Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

J-Tech II

FA8240-15-R-7218

Section M

J-Tech II Page 1 of 25

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION - TWO-PHASED ACQUISITION APPROACH. The two-phased acquisition approach is conducted in two segments entitled Phase 1 and Phase

2. Phase 1 enables the Source Selection Authority (SSA) selection, referred to herein as the Phase 1 SSA Determination, of the highest rated Offerors to proceed to Phase 2.

The Phase 1 portion of the acquisition will be followed by a tradeoff source selection for the Phase 2 portion. Phase 2 enables the SSA decision for contract award. While the

Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), the Source Selection Advisory

Council (SSAC), and the SSA 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. Phase 1

1.1.1 Phase 1 proposals will be evaluated in accordance with (IAW) the Phase 1 criteria specified in Section M using the guiding principles of the DoD Source Selection

Procedures, Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Offeror’s Phase 1 proposals shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration. The Offeror must be assigned an overall “Pass” rating (Phase 1A) and be one of the most highly rated Offerors (Phase 1B), in accordance with the past performance point scoring breakdown, to be eligible to proceed on to Phase 2 of the acquisition. Prior to the Phase 1 SSA Determination, Offerors must be determined responsible by the Contracting Officer (CO).

1.1.2 The SSA intends to select, with a Phase 1 SSA Determination, the three (3) most highly rated Offerors that are assigned an overall “Pass” rating (Phase 1A), and are one of the most highly rated Offerors (Phase 1B), and are deemed responsible; however, the SSA may select more or fewer than three (3) Offerors to enter Phase 2.

1.1.3 In the event the Government receives three (3) or fewer Phase 1 proposals, the

Government reserves the right to forego the Phase 1B evaluation process and proceed into Phase 2 of this acquisition with those Offerors that receive a “Pass” rating for Phase

1A and are determined responsible. If this occurs, the past performance information http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

J-Tech II Page 2 of 25 submitted for Phase 1B may be evaluated under the Past Performance Factor in Phase

2.

1.1.4 The Offeror should maintain the team structure established in its Phase 1 proposal throughout the Phase 2 evaluation phase. Failure to maintain its team structure established in its Phase 1 proposal may result in being removed from the competition.

1.2 Phase 2

1.2.1 This is a tradeoff source selection conducted IAW the Phase 2 criteria specified in

Section M and IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFFARS. The Offeror’s Phase 2 proposal shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror: 1) who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented; 2) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L); and 3) who is judged to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the J-Tech II requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical approach and or the past performance confidence assessment of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Cost

Plus Award Fee/Award Term contract for the J-Tech II Program.

1.4 Organization of Section M. The remainder of Section M is organized in two main segments: 1) Phase 1 Evaluation Criteria and 2) Phase 2 Evaluation Criteria.

2.0 PHASE 1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 General Information. The selection process for J-Tech II Phase 1 will be based on a “Pass”/”Fail” rating (Phase 1A) and a past performance point rating (Phase 1B) whereby 500 points are available to each Phase 1 proposal for contract/project submissions (up to 100 points per contract/project submitted). No more than 20 contract/project submissions per Offeror will be rated in Phase 1A. No more than five

(5) contract/project submissions per Offeror will be rated in Phase 1B. Should an

J-Tech II Page 3 of 25

Offeror submit fewer than five (5) contracts/projects for Phase 1B, the Offeror cannot receive the maximum of 500 points. To be considered for J-Tech II Phase 2, each

Offeror must:

Receive a “Pass” rating for Phase 1A, Be one of the most highly rated Offerors in Phase 1B; however, Section M paragraph 1.1.3 may apply, and

Be determined responsible.

2.1.1 Definitions. For the Phase 1 evaluations, the following definitions apply:

2.1.1.1 Recency (Recent) Definition. A recent contract/project is defined as a single

Government or commercial contract or a single Government or commercial task order placed under a Single Award or Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity

(IDIQ) task order (FAR 16.501-1, 16.501-2); or a single Government or commercial task order placed under a Single Award or a Government or commercial Multiple Award

Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) (FAR 8.405-3 or FAR 13.303) that is ongoing or must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions will not be evaluated.

2.1.1.2 Relevancy (Relevant) Definition

2.1.1.2.1 Relevancy is comprised of three (3) subparts: experience in the J-Tech II

Enterprise-level PWS Functional Areas, paragraphs 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, and 3.17; geographical separation; and magnitude of effort.

2.1.1.2.2 A contract/project that does not include demonstrated experience in a minimum of four (4) of the J-Tech II Enterprise-level PWS paragraphs identified in

Section M paragraph 2.1.1.2.1 is not relevant and will result in zero (0) points.

2.1.1.2.3 J-Tech II Enterprise-level PWS Functional Areas are defined in the J-Tech II

Enterprise-level PWS paragraphs identified in Section M paragraph 2.1.1.2.1.

Demonstrated experience in any of the subparagraphs of 3.16 or 3.17 constitutes experience for that (3.16 or 3.17) functional area for the purposes of allocating points.

2.1.1.2.4 Geographical Separation. For purposes of determining geographically separated locations, the Department of Labor (DoL), Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for Occupational Employment Statistics will be used. The DoL BLS currently maintains

J-Tech II Page 4 of 25

375 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), 34 metropolitan divisions, and over 170 nonmetropolitan areas. MSAs consist of one or more counties (or towns and cities in

New England) and contain a core area with a substantial population which has a high degree of economic and social integration with the surrounding areas; also, a MSA must have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or more inhabitants. Certain MSAs have subdivisions called metropolitan divisions. Within CONUS, the May 2014 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Definitions spreadsheet located at http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/area_definitions_m2014.xls will determine the number of locations a project covers, specifically the MSA Code under Column C only. For example, Column C indicates Birmingham-Hoover Alabama area with an MSA Code of

13820. Assume the contract/project involves work in two counties (Bibb and Blount).

Therefore, since Bibb and Blount counties are within the same MSA code of 13820, this contract/project is considered One (1) location. Another example, the contract/project involves work in Birmingham-Hoover Alabama and Decatur Alabama. Since

Birmingham-Hoover and Decatur are not within the same MSA code (13820 and

19460), this contract/project is considered two (2) locations. For evaluation purposes, each separate OCONUS location will be considered a single MSA Code.

2.1.1.2.5 Magnitude of Effort. A contract/project magnitude is the average annual obligated value over the life of the contract/project or the last five (5) years of contract/project performance, whichever time period is less.

2.1.1.3 Discussions. The Government intends to make a Phase 1 SSA Determination without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any exchanges with Offerors solely to determine contractor responsibility shall not be considered discussions. The Government may conduct clarifications, as describe in FAR 15.306(a).

2.1.1.4 Adverse Past Performance Information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that is: 1) data from a recent and relevant contract; 2) which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to respond through a formal rating system; and

3) which negatively impacts the performance confidence assessment. The Offeror will have an opportunity to address adverse past performance information through clarifications or communications.

2.2 Phase 1 Four-Step Evaluation Process. The Government will conduct a Section

M, Paragraph 2.2.1 (Phase 1A) evaluation for all submitted proposals. Additionally, the

CO will make a responsibility determination IAW with FAR 9.104-1 and 9.104-2 for

Phase 1 Offerors prior to the Phase 1 SSA Determination using the information provided in Section L section 2.5.2. The CO may also use other sources of information http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/area_definitions_m2014.xls http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/area_definitions_m2014.xls

J-Tech II Page 5 of 25 to make a responsibility determination. The Phase 1 Responsibility Information will carry over into the Phase 2 CO responsibility determination.

2.2.1 Step 1 (Phase 1A). The Government will verify the Offeror has provided documentation to support the self-assessment in the Phase 1 Past Performance Excel

Workbook (Section L-3 Attachment) submitted in accordance with Section L paragraph

2.3. The Government will assign a rating (“Pass”/”Fail”) for each the following

Enterprise-level PWS paragraphs 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10, 3.11, 3.12, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16.1, 3.16.2, 3.16.3, 3.16.4, 3.17.1, 3.17.2, 3.17.3, 3.17.4, 3.17.5, 3.17.6, 3.17.7, 3.17,8, 3.17.9, 3.17.10, and 3.17.11. Demonstrating experience in an

Enterprise-level PWS paragraph constitutes a “Pass” rating for that specific Enterprise-level PWS paragraph. Demonstrating experience in all 29 Enterprise-level PWS paragraphs cited constitutes a “Pass” rating for Phase 1A. Once an Offeror receives a

“Pass” rating for Phase 1A, the Government will not evaluate any further contract/project submissions. In Phase 1A, failure to demonstrate experience in an

Enterprise-level PWS paragraph constitutes a “Fail” rating for that specific Enterprise-level PWS paragraph. Failure to demonstrate experience in one or more of the

Enterprise-level PWS paragraphs cited constitutes a “Fail” rating for Phase 1A. When evaluating whether the Offeror’s proposal receives a “Pass” rating for Phase 1A, the

Government may use data provided by the Offeror and information obtained from other sources. Offerors who receive a “Fail” rating for Phase 1A will be removed from further consideration and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.

2.2.2 Step 2 Self Scoring Verification (Phase 1B). The Government will verify the

Offeror has provided documentation to support the self-assessment in the Phase 1 Past

Performance Excel Workbook (Section L-3 Attachment) submitted in accordance with

Section L paragraph 2.4.3. The Government will compare the Offeror’s documentation to the self-scoring assessment worksheets. Any discrepancies between the supporting documents and the self-scoring worksheets will be treated as clarifications as defined in

FAR 15.306 (a) (1). As a result, Offerors will not be permitted to revise their proposal.

2.2.3 Step 3 Government Assessment (Phase 1B). In the event an Offeror’s claimed evaluation element is unsubstantiated, the Offeror’s self-assessment will have the point value of the refuted evaluation criteria deducted and the Government will assign the final rating. The Government will not add points to the Phase 1 Past Performance Excel

Workbook (Section L-3 Attachment) Relevancy Worksheet (tab). The Government will then conduct a quality of performance assessment and assign a quality of performance rating (Phase 1 Past Performance Excel Workbook (Section L-3 Attachment) PP

Scoring Worksheets) IAW Section M Tables 1 thru 5.

J-Tech II Page 6 of 25

2.2.3.1 Past Performance Point Scoring Breakdown. A total of 500 points are available (up to 100 for each contract/project submission). These points are broken into

250 points for quality and 250 points for relevancy. Within relevancy, there are 160 possible points for J-Tech II Enterprise-level PWS Functional Areas, 40 possible points for Geographical Separation, and 50 possible points for Magnitude of Effort.

2.2.3.2 Quality of Performance (250 Points Available)

2.2.3.2.1 Proposals will be evaluated based on relative weighting of recency in accordance with the following information. Five (5) separate contract/project submissions give the Offeror up to 50 points per submission. The most recent performance period of the submission will receive the highest weighting as described in the table below. After all five (5) contract/project submissions have been evaluated, a factor of ten (10) will be applied as described in Section M Table 1 below and available in the Phase 1 Past Performance Excel Workbook (Section L-3 Attachment) and result in a maximum of 250 points in total for all submissions.

TABLE 1 – RELATIVE WEIGHTING OF RECENCY

Number of years of available past performance information

Relative Weighting from oldest to most recent year

5 (10%, 10%, 15%, 25%, 40%)

4 (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%)

3 (20%, 30%, 50%)

2 (40%, 60%)

1 (100%)

2.2.3.2.2 For each contract/project with an interim or final past performance evaluation in the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) that links to Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) or from the Past Performance

Questionnaires (PPQs) will have an Adjectival Rating from Section M Table 2. If there is a CPARS for the contract/project, the CPARS and not the PPQs will be used for the scoring. A year is defined as twelve (12) continuous months of performance.

