Section M-Evaluation Factors for Award_Amd 1.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

SSP Attachment 5 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with (FAR) 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures

5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for RSAF F-15 Repair Support as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability and small business participation acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable with acceptable small business participation, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Note, the previous sentences do not imply nor is it the Government’s intention to conduct the evaluations in sequential order (i.e., first technical, then small business participation, then past performance, and finally price). The Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. This may result in an award to a higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I. Technical

Subfactor One: Management of Repair Sources

Subfactor Two: Management of Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS)

Subfactor Three: Manage Turn Around Time (TAT) at Various Sources of Repair

(SORs)

Factor II. Past Performance

Factor III. Small Business Participation

Factor IV. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: The evaluation criteria and subfactors in relative order of importance are evaluated as follows: Factor I, Technical Capability, Factor II, Past Performance, Factor IV, Cost/Price, and then Factor III, Small Business Participation. Factor I, Technical Capability, Factor II, Past Performance, and Factor III, Small Business Participation, when combined, are considered approximately equal to Factor IV, Cost/Price. However, Factor IV, Cost/Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision. Factor I, Technical Capability, and Factor III, Small Business Participation, will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, and thus will not be a part of the tradeoff decision.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306.

If the Contracting Officer determines 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.

B. Gating

An RFP compliance review will be conducted for all offerors that submit a timely initial proposal.

Proposals that are complete, in accordance with Volume I, and received before 12:00PM Daylight Saving Time on the solicitation closing/proposal response date will move to Gate 1. Incomplete, late, or noncompliant proposals will not proceed to Gate 1.

Gate 1: All offerors within Gate 1 shall have their Volume II, Technical Proposal evaluated for acceptability. All offerors evaluated and determined to be technically acceptable for all subfactors will proceed to Gate 2. All offerors evaluated and determined to be technically unacceptable for any technical subfactor will remain in Gate 1.

Gate 2: All offerors within Gate 2 shall have their Volume III, Past Performance evaluated in accordance with Section M. A performance confidence assessment rating will be established for every offeror in Gate 2 for past performance. All offerors within Gate 2 shall also have their Volume

V, Small Business Participation evaluated for acceptability. Furthermore, the Government will apply Government-estimated hours and base costs to each offeror’s submitted IV, Cost Price Volume to calculate the Total Proposed Price (TPP). The two (2) offerors with the lowest TPP and meeting the following criteria will proceed to Gate 3: have the highest performance confidence assessment rating (Substantial Confidence) in Volume III; and, be acceptable in Volume V.

In the event there are less than two (2) offerors rated as Substantial Confidence in Volume III, offerors will the lowest TPP and determined technically acceptable and acceptable for Small Business Participation, and with Satisfactory Confidence for past performance will move to Gate 3 until the number of offerors moved to Gate 3 equals two (2) offerors. All offerors evaluated and determined to be technically unacceptable, have a performance confidence assessment rating of Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence, and not in the group of two (2) lowest TPPs will remain in Gate 2.

Gate 3: A cost/price evaluation to include reasonableness, balance, and cost realism will be conducted for all offerors entering this gate in accordance with Section M. All offerors’ cost/price proposals evaluated and determined to be reasonable, balanced, and realistic (cost realism) will proceed into Gate 4. All offerors evaluated and determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or unrealistic (cost realism) will remain in Gate 3. Price realism is not a factor in this source selection evaluation.

Gate 4: All offerors within Gate 4 will receive a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request in accordance with FAR 15.307(b). All offerors that submit a timely FPR and are evaluated as still meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1, 2, and 3 will meet the Gate 4 exit criteria and move into Gate 5.

Offerors that do not submit a timely FPR or the offeror’s FPR is evaluated as no longer meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1, 2, and 3 will remain in Gate 4.

Gate 5: The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, and the evaluation criteria established in the evaluation factors for award provision.

NOTES:

It is the Government’s intention to re-establish the competitive range upon conclusion of Gate 3 evaluations. All offerors that do not meet the applicable exit criteria for Gates 1, 2, and 3 will be eliminated from the competitive range, and no further proposal revisions or submittals will be accepted for evaluation in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3), FAR 15.306(d)(5) and FAR 15.307(a).

However, this does not preclude the Government’s right to re-establish/redetermine the competitive range at any time during the source selection in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

The Government reserves the right to reopen the Gating process at any stage to ensure a reasonable pool of offerors is presented to the SSA for an award decision. Upon the conclusion of any gate’s evaluations, if the number of offerors identified as meeting the exit criteria for that gate is determined to not be a reasonable pool of offerors, the Government reserves the right to “reach back” to previous gates to continue discussions with offerors to potentially bring them forward. The determination of a reasonable pool of offerors is within the Government’s discretion and cannot be defined upfront due to the inherent subjective nature of the tradeoff process.

C. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP, and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions not listed in this cover letter.

The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated RFP requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award. The completed RFP Checklist will be evaluated for completion and accuracy. Any proposal failing to complete all items referenced on the checklist or failure to complete the checklist itself may result in that Offeror’s proposal being deemed noncompliant with the RFP terms and conditions, therefore ineligible for award.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross-reference matrix, Attachment 8, will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document, Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors 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 the 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.

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated per FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS, to assure it reflects a sound approach to the offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting. Failure by the large business offeror/joint venture to submit this small business subcontracting plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

D. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on each of the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS paragraphs, including subparagraphs listed below, RFP Attachment 1, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The evaluation will assess the offeror’s identified risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and the 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify risks with the proposed approach beyond those identified by the offerors themselves.

a) Subfactor One - Management of Repair Sources: This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably describes the processes to be employed to identify and utilize qualified SORs and integrate them into the established supply chain. PWS para 4.18 Qualified Source of Repair (SOR) Utilization: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates processes to be employed to identify and utilize qualified SORs and integrate them into the established supply chain to meet this stated PWS paragraph.

b) PWS para 4.7, 4.11 and 4.28 Supply Chain Tracking and Analytics: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates processes to employ the Management Information System(s) and procedure(s) utilized to track supply chain status and perform analytics to evaluate supply chain performance.

c) PWS para 4.11 and 4.15 Mission Impaired Capability Awaiting Parts (MICAP) Management: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates processes for managing MICAP items to minimize their impact on repair timelines.

d) PWS para 4.12.3 and 4.14 Work in Progress (WIP) Time Management: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates methods that will be utilized to manage, report, and analyze average aggregate WIP time to optimize repair efficiency.

e) PWS para 4.4 Staffing and Retention: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates a comprehensive staffing, recruiting, retention strategy, and their ability to meet the requirements of the PWS including position(s), function(s), and number of personnel that aligns the offeror's workforce with the PWS requirements. The proposal shall address the offeror’s use of subcontractors if applicable.

f) PWS para 4.1.2, 4.37 Local Compliance within Kingdom: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates a detailed description of their understanding and compliance with local laws, traditions, licenses, and security processes within the Kingdom.

The offeror shall include a copy of their current Saudi Business license.

g) PWS para 4.3, 4.3.1, 4.39 Transition of Services: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates their approach to transitioning services into, and out of, contract. This includes the necessary activities, anticipated timelines, dependencies, and potential risks, including their demobilization strategy affecting the transfer of all assumed and/or acquired consumable material inventories on hand or due into the RSAF or a third party, and the cessation of all contractual activities.

Subfactor Two - Management of Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS): This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably describes the processes to be employed to manage DMSMS as outlined in the PWS.

a) PWS para 4.25 Obsolescence Management Plan: This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates their approach to management of DMSMS.

Subfactor Three - Manage Turn Around Time (TAT) at various Sources of Repair (SOR): This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably describes the processes to be employed to manage TAT requirements as outlined in the PWS.

a) PWS para 4.12 Management of Turn-Around Time (TAT): This element is met when the offeror’s proposal acceptably demonstrates their plan for managing TAT with key metrics including repair cycle time, rework rates, and equipment downtime.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. 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. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining acceptability or unacceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. 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:

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Note: The Government shall utilize the definitions as provided in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, section 5 for “weakness”, “significant weakness”, “uncertainty”, and “deficiency”.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on the applicability of these terms to their proposal.

E. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractor(s)’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s/joint venture members demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the offeror itself, that will perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item; or possesses the Saudi Business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the efforts of the PWS. Failure of the offeror to submit evidence of past performance for critical subcontractors will result in a determination of non-compliance with the requirements of this solicitation and the offeror’s proposal will be removed from further consideration and determined ineligible for award.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. 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. 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 three (3) recent efforts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member(s) and each of its critical subcontractors.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Supplier Performance Risk System: Pursuant to DFARS PGI 204-76(b), (c)(3) and (e), the Government will assess the offeror’s profile in SPRS for supplier risk, including, but not limited to, quality and delivery, to consider the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk. IAW DFARS 252.204-7024, offerors may access their own risk assessments and the SPRS User Guide at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm. Additionally, SPRS evaluation criteria are available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf.

b) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), 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 may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). 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.

c) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. The availability of CPARS reports constitutes an offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor as having had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation 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.

d) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

e) Aggregate: The Government may consider an offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor’s contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm http://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture member’s/critical subcontractor’s three (3) efforts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant (but at least somewhat 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 scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. Then, considering the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor’s respective role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. Offerors are reminded that the Government shall not evaluate efforts for ordering type contracts without the identification of an order or series of orders. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror shall have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4, the scope and magnitude and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders submitted demonstrating the same or similar work as the instant effort, the higher greater the potential for a higher relevancy rating.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided and/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 and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

Adjectival Rating Description Scope and

Magnitude of Effort Complexities

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

Present/past performance efforts involved contracts or task orders $50M or greater annually, with a period of performance of greater than three (3) years.

