Section_M_Final_9_Apr_12.pdf

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.Basis for Contract Award.

A. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR

15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS

215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability and Small Business Concern Participation acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Concern Participation, tradeoffs will be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is significantly more important than cost/price. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet our requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the present and past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

B. The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

C. The submitted TCIR/DART rates or other comparable rates for the past three (3) calendar years ending with the calendar year immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, shall be compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the specific SIC or NAICS code identified on the face page of this solicitation http://www.bls.gov/

Failure by the applicable offeror/joint venture partner(s)/subcontractors to submit TCIR/DART or other comparable rates will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions. Rates that are higher than the applicable BLS national average may be assessed adversely.

http://www.bls.gov/�

2. Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows.

A. Technical Factor.

(1) Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS paragraphs called out in each subfactor and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any; associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks.

Subfactor One: CASS/CAMP This subfactor is met when the offeror submits an adequate preliminary plan for the evaluation of CASS/CAMP Structural Significant Items (SSI’s), Other Structural Items (OSI’s), Maintenance Significant Items (MSI’s) and Zonal tasks including their approach for ensuring adjustments are made to the program based primarily on reliability and task health data (PWS paragraph 4.8.1.1). Additionally, the offeror’s preliminary plan adequately addresses accomplishing 20% Maintenance Requirements Supportability Process (MRSP) reviews (PWS paragraph 4.8.1) and integration with the Maintenance Requirements Review Board (MRRB) (PWS paragraph 4.8.1.7). The offeror’s plan includes their qualifications, capabilities, and processes for accomplishing the required tasks.

Subfactor Two: Analysis This subfactor is met when the offeror submits an adequate preliminary plan for performing functional system analysis (PWS paragraph 4.8.1.2), engineering analysis (PWS paragraph 4.8.1.3), and FMECA and Systems Safety analysis (PWS paragraph 4.8.1.4) requirements which impact OSS&E to include documentation evidencing their qualifications for accomplishing engineering analysis of maintenance tasks and task intervals.

Subfactor Three: IDE Support This subfactor is met when the offeror submits an adequate preliminary plan for registering and maintaining Certification and Accreditation (C&A) packages via EITDR and eMass (PWS paragraph 4.8.2 and 4.8.2.5) to include documentation evidencing their capability to support and sustain existing IDE software applications (PWS paragraph 4.8.2.2).

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the source selection team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. Offers may be determined technically unacceptable, even though the minimum technical requirements are met, if the proposed approach poses too great a risk. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

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.

B. Past Performance Factor.

The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor, joint venture partner and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform any engineering analysis or any other analysis that directly impacts OSS&E, or tasks that directly impact the development of C&A packages. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three

(3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply:

• VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included FAA CASS/CAMP or MSG3 support and three of the following five items:

• FMECA and Systems Safety Analysis

• IDE Software Support

• C&A Compliance Support (including maintaining IAM-3/IAT-3 CISSP)

• Maintenance/Supply Data Analysis

• SVWC and/or T.O. development

• RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included FAA CASS/CAMP or MSG3 support and one of the following five items:

• FMECA and Systems Safety Analysis

• IDE Software Support

• C&A Compliance Support (including maintaining IAM-3/IAT-3 CISSP)

• SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included one of the following six items:

• FAA CASS/CAMP or MSG3 Support

• FMECA and Systems Safety Analysis

• IDE Software Support

• C&A Compliance Support (including maintaining IAM-3/IAT-3 CISSP)

• NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Magnitude of effort and complexities not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to, length of effort, complexity of data deliverables, contract price, etc.

(2) In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(i). The past performance team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s present/past performance volume. Present/past performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources.

(ii). Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture partner and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii). For offerors/joint venture partners or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the past performance team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture partner, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor.

(iv). The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture partner’s contracts in the aggregate in determining a confidence assessment rating, should the offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture partner’s three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect a greater scope and/or magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort. The Government may consider a critical subcontractor’s submitted contracts in the aggregate in this same manner if their submitted efforts were performed concurrently (in part or in whole). Then considering the offeror’s/joint venture partner’s respective role and their work in aggregate as well as the critical subcontractor(s) role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

(v). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. That is, on the three (3) contracts submitted for evaluation, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture partner (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed, address whether or not it was you utilized small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

(3) As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the past performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are detailed below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Rating Definition 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 a 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 be able to 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.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no 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. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

C. Small Business Concern Participation Factor.

A rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings and descriptions identified below. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by small businesses, historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total contract value shall have been identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which an offeror/joint venture partner/critical subcontractor identifies and commits to the participation of proposed small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in meeting the DoD subcontracting goals in the performance of this resultant contract. The DoD goals may be found at:

http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/goals.htm�

If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, adequate rationale for such has been provided.

SMALL BUSINESS CONCERN ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATIN

Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

D. Cost/Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s Cost/Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance. Offeror’s are reminded that in order to maintain reasonable/balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Price (NSP)”, No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line item other than those already designated “NSP” in the schedule. Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items where the quantity of one (1) lot is specified, the quantity of one (1) shall be used. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph

(4) below.

(2) Reasonableness. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

(3) Balanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, 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 will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical relationship exists within each offeror response to the pricing structure arrangement in Section B of the RFP. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will calculate a TEP based on the following:

a. For Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (X001): Offerors will propose a Unit price for the

Monthly ERR Support CLINs. The Government will multiply the Quantity by the Unit price to calculate the amount. All FFP CLINs (Basic and Options) will be added together to calculate the TEP.

Note: Travel & Per Diem as well as Contractor Furnished Parts/Materials will be Cost Reimbursement – No Fee therefore they will not be part of the TEP calculation.

b. Options will be evaluated as part of the proposal, but the Government will not be obligated to award options.