2.2.3.2.3 For each contract/project where no interim or final past performance evaluation in PPIRS that links to CPARS exists, the PPQ(s) will have an adjectival rating and point value from Section M Table 2. If any of the past performance criteria are not assigned an adjectival rating, that criteria will not be averaged into the final score.

J-Tech II Page 7 of 25

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE POINT VALUE DEFINITIONS

Point

Value

Adjectival

Rating Definition

5 Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

4 Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

3 Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

2 Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being evaluated reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

1 Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N/A N/A (Neutral) No performance information available.

2.2.3.2.4 Each CPARS or PPQ has six (6) rated areas: Quality of Service, Schedule, Cost Control, Business Relations, Management of Key Personnel, and Utilization of

Small Business. Each of the five (5) contract/project submissions may have multiple years of CPARS or PPQs, which are all weighted according to the aforementioned scale

(Section M Table 1). To further provide detail, each scored area will be summed and divided by the number of scored areas to determine the overall CPARS or PPQ for that

J-Tech II Page 8 of 25 particular contract/project submission. For instance, in a Firm Fixed Price contract, there will usually be an N/A rating for cost control. In this circumstance, the total number of scored areas will be five (5) rather than six (6). Once there is an average score for that contract/project submission year, it will be weighted along with the other submission years according to the weighting scale. The Government will process each contract/project in the same manner to develop an overall point score for Quality of

Performance.

* In Government FY 2015, CPARS categories changed with the addition of “Regulatory

Compliance” and three “Other” fill-in categories, and the removal of “Management of

Key Personnel.” If an Offeror submits a 2015 CPARS for any contract/project, the

Management of Resources column will receive an N/A (neutral) rating on the Phase 1

Past Performance Excel Workbook (Section L-3 Attachment). Furthermore, any

Regulatory Compliance or Other fill-in categories on the Government FY 2015 CPARS will not be rated for the purposes of J-Tech II Phase 1B.

2.2.3.2.5 For example purposes only. This example is to help the Offeror understand how its quality of performance rating will be calculated:

An Offeror submits one contract/project with two CPARS completed for the first twelve

(12) continuous months of performance and the second twelve (12) continuous months of performance that meet the recency criteria.

CONTRACT/PROJECT 1: For past performance under Contract/Project 1, an Offeror receives the following points for a contract performed over a twelve (12) continuous month period and has a 2014 CPARS:

Very Good for Quality of Service: 4

Satisfactory for Schedule: 3

No Rating for Cost Control: N/A (Neutral)

Satisfactory for Business Relations: 3

Exceptional for Management of Key Personnel: 5

No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)

Total Number of Points: 15

15 Points divided by the Number of Scored Elements (4) = 3.75 for Project 1, year

J-Tech II Page 9 of 25

CONTRACT/PROJECT 1: For past performance under Contract/Project 1, an Offeror receives the following points for a contract performed over a twelve (12) continuous month period and has a 2013 CPARS:

Exceptional for Quality of Service: 5

Very Good for Schedule: 4

No Rating for Cost Control: N/A (Neutral)

Very Good for Business Relations: 4

Exceptional for Management of Key Personnel: 5

No Rating for Utilization of Small Business: N/A (Neutral)

Total Number of Points: 18

18 Points divided by the Number of Scored Elements (4) = 4.5 for Project 1, year

The weighting guide for two years of available performance information (40%, 60%) will be used in this example; therefore -

3.75 points * 60% + 4.5 points * 40% = 4.05 points

4.05 points * 10 = 40.5 points

Offeror will receive 40.5 points for Project 1

With five (5) separate contract/project submissions, Offerors have a total of 250 available points.

2.2.3.3 Relevancy of Performance (250 Points Available)

2.2.3.3.1 PWS Functional Areas. Each contract/project submission is capable of earning up to 32 points (2 points per Section M Table 3) multiplied by 5 contract/project submissions = 160 points total available. Offerors will receive either two (2) points for demonstrating experience in the functional area or zero (0) points for not demonstrating experience in the functional area.

