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate and describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraph 4.3.2.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraph 4.3.2.

3.1.4 Subfactor 4: Handling/Storage/Preservation/Packaging and Shipping Description: The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate and describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraph 4.3.3.2 as part of their technical approach and capability demonstration and description.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to meet the minimum requirements of Basic IDIQ SOW Paragraph 4.3.3.2 as part of their technical approach and capability demonstration and 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 rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table C-2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, outlined below in Table 2.

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING

METHOD

Adjectival 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, a neutral rating 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 three (3) 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. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and 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. 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

Adjectival 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.

• Evidence that the offeror will be able to comply with the Limitations on Subcontracting, IAW Basic SOW 5.4.3

• Exceptions to Terms and Conditions (if any)

• Completed Authorized Offeror Personnel

• Completed Company/Division Address, Identifying Codes, and Applicable

Designations

2.3 Cost or Pricing Related Data

5.0 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION