DOCAT4_Section_M_20Dec17.pdf

DOCAT4: Section M

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

Depot On-Site Contract Augmentee Teams

(DOCAT4)

20 December 2017

Table of Contents

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

1.2 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1.1 Initial Price Evaluation

2.1.2 Technical and Past Performance Evaluation

3.0 VOLUME I - FACTOR ONE - PRICE FACTOR

3.1 COMPLETENESS

3.2 REASONABLENESS

3.3 BALANCE

3.4 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

3.4.1 Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determination

3.4.2 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards

3.4.3 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

4.0 VOLUME II - FACTOR TWO - TECHNICAL FACTOR

4.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

4.2 SUBFACTOR ONE: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

4.2.1 Program Management Requirements

4.2.2 Multiple Site Management

4.3 SUBFACTOR TWO: RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.3.1 Provide Qualified Personnel

4.3.2 Security Clearance

4.4 SUBFACTOR THREE: QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

4.5 SUBFACTOR FOUR: TRANSITION PLAN

5.0 VOLUME III - FACTOR THREE - PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

5.1 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

5.2 RECENCY

5.3 RELEVANCY

6.0 VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

6.1 ABILITY TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE FINANCIAL RESOURCES

6.2 TOTAL CASE INCIDENT RATE AND DAYS AWAY, RESTRICTED AND TRANSFERRED RATES

7.0 DISCUSSIONS

8.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) 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, Appendix A. These regulations are available electronically at the AF FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1 whose 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) 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.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award approximately four contracts for the DOCAT4 program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer total contracts—or no contract at all—if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that it is in the Government’s best interest considering the expected volume of work over the period of the contract, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, the quality of proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of best-value proposals following completion of evaluations of the proposals received.

If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offeror(s). The Government intends to evaluate proposals and make award(s) without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions if it determines that doing so would be in its best interest. 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.

1.2 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements, as set forth in the solicitation, is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

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

2.0 Evaluation Criteria for Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and subfactors described below:

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical

Subfactor One – Program Management Subfactor Two – Resource Management Plan Subfactor Three – Quality Management Plan Subfactor Four – Transition Plan

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1 Evaluation Methodology

2.1.1 Initial Price Evaluation

An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and Section 3.0 below. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In the event that a TEP cannot be calculated, the Government may elect to set the offeror aside and continue evaluating other offerors with TEPs that can be calculated as detailed below, or to continue on with evaluations as described below without a TEP being calculated for the offeror.

2.1.2 Technical and Past Performance Evaluation

Technical and past performance evaluation will be performed starting with the lowest priced offeror(s).

Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set. If a high number of proposals are received, the Government may limit the competitive range to a reasonable number of the lowest priced offerors for efficiency.

2.1.2.1 Technically Acceptable Offerors

If a sufficient number of offeror(s), as determined by the Government are technically acceptable, have acceptable past performance and meet all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made to those offeror(s) without discussions.

2.1.2.2 Technically Unacceptable Offerors

If a sufficient number of offeror(s) as determined by the Government are not technically acceptable or do not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the Government may:

a) Continue evaluating additional offers and award to the next lowest price technically acceptable offeror(s) with acceptable past performance; or

b) Establish a competitive range and enter into discussions IAW

FAR 15.306.

2.1.2.3 Higher Priced Offerors

Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability. It is possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not technically acceptable, or do not have acceptable past performance. It is also possible that offeror(s) may not be considered for award if the TEP cannot be calculated.

3.0 Volume I - Factor One - Price Factor

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are:

1) Completeness

2) Reasonableness

3) Balance

4) Total Evaluated Price

3.1 Completeness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the Request for Proposal (RFP). The offeror shall ensure that they have provided all requested pricing information.

3.2 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). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

3.3 Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.4 Total Evaluated Price

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed rates applied to notional hours for all years for the base period and options (including FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract). To determine the price for the period covered by FAR 52.217-9, the Government will include in the TEP a price for the option period. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government has determined that the elements of the notional formula WILL NOT be disclosed to offerors. A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission. An omitted rate may result in proposal elimination. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only; however, all proposed rates are contractually binding as Not-to-Exceed prices for labor, surge, and overtime issuance of task orders.

3.4.1 Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determination

The rates submitted in a Section J Attachment 3 will also be evaluated to ensure they meet or exceed the rates in the applicable Service Contract Labor Standards Wage Determination.

3.4.2 Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards The Government will also evaluate whether FAR 52.222-43,Fair Labor Standards Act and Service Contract Labor Standards -- Price Adjustment (Multiple Year and Option Contracts), was followed in that the contractor warrants that prices in a Section J Attachment 3 do not include any allowance for any contingency to cover increased costs for which adjustment is provided under 52.222-43. SCLA base labor rates shall not include inflation.