J-Tech II Page 10 of 25

TABLE 3 – PWS POINT VALUES PER SECTION

Enterprise-level PWS

Functional

Area Section

Functional Area Points

3.2 Threat Systems 2

3.3 Stimulation Systems 2

3.4 Targets 2

3.5 Ordnance 2

3.6 Instrumentation Systems 2

3.7 Signal Collection/Monitoring/Measuring 2

3.8 Telemetry Systems 2

3.9 Mission Control 2

3.10 Command Destruct/Flight Termination Systems (CD/FTS) 2

3.11 Communication Systems 2

3.12 Computer Systems 2

3.13 Modeling & Simulation (M&S) System 2

3.14 Test Engineering 2

3.15 Data Analysis and Reporting 2

3.16

Systems Engineering (SE) (The maximum value available for one or more sub elements is two (2) points. To receive two

(2) points, the Offeror must demonstrate experience in one or more of the sub elements.)

3.17

Mission Support (The maximum value available for one or more sub elements is two (2) points. To receive two (2) points, the Offeror must demonstrate experience in one or more of the sub elements.)

2.2.3.3.2 Geographical Separation (40 Points Available). Refer to the definition of

Geographical Separation in Section M paragraph 2.1.1.2.4. Contract/Project work at subcontractor facilities or Travel Duty (TDY) assignments for contract employees does not count for any location. Each contract/project submission is capable of earning up to eight (8) points per contract/project (per Section M Table 4) multiplied by five (5) contract/project submissions = 40 points available.

J-Tech II Page 11 of 25

TABLE 4 – GEOGRAPHICALLY SEPARATED LOCATIONS POINT VALUES

Geographically Separated

Locations Supported Points

4+ 8

3 6

2 4

<2 0

For example: If an Offeror submits 5 contracts/projects all of which support 4 or more geographically separated locations as defined by the DoL BLS as referenced in Section

M paragraph 2.1.1.2.4, that Offeror will earn 40 points.

2.2.3.3.3 Magnitude of Effort (50 Points Available). Magnitude, in millions of dollars, is averaged, divided by 10; rounded to the nearest tenth (Section M Table 5). A contract/project magnitude is the average annual obligated value over the life of the contract/project or the last five (5) years of contract/project performance, whichever time period is less.

TABLE 5 – ANNUAL OBLIGATED VALUE POINT DEFINITIONS

Average Annual

Obligated Value of

Contract/Project over the last five years

Points

$99.5M+ 10

$89.5M - $99.49M 9-9.9

$79.5M - $89.49M 8-8.9

$69.5M - $79.49M 7-7.9

$59.5M - $69.49M 6-6.9

$49.5M - $59.49M 5-5.9

$39.5M - $49.49M 4-4.9

$29.5M - $39.49M 3-3.9

$19.5M - $29.49M 2-2.9

$10M - $19.49M 1-1.9

<$10M 0

J-Tech II Page 12 of 25

For Example: An Offeror submits a three (3) year contract/project with the following annual obligation amounts: 2014 – $86.5M, 2013 - $79.9M, 2012 – $90.0M. The average annual obligation value would be considered (86.5+79.9+90.0)/3 = 85.467 which would then be divided by 10 for 8.547 or 8.5 points for that contract/project submission.

2.2.4 Step 4. The Government will sort the Offerors by highest final rating to lowest final rating. The SSA intends to select, with a Phase 1 SSA Determination, the three (3)

Offerors that are assigned an overall “Pass” rating (Phase 1A), and are one of the most highly rated Offerors (Phase 1B), and are deemed responsible; however, the SSA may select more or fewer than three (3) Offerors to enter Phase 2. Offerors who receive a

“Fail” rating for Phase 1A, are determined non-responsible by the CO, or are not one of the most highly rated Offerors will be removed from further consideration and notified, in writing, as soon as practicable.

