AFRL_ITSS_Section_M_1Sep2016.pdf

M-1 of 8

Air Force Research Laboratory Services Support (AFRL ITSS)

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price/Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, as of 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal(s) with the lowest total evaluated price(s) (TEP) from among those that are award-eligible (meets all RFP requirements), meet all price criteria, are technically acceptable (Factor 1) and have an acceptable past performance record (Factor 2).

1.2 Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1., as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal with an acceptable past performance record. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be awarded

The Government intends to award up to three (3) contracts for the AFRL IT Services Support program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts if the Source Selection Authority determines it is in the Government’s best interest considering the Government’s expected volume of work over the period of the contract, available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of award-eligible proposals at a reasonable price following completion of evaluations of the proposals received. The Government also reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3.1 Award of Initial Task Orders

Task Order 1 will be awarded to the offeror with an award-eligible proposal who submitted the lowest TEP. Task Order 2 will be awarded to the offeror with an award-eligible proposal who submitted the second lowest TEP. Task Order 3 will be awarded to the offeror with an award-eligible proposal who submitted the third lowest TEP. In the event the Government determines to award to less than three Offerors, award of any Task Orders remaining will revert to the Offeror with the lowest TEP. In the event the Government determines to award to more than three Offerors, any additional awardess will be awarded a task order beyond the originally evaluated three and meeting the minimum order amount required. See Section M, paragraph 2.4.4 for TEP definition.

M-2 of 8

1.3.2 Award of Subsequent Task Orders

Subsequent Task Orders will be competed in accordance with the Fair Opportunities regulations specified in FAR Part 16 and awarded to the offeror with an award-eligible proposal who submitted the lowest TEP.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract(s) without discussions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors, IAW FAR 15.306, if deemed in its best interest.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time of discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus ineligible for award.

1.6 Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.7 Clearance

A DD 254, DOD Contract Security Classification Specification, at the Top Secret level applies to this procurement. All offerors are required to possess a Top Secret facility clearance at time of proposal submission.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate the proposals for acceptability under the non-price factors, and will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Transition Approach

M-3 of 8

Subfactor 2: IT Support

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Technical Factors

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Proposals must meet all of the Measures of Merit within a given subfactor in order for the subfactor to be rated “Acceptable.” Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Transition Approach

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to providing a staffing plan including a detailed schedule and methodology for transition that meets the requirements of PWS Paragraph 4.14.1:

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses a separate comprehensive staffing plan for each of the three initial task orders for obtaining and maintaining personnel with each of the following:

a) appropriate skillsets

b) appropriate experience

c) required certifications

d) required security clearances, and

e) sufficient quantities and labor mix to meet performance requirements of the PWS.

NOTE: See Section L, Attachment 5 as well as RFP Attachments 3, 4 and 5 (Task order PWS’) for specific requirements.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: IT Support

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the required IT support services as well as the overall technical and management approach to execute the IT support

M-4 of 8 services for the AFRL ITSS contract (including the overall IDIQ contract and each of the three

(3) individual task orders). Reference PWS Paragraphs (including subparagraphs) 1.4.1 - 1.4.12, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 2.0, 4.5, 4.7, and 4.9.

Measure of Merit 1: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a thorough understanding and execution of the requirement for each of the following:

a) Computer Support

b) Application Development and Configuration Management

c) Planning

d) Network Implementation

e) System Integration

f) Systems Support

g) Computer-Communication Maintenance

h) Network Multimedia Devices

i) Asset Management

j) Computer Aided Design (CAD) Drawing

k) Video Teleconference (VTC) and Meeting Support, and

l) Cybersecurity Management

Measure of Merit 2: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a thorough understanding and execution of the requirement for each of the following:

a) Providing contract oversight by demonstrating an approach for management of staff

b) Retaining qualified personnel and maintaining service levels throughout performance

c) Managing contract deliverables

d) Providing personnel certified in accordance with DOD Information Assurance

Workforce Improvement Program (DOD 8570.1-M) as described in DFAR 252.239- 7001 with SECRET or TOP SECRET (as applicable) security clearances that will provide a fully functional team on Day 1 of contract performance.

e) Providing detailed identification of processes, programs, and benefits for recruiting and retaining a qualified, experienced, and well-trained staff.

f) Providing the oversight of subcontractors, oversight of personnel, hiring, travel, training and other direct costs.

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results are an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

2.3.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

M-5 of 8

2.3.2 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The Performance Evaluation Rating is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, which include but are not limited to Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. Past Performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis at the Past Performance factor level using the ratings in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-2.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing for at least six

(6) months or must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products/services performed under those contracts relate to the technical subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that related to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to information technology support services, similar in magnitude, scope and complexity to the overall AFRL ITSS effort. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, ACCEPTABLE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

UNACCEPTABLE Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable 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 (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

M-6 of 8 subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other source will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts:

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contract) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of all past performance information available.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY LEVELS

Quality Assessment

Level/Color

Description SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not substantially meeting (or did not substantially meet) contract requirement. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT

AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE

Quality and/or performance information is not available;

therefore, no rating is assigned.

TABLE 3- PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

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

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

M-7 of 8

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

2.4 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 15.404-1.

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to proposed labor category pricing both within an individual task order and across orders in accordance with (FAR 15.404-1). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror proposed prices for the three (3) initial task orders including the base year, all option years, and the Extension of Services period. Reference Section L, Attachment 4, and Section L Paragraphs

4.4.3 through 4.4.5. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options and the Extension of Services period shall not obligate the Government to exercise those options or the extension. See paragraph 1.3.1 above for methodology of award of initial task orders.

3 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4 REVIEWS AND VISITS

Reviews and plant visits are not anticipated as part of the Source Selection process. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development

M-8 of 8 or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror’s written proposal and/or oral presentation.