3.4.3 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness and Balance due to the offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the offeror has any unacceptable rating.

4.0 Volume II - Factor Two - Technical Factor

The Technical Volume will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The offeror’s Technical Volume must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Technical Volume shall explain how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements.

The Technical Volume shall NOT simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet the requirements in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal shall NOT merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

The offeror’s approach shall address all requirements IAW the following Paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the PWS unless otherwise noted.

4.1 Technical Evaluation Ratings

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” to each individual subfactor within Factor Two. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable.” Technical subfactors will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings identified in Table 4.1, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method, which is IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1:

Table 4.1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

4.2 Subfactor One: Program Management

4.2.1 Program Management Requirements

The offeror’s program management approach is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates an explicit understanding and effective approach to all contractor management aspects of the DOCAT4 program and the approach is realistically achievable. The offeror’s approach shall address all requirements IAW the following paragraphs and sub-paragraphs of the PWS unless otherwise noted.

a) Description of Services (Paragraph 2.0 with the exception of paragraph 2.2)

b) Contractor Identification Badges (Paragraph 7.2 with the exception of paragraph 7.2.2)

c) Contractor Employee Identification (Paragraph 7.10.2)

d) Environmental Controls (Paragraph(s) 7.13.2, 7.13.4)

e) Safety Requirements (Paragraph(s) 7.14.1. 7.14.4, 7.14.5)

f) Training (Paragraph 7.16)

g) Special Qualifications (Paragraph 7.17)

4.2.2 Multiple Site Management

The approach is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates a plan to manage multiple individual requirements or teams in different locals within the DOCAT program. Such as standing up separate task orders at the same time, or providing services concurrently in different locals IAW PWS Paragraph 2.3.

4.3 Subfactor Two: Resource Management Plan

4.3.1 Provide Qualified Personnel

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively manage and supervise a workforce of qualified personnel possessing the capabilities and experience at skill levels in both relocation and surge conditions which accomplish the requirements of the MTC IAW PWS Paragraph(s) 2.2.1, 2.4.1, 7.2 to 7.2.2.1.

4.3.2 Security Clearance

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which clearly demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will provide a workforce that possesses the appropriate security clearance upon the start of the Task Order Period of Performance IAW PWS Paragraph(s) 7.1, 7.2, and 7.2.3. A sound methodology, experience, or combination of both is required.

4.4 Subfactor Three: Quality Management Plan

This subfactor is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which clearly demonstrates and substantiates how the offeror will adequately and effectively manage and supervise its workforce and provide a quality standard reporting and deficiency resolution plan IAW PWS Paragraph(s) 5.1 and 5.1.1.

4.5 Subfactor Four: Transition Plan

The proposal is technically acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail of a clear methodology which clearly demonstrates how the offeror will meet all staffing needs necessary to meet all requirements of an orderly transfer or stand up of new workload and continuous operation without negative impact on Government operations in the time frame required. The methodology shall be comprehensive and include an overall transition strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations IAW PWS Paragraph 8.1 including all subparagraphs with the exception of 8.1.3.3, 8.1.3.5, 8.1.3.6, 8.1.3.7, 8.1.3.8.

5.0 Volume III - Factor Three - Past Performance Factor

Past performance information will be gathered from, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS), and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews. Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. If the offeror chooses to include subcontractor performance, the offeror shall include contract number and prime contractor. Offeror may use past performance of subcontractor to satisfy recent and relevant past performance. If this is a first time joint venture, each party of the joint venture must provide a list of past relevant contracts (maximum of three).

5.1 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings identified in Table 5.3, Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Table 5.3: 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.

Note1: 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.”

Note2: If the majority of the offeror’s past performance is marginal or lower, then the overall past performance shall be considered unacceptable.

5.2 Recency

Recency is defined as performance within the last three years from the date of the issuance of the solicitation. The Government will not consider performance on contracts where performance was concluded more than three years prior to the solicitation issue date or contracts awarded. The contract/task order in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance if any part of the contract performance falls within the three year timeframe.

5.3 Relevancy

Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same type(s) of services described in the RFP, PWS, Section L, and Section M. The offeror shall address any performance problems/issues as instructed in Section L and explain the corrective action taken or current status.

6.0 Volume IV – Contract Documentation

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required in Section L Instruction to Offerors. An incomplete package may be may excluded the offeror from competition.

6.1 Ability to Obtain Adequate Financial Resources

The proposal shall contain 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.

6.2 Total Case Incident Rate and Days Away, Restricted and Transferred Rates Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and Transferred (DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates should be equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 336411. For offerors that do not possess three years of consecutive recording data, submit this information for the time period you do possess. Other comparable data from a recognized agency, such as workers compensation, insurance rates, etc., for the same time period is also acceptable.

7.0 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best offer 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

8.0 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 meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.