Past Performance effort involved all of the following services / technical aspects:

Management of Repair Sources, Management of DMSMS, Management of (TAT) at various SORs, Prime Contractor on Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Effort, Customize and Manage and Maintain a web-based Management Information System (MIS), Management of 5 or more Subcontractors at the same time, Supply Chain Management, and Repair Services

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

Present/past performance efforts involved contracts or task orders between $34M and $49.9M of performance between two (2) and three (3) years.

Past Performance effort involved at least two (2) of the following services / technical aspects:

Management of Repair Sources, Management of DMSMS, Management of (TAT) at various SORs Prime Contractor on Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), Customize and Manage a web-based Management Information System (MIS), Management of 3 or more Subcontractors at the same time or Supply Chain Management, and Repair Services

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Present/past performance efforts involved contracts or task orders between $14M and $33.9M annually, with a period of performance between

Past Performance effort involved at least one (1) of the following services / technical aspects:

Management of Repair Sources, Management of DMSMS, Management of (TAT) at various SORs, one (1) and two (2) years.

Prime or Subcontractor on DOD Effort, Manage a web-based Management Information System (MIS), Management of more than one Subcontractors at the same time or Supply Chain Management, and Repair Services

Not Relevant Present/past involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Present/past performance efforts involved contracts or task orders of less than $14M annually and work performance was less than one (1) year in duration.

Past Performance effort involved none of the following services / technical aspects:

Management of Repair Sources, Management of DMSMS, Management of (TAT) at various SORs, Prime or Subcontractor on Effort, FMS contract, Manage a web-based Management Information System (MIS), Management of more than one Subcontractors at the same time or Supply Chain Management, and Repair Services

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to length of effort and dollar values. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the scope and magnitude of effort and the complexities as individual considerations in the overall relevancy rating assigned. If all 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 Scope and Magnitude, but involves only some of the Complexities, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

5. Quality of Performance: As described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.304(c)(2), the past performance evaluation shall evaluate quality of performance. The Government will assess the past performance quality of recent efforts that demonstrate some level of relevancy, as discussed above. The Government reserves the right to utilize any and all available means to obtain quality of performance information including, but not limited to, CPARS, DCMA records, questionnaire responses, interviews, etc. In terms of available CPARS, the Government reserves the right to conduct follow up interviews with CPARS reviewing officials as well as any current effort points of contact regarding trends in the performance. Further, the Government will make an independent determination on quality of performance; the Government will not be bound by any ratings identified in questionnaires, interviews or CPARS, but will take into account the ratings provided as well as the narratives and gathered information to make an independent determination.

The Government’s quality assessment will not result in a separate quality rating; instead, the quality assessment will result in an overarching narrative assessment discussing identified ratings (CPARS, questionnaires, etc.), narratives, and the Government team’s independent assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on quality of performance.

5.1. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the quality assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and 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 three (3) 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* 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 members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns* to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

*Small business concerns include small business categories of 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.

6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The Government will evaluate the submitted efforts, as well as any efforts independently identified by the Government, for three aspects: recency, relevancy and quality of performance. These aspects will be evaluated in a sequential manner, as follows:

Each effort will be evaluated for recency, as defined above. For those efforts determined recent, they will be evaluated for relevancy. Should an effort be determined not recent, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

For those efforts determined to have some level of relevancy (i.e., at least a Somewhat Relevant assigned), they will be evaluated for quality of performance. Should an effort be determined not relevant, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

Quality of performance will be evaluated via questionnaire responses from customer points of contact, telephone interviews conducted with customer points of contact, review of available CPARS, etc., as discussed above. Should the Government be unable to obtain quality of performance information for any effort (i.e., no questionnaires returned, customer points of contact unresponsive, no CPARS available, etc.), that effort will not be considered as a part of the confidence assessment rating.

In order to be considered within the confidence assessment, discussed below, each effort shall demonstrate recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Should any of these three aspects be missing or unable to be determined or evaluated for any effort, that effort will not be included within the confidence assessment. As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, as described above, one of the performance confidence assessment ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. It is imperative to note that the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating is not solely determined on the relevancy ratings. Instead, all three elements of the past performance evaluation (i.e., recency, relevancy and quality of performance) are all considered in the performance confidence assessment rating assignment. The areas that make up the effort relevancy ratings (both scope and magnitude of effort and complexities) are considered in the assignment of the performance confidence assessment rating assignment. Offerors are hereby cautioned that just having recent and Very Relevant, Relevant, and/or Somewhat Relevant efforts does not guarantee a “Satisfactory” or higher performance confidence assessment rating; the quality of performance information will also be taken into consideration in the assignment of any performance confidence assessment rating. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival 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.