2.3 OTHER INFORMATION

2.3.1 Reviews and Visits. Government security personnel and the CO may conduct site visits during Phase 1 to gather and use information for the CO responsibility determination.

2.3.2 Solicitation Requirements. 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.

3.0 PHASE 2 EVALUATION CRITERIA

3.1 General Information

3.1.1 Special Notice. The Government does not intend to delay the issuance of the

Phase 2 Amendment or extend the Phase 2 proposal submission date due to changes in the Offeror’s personnel security or facility accreditation status. Failure to meet and retain these requirements may result in an Offeror’s disqualification from the competition and exclusion from further consideration.

3.1.2 Discussions. The Government intends to hold discussions but reserves the right to award without discussions. If discussions are conducted, the Offeror’s original Phase

2 proposal, responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision

(FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s

J-Tech II Page 13 of 25 proposal has been evaluated as at least 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. Any exchanges with Offerors solely to determine contractor responsibility shall not be considered discussions.

3.1.3 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. An award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor A: Technical Expertise

Subfactor B: Program Management

Subfactor C: Recruit and Retain a Qualified Workforce

Subfactor D: Innovations and Efficiencies

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

3.1.4 The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical is significantly more important than either Past Performance or Cost/Price. Past

Performance is more important than Cost/Price. Technical and Past Performance when taken together are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors are listed in descending order of importance.

3.2 Executive Summary. The Executive Summary of the entire proposal will not be evaluated. Any summary material presented will not be considered as meeting the requirements of any portions of other volumes of the proposal.

3.3 Factor 1: Technical. The Technical Factor has four (4) subfactors. The

Government will evaluate the Offerors subfactor responses to determine the Offerors understanding and approach to meeting or exceeding the requirements of the subfactor.

Aspects of the Offeror’s proposal may be incorporated into the resultant contract.

J-Tech II Page 14 of 25

3.3.1 Subfactor A: Technical Expertise

3.3.1.1 The response to this subfactor should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the Technical Expertise required to ensure successful test, tactics development, and training mission execution throughout the J-Tech II period of performance. The response to the Technical Expertise Approach and Technical Expertise Scenario are of equal importance.

3.3.1.1.1 The Technical Expertise Approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror's response demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach (to include understanding) to meet all of the Technical Expertise Approach elements listed in Section L under Subfactor A.

3.3.1.1.2 The Technical Expertise Scenario will be evaluated as a whole to determine the extent to which the Offeror's response demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach (to include understanding) IAW the J-Tech II Enterprise-level

PWS and Annex-level PWSs. The Technical Expertise Scenario response will also be evaluated as a whole to determine the extent to which the Offeror's scenario response is consistent with its Technical Expertise Approach.

3.3.2 Subfactor B: Program Management

3.3.2.1 The response to this subfactor should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the Program Management required to ensure successful test, tactics development, and training mission execution throughout the J-Tech II period of performance. The response to the Program Management Approach is more important than the sum of the responses to the Program Management Scenarios.

3.3.2.1.1 The Program Management Approach (excluding the Small Business

Participation Element) will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror's response demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach (to include understanding) to meet all of the elements listed in Section L under Subfactor B.

3.3.2.1.1.1 The Small Business Participation Element will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates it can clearly meet the small business participation requirement of 25 percent of total dollars obligated.

3.3.2.1.2 The two (2) Program Management Scenario responses will be evaluated individually to determine the extent to which the Offeror's responses demonstrate an efficient, effective, and executable approach (to include understanding). The two (2)

J-Tech II Page 15 of 25

Program Management Scenario responses will also be evaluated individually to determine the extent to which the Offeror's scenario response is consistent with its

Program Management Approach.

