DraftSection_M052314fbopre.pdf

DRAFT 23 May 2014

Section M

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 of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is considered significantly more important than cost/price. 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. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, 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.

B. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted 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 Source Selection Authority, 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 total compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this total compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

D. 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. Failure by the applicable offeror/joint venture partner(s)/subcontractor to submit TCIR/DART or other comparable rates may result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

E. The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

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

A. Technical Factor.

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, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal must address 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. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor One: Program Management: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal sufficiently substantiates all of the following:

Program Management Approach: A realistic and comprehensive approach for the management and control of the E-8C ATD contract, to include:

i. An organizational structure that establishes clear lines of authority and responsibility for the management of all aspects of a Joint STARS E-8C task order. Proposal described an effective and efficient approach for internal/external communication of program data and status (reference PWS para 4.3). 1) A comprehensive staffing plan addressing: recruiting, training, and retention of personnel that meets requirements of the training system program. 2) Adequate personnel with the necessary expertise to maintain and repair the ATD on location. 3) The offeror’s process to retain, recruit, train qualified and experienced personnel to staff the TSSC at Robins Air Force Base

ii. A sufficient approach for the management and control of contract transition upon award (reference PWS para 5.12).

iii. A comprehensive approach for working with the current contractor during the overlap period of 90 days that ensured the required knowledge and training will be gained (reference PWS para 5.12).

iv. A comprehensive plan to use Integrated Master Schedule and Integrated Master Plan, with logical entry and exit criteria, which supports the development, test, production, and sustainment of each ATD effort (reference PWS para 4.4).

v. Clearly outlined an effective approach to internal/external communications (reference PWS para 4.3).

vi. A statement of the offeror’s current security classification with a comprehensive and realistic plan to apply available resources to obtain appropriate facility and personnel security clearances/approvals (reference PWS para 4.3).

Risk Management Process: A sound process with effective tools and processes to identify, track and mitigate risks. The offeror’s proposal clearly identifies how the risk management system will be applied to improve program performance. The offeror’s proposal clearly identified significant risk areas associated with Training Device sustainment, modifications, upgrades, and software development, and presents effective mitigation steps the offeror will take to successfully address these risks (reference PWS para 4.4.2).

Quality Assurance Process: A comprehensive quality management system is in place which uses the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001 standards (or like standards) as a guide, and supports the Government QA system in accordance with AFI 36-2248 (reference PWS para 5.5).

Small Business Utilization Plan: A comprehensive plan of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed small businesses along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars. The comprehensive plan shall consider:

i. An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and,

ii. An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by small businesses the company names/CAGE codes along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided; and,

iii. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

iv. The associated goals in paragraph ii above in the offeror’s Small Business Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY14 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

Business Size Sub

Small Business 36.7% Women-owned Small Business 5.0% Small Disadvantaged Business 5.0% HUBZone 3.0% Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB 3.0%

Subfactor Two: Sustainment: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach and ability to meet the requirements of CLS maintenance and for the operation and maintenance of the Training System Support Center (TSSC). If any measure of merit is evaluated as UNACCEPTABLE, it will render the entire CLS & TSSC Operations Subfactor UNACCEPTABLE. Measures of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly supports a sound and comprehensive approach to the following:

TSSC Approach: A comprehensive approach to TSSC operations, responsibilities and interaction with the development teams (reference PWS para 4.9.1).

1) TSSC: Establish and manage TSSC operations at Robins AFB

2) TSSC: Concurrency Management: Monitor aircraft changes, assess training impacts and recommend training System updates

3) TSSC: Configuration Management: Establish, maintain control and accurately track and document the functional and physical baselines for all configurations of fielded trainers.

4) TSSC: IR Integration: Integrate platform Integrated Releases into the training system baseline and distribute the upgrade to training site

5) A comprehensive approach to evaluate ongoing and future aircraft change activities for potential impacts to the ATD’s design and training needs, which may define new or changed ATD capabilities

CLS Approach: A comprehensive approach to managing the CLS operations to include: support resources, technical data, spares, support equipment, and technicians to maintain a deployed system at the specified schedule and 95% availability rate (reference PWS para 4.9.2).

1) CLS: Support and maintain the training devices at system availability requirements

2) CLS: Manage CLS operations and resources

Configuration Management and Control Process: A comprehensive approach to maintaining Configuration Management (CM) of training devices. The offeror clearly describes their change control process and the tools to be used to maintain CM (reference PWS para 4.6).