Neutral Confidence 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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

F. Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total acquisition value is provided. 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.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY25 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2025 goals are as follows:

Business Size FY25

Department of the Air Force Small Business Goal 19.00% DAF Socio-Economic Goals:

- Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) (includes 8a) 5.00%

- Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 3.00%

- Service Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 3.00%

- Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) 1.30%

Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) (trackable area) 68.50%

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. 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 rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Note: Offerors are hereby notified that the Small Business Participation proposal will be formally incorporated into the contract.

G. Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. Cost/Price Volume

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal, for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate calculation of FFP CLINs and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Cost CLINs, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. Cost/Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404. As price realism is not a proposal analysis technique listed under FAR 15.404-1, price realism will not be considered nor included in the evaluation criteria.

Offerors shall review all instructions contained within RFP Attachment 4, Cost/Price Model, and shall ensure the information provided is compliant with the provided instructions. The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed unit costs/prices in RFP Attachment 4, Cost/Price Model, will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, and TEP calculation IAW Paragraphs A, B, and D below. The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed costs in RFP Attachment 4, Cost/Price Model, Cost Formats A, B, C, and D will be evaluated for cost realism and MPC IAW Paragraph C below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of Options shall not obligate the Government to exercise said options.

A. 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 competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information IAW FAR 15.404 may be required to support the proposed prices, such as cost analysis.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, the cost/price of one or more contract line items or sub-line items (Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques.

An overstated or understated CLIN cost/price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or unit costs/prices between program years, (b) unit costs/prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost/price for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs is concentrated in an early contract period. The Government may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, because acceptance of the proposal could result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Proposed unit costs/prices will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and/or quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 4, Cost/Price Model. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Cost Realism: The Government will perform cost realism analyses on the CPFF and CRNF CLINs’ proposed costs and/or add-on factors. Cost realism on FFP CLINs [FAR 15.404-1(d)(3)] will not be completed. Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and managerial approach can successfully accomplish the PWS, RFP Attachment 1, at the competitively proposed cost for cost-type CLINs. Cost Realism may also be used in performance of technical risk assessments and responsibility determinations.

For cost-type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the MPC. The MPC estimate is the Government estimate of the cost to acquire specified goods and/or services based on each offeror’s proposed approach. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal IAW FAR 15.404-1. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. MPC will be used in making a determination of best value. The overall evaluated MPC includes the likely cost to the Government for all cost CLINs (Basic and Option periods).

D. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price/cost or most probable cost for the CLINs as outlined below in both the Basic and Option periods. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices for CLINs X001, X002, X003, X004, X005, X006, 4008, and 4009 will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as explained in the following paragraphs.

1. CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 (FFP): The evaluated CLIN price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity.

2. CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, and 4002 (CPFF): The Government will multiply the proposed fee times the offeror’s most probable cost (excluding most probable cost of money), yielding the evaluated total fee dollars. The Government will add the evaluated total fee dollars to the offeror’s most probable cost and most probable cost of money, yielding the evaluated price. The Government will multiply the evaluated price times the respective quantity, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

3. CLINs 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, and 4003 (CRNF): The Government will add the offeror’s most probable cost and most probable cost of money, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

4. CLINs 0004, 1004, 2004, 3004, and 4004 (CRNF): The Government will add the offeror’s most probable cost and most probable cost of money, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

5. CLINs 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, and 4005 (CRNF): The Government will add the offeror’s most probable cost and most probable cost of money, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

6. CLINs 0006, 1006, 2006, 3006, and 4006 (CPFF): The Government will multiply the proposed fee times the offeror’s most probable cost (excluding most probable cost of money), yielding the evaluated total fee dollars. The Government will add the evaluated total fee dollars to the offeror’s most probable cost and most probable cost of money, yielding the evaluated CLIN price.

7. CLINs 5001, 5002, 5003, 5004, 5005, and 5006: As noted in Section L, an evaluated CLIN price will be calculated by dividing each of the Offeror’s Option IV CLIN prices by two (2).

8. CLIN 4008 (CRNF): The Government will multiply the add-on factors resulting from the Government’s cost realism analysis by the Government-estimated cost (not disclosed to the offeror) per period. The resulting value will yield the evaluated CLIN price.

9. CLIN 4009 (FFP): The Government will multiply the Offeror’s proposed fully burdened labor rate for each category by the Government-estimated labor hours (not disclosed to the Offeror) for each respective labor category. The Government will add together the calculated labor dollars for each labor category to determine the evaluated CLIN price.