3.3.3 Subfactor C: Recruit And Retain A Qualified Workforce. The response to this subfactor should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding of the Recruit and Retain a

Qualified Workforce Subfactor required to ensure successful test, tactics development, and training mission execution throughout the J-Tech II period of performance. In presenting the total compensation packages, particular attention should be given to geographic considerations, diversity of work, and the expertise required to provide a high quality and stable workforce. The Recruit and Retain a Qualified Workforce subfactor will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror's approach (to include understanding) demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach to meet all of the elements listed in Section L under Subfactor C.

3.3.4 Subfactor D: Innovations and Efficiencies. The response to this subfactor should demonstrate the Offeror’s Innovations and Efficiencies process to improve test, tactics development, and training mission execution throughout the J-Tech II period of performance. The Innovations and Efficiencies Subfactor will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror's approach (to include understanding) demonstrates an effective, efficient, and executable approach to meet Subfactor D.

3.3.5 Factor 1 Subfactor Ratings

3.3.5.1 Color/Adjectival Rating for the Technical Subfactors. The technical subfactor ratings provide an assessment of the Offeror’s response. Ratings are only assigned at the subfactor level. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted in Section M Table 6 below. The technical subfactor ratings focus on the Offeror’s approach and understanding of the requirements as well as strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the technical subfactor requirements. Technical subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor.

J-Tech II Page 16 of 25

3.3.5.2 Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating for the Program Management Subfactor

Element. For the Program Management Subfactor Small Business Participation

Element, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

The element will receive an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, excerpted in Section M Table 7 below.

TABLE 7- 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.

TABLE 6 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

BLUE OUTSTANDING

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

PURPLE GOOD

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

GREEN ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

YELLOW MARGINAL

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

RED UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

J-Tech II Page 17 of 25

3.3.5.3 Risk Rating for the Technical Subfactors

3.3.5.3.1 Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance; the need for increased Government oversight; or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.3.5.3.2 The Government will assign a Technical Risk rating described in DoD Source

Selection Procedures, excerpted in Section M Table 8 below, for each Technical

Subfactor. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the J-Tech II requirement. Ratings are only assigned at the subfactor level.

Technical Subfactor risk ratings will not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the

Technical Factor. For any identified Offeror risks, the Government will consider the

Offeror’s identified risk and the Offeror’s proposed mitigation in the evaluation.

Identified risks by the Offeror will be part of the Government’s assessment; Offeror silence on risk does not constitute the absence of risk.

3.4 Factor 2: Past Performance.

3.4.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it meets the definition of recent. A recent contract/project is defined as a single Government or commercial contract or a single Government or commercial task order placed under a Single Award or Multiple Award Indefinite

Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) task order (FAR 16.501-1, 16.501-2); or a single

TABLE 8 – 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.

J-Tech II Page 18 of 25

Government or commercial task order placed under a Single Award or a Government or commercial Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) (FAR 8.405-3 or FAR

13.303) that is ongoing or must have been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of the J-Tech II solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions will not be evaluated.

3.4.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts/projects relate to Technical Subfactors A, B, and C and the Cost/Price

Factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. In determining relevancy for an individual contract/project, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract/project is being reviewed and evaluated. The following past performance relevancy criteria will be used during the evaluation:

3.4.2.1 Scope. Relevancy in regard to scope includes those technical subfactors identified in Section M paragraph 3.1.3 and those tasks/functions referenced in the J-

Tech II Enterprise-level PWS Section 3.0 and Annex-level PWSs Sections 3.0.

3.4.2.2 Magnitude. Relevancy in regard to magnitude will be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities, in terms of dollars, between a given contract/project and the J-Tech II Enterprise-level PWS and Annex-level PWSs. Efforts that are less than

$10M annually or $50M total contract scope will not be considered relevant.

3.4.2.3 Complexity. Relevancy in regard to complexity will be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the tasks/functions referenced in the J-Tech II Enterprise-level PWS and Annex-level PWSs in terms of the unique and highly technical nature of operations, maintenance, and sustainment; geographic locations supported; service similarity; aging infrastructure;

contract type; and performance period.