Change Management Process: The offeror proposes a comprehensive change management process that identifies, tracks, and implements modifications into the ATD as a result of maintaining concurrency with the aircraft, trainer-unique changes, sustainability issues, obsolescence, and technology improvements. The offeror presents a sound process for identifying, obtaining, and controlling source data needed to perform contract requirements (reference PWS para 4.6).

System Integration Lab Movement Approach (SIL): An effective plan to move, house, and bring the System Integration Lab to a fully operational status with in the 90 day overlap period (reference PWS para 5.12.).

LSP Approach: A comprehensive approach to maintain, manage, and update the Logistics Support Package (LSP) to meet availability requirements (reference PWS para 4.9.5).

DMS/MS Approach: A comprehensive approach that provides effective solutions to forecast, identify, monitor, and mitigate deficiencies due to DMS/MS and obsolescence issues within the training system.

Subfactor Three: Testing: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a detailed narrative explaining its processes for adhering to all testing requirements set forth in the PWS. The offeror’s proposal provided the following processes/approaches:

Acceptance Test Procedure Approach: A clear understanding and a comprehensive approach to performing with quarterly Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP) quality testing (reference PWS para 4.9.3).

Deficiency Report Process: A clear understanding and an effective process for correcting new and existing Acceptance Test Guide (ATG) Technical Deficiency Reports (TDR) within 90 days of discrepancy (reference PWS para 4.6).

Airfield Data Base Verification Approach: A comprehensive approach to Airfield Data Base Verification testing using the current Flight Information Publications (FLIP) and deficiency corrections within the given time frame (reference PWS para 4.9.3).

Subfactor Four: Sample Task/Scenarios: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a detailed narrative explaining the proposed plan for the following technical scenarios as detailed in the PWS para 4.9:

Integration Approach: A detailed approach to effectively and efficiently overcome the government’s limited data rights concern referenced in the PWS (5.1) and in accordance with the Integration sample task scenario

Motion System Replacement Approach: A detailed approach to effectively and efficiently upgrade the current Thompson/Thales hydraulic motion system due to current Diminishing Manufacture Sources/Material Shortages. The plan addressed all concerns listed in the Motion System Replacement Scenario

(2) The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach 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 Government’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. The Government may independently identify risks not identified by the offeror and assess its impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government poses too great a risk to the program and does not address a suitable mitigation, the Government may consider the proposal technically unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table 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 members’ ability which includes, 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 and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will be used in the offeror’s plan to overcome the limited data rights, as described in the PWS (5.1). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and 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 four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

• 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 6 of the following 6 aspects:

1. Experience sustaining full motion aircraft training systems

2. Experience as Total System Support Center (TSSC) on aircraft simulator(s)

3. Experience as Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) on aircraft simulator(s)

4. Experience performing Acceptance Test Procedures and/or Acceptance Test Guides (ATGs) on aircraft simulators

5. Experience with simulator software integration

6. Experience as a Government Contractor

• RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included any 5 of the following 6 aspects however, at least 2 of the aspects must be from aspect 1-3:

1. Experience sustaining full motion aircraft training systems

2. Experience as Total System Support Center (TSSC) on aircraft simulator(s)

3. Experience as Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) on aircraft simulator(s)

4. Experience performing Acceptance Test Procedures and/or Acceptance Test Guides (ATGs) on aircraft simulators

5. Experience with simulator software integration

6. Experience as a Government Contractor

• 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 any 4 of the following 6 aspects however, at least 1 of the aspects must be from aspect 1-3:

1. Experience sustaining full motion aircraft training systems

2. Experience as Total System Support Center (TSSC) on aircraft simulator(s)

3. Experience as Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) on aircraft simulator(s)

4. Experience performing Acceptance Test Procedures and/or Acceptance Test Guides (ATGs) on aircraft simulators

5. Experience with simulator software integration

6. Experience as a Government Contractor

• NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Present/past performance does not meet the definitions required in the Very Relevant, Relevant, or Somewhat Relevant categories.

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

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. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(ii). Offerors/joint venture members/critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member(s) 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 members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) 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 and this performance occurred during the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

(iv). The Government shall consider an offeror’s/joint venture member’s including critical subcontractors, contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s four (4) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as 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 greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. A joint venture member’s four (4) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as 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 greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. 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 member’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.

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 excerpted below.

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 No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s (Neutral) 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.

(v). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture member’s critical subcontractor’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor 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 contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize 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.

D. Cost/Price Factor.

Section M