3.4.2.4 The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Past performance information sheets and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish past performance relevancy ratings. When assessing recent contracts/projects, the Government will use the following relevancy ratings in Section M

Table 9.

J-Tech II Page 19 of 25

3.4.3 Performance Quality Assessment

3.4.3.1 The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the Offeror performed on the contracts/projects) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation for all past performance information available, regardless of source.

3.4.3.2 Adverse is defined as past performance information that is: 1) data from a recent and at least somewhat relevant contract; 2) which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to respond through a formal rating system; and 3) which negatively impacts the performance confidence assessment. The Offeror will have an opportunity to address adverse past performance information through clarifications or communications.

3.4.3.3 The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. 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 resulted in sustained improvements. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

3.4.3.4 The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant contracts/projects:

TABLE 9 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

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

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

J-Tech II Page 20 of 25

TABLE 10 QUALITY LEVELS

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) / BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG) / PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some.

Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) / GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) / YELLOW

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.

UNSATIFACTORY (U) / RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) / WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

3.4.4 Past performance information may be obtained from any sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, the PPIRS, Federal Awardee Performance

J-Tech II Page 21 of 25 and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

(eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

3.4.5 Factor 2 Ratings

3.4.5.1 The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures and shown in Section M

Table 11, excerpted below.

3.4.5.2 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each

Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors

A - C and Cost/Price Factor, taking into consideration their relative order of importance.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government may confirm past and present performance

TABLE 11 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

J-Tech II Page 22 of 25 data identified by the Offeror in its proposal. The Government may use any information provided in the Offeror’s Phase 1 proposal. The Government may also utilize other information sources at the Government’s disposal.

3.4.5.3 Assigning ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, the Offeror will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors A - C and Cost/Price Factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. An Offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance Factor. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an

Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered.

3.4.5.4 More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the

Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

3.5 Factor 3: Cost/Price

3.5.1 The total cost proposed of all Cost Reimbursable CLINs will be evaluated through a cost realism analysis, by calculating a Probable Cost (PC) (FAR 15.404-1(d) (2)) for base period, option periods and award term option periods to determine if the proposed cost is realistic. For the Cost/Price Factor, the source selection decision will be based on the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) determination. Award will be made at the

Offeror’s proposed cost. Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed price is reasonable and balanced.

3.5.2 Evaluation of option and award term option periods will not obligate the

Government to exercise such options.

J-Tech II Page 23 of 25

3.5.3 Reasonableness. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

3.5.4 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.5.5 Realism. This evaluation will consider the extent to which the proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements; are realistic for the work to be performed; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offerors technical proposal, pursuant to FAR 15.404. When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance, and the Offeror fails to adequately explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the technical subfactor risk rating, the

Offeror’s lack of understanding of technical requirements for the applicable technical subfactors. If the cost realism analysis determines the Offeror’s PC differs from its proposed cost, the Government will utilize the Offeror’s PC for Source Selection

Decision purposes. Should further information to support price realism be necessary, the Government reserves the right to request further information. If the Offeror does not provide justification and substantiation of its proposed costs to enable the Government’s realism analysis (e.g., the Government cannot calculate an Offeror’s PC), the Offeror’s proposal may be rejected.

3.5.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). An Offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award. All elements required for the TEP shall be included in the J-Tech II Cost Model Workbook (Section L-8

Attachment); these elements, excluding CLINs XXX4, 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004, will be evaluated for cost realism. Cost realism analysis will not be completed on CLINs

XXX4, 0001, 0002, 0003, and 0004. For CLINs where the Government will perform cost realism, the Government will use the PC for these CLINs in the TEP computation. The

TEP will include the following CLINs:

FFP CLIN 0001 - 0004

TEP for these CLINs will be the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed price for the transition period at each Annex.

J-Tech II Page 24 of 25

CPAF CLINs XXX1 Labor

TEP for CLIN XXX1 will be the total labor costs to execute the J-Tech II Enterprise-level

PWS and Annex-level PWSs, along with the total costs associated with…