R1001_Atch_12_-_Sect_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_05Dec2017R2.pdf

FA8604-18-R-1001; AFLCMC Unique IT Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

AFLCMC Unique IT Support

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

14 November 2017

1 GENERAL

1.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize a tradeoff between past performance and price of the technically acceptable Offerors to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. This is a competitive best value source selection conducted 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. Tradeoffs will be made only between price and past performance among those Offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable.

Past Performance (Factor 2) is significantly more important than Price (Factor 3).

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award three (3) contracts for the AFLCMC Unique IT Support program to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, 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 are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

Notwithstanding the intent, 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 reserves the right to award more or fewer ID/IQ contracts resulting from this solicitation. The Government also reserves the right to make no award at all.

The SSA will conduct an integrated assessment of the evaluation results and select the best overall value proposal. Based on this assessment the SSA will award the first TO (highest dollar value) the Offeror who proposed the best overall value. The second TO (second highest dollar value) and third TO (lowest dollar value) will be awarded to those whom the SSA determined to be the second and third best valued proposal overall, respectively.

Subsequent TOs will be competed amongst the IDIQ Awardees in accordance with the Fair Opportunities regulations specified in FAR Part 16 and Contract FA8604-18-R-1001, Attachment 3, “AFLCMC Unique IT Support Ordering Procedures.” These TOs will be awarded to the Offeror with an award-eligible proposal who submitted the lowest TEP.

1.3 EXCLUSION OF GROSSLY DEFICIENT PROPOSALS

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation.

1.4 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government 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 discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.5 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

Throughout the evaluation process, one or more competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination will be based on all evaluation criteria. The Government 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. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final

1.2.1 Award of Initial Task Orders

1.2.2 Award of Subsequent Task Orders

Proposal Revision (FPR) request, and may take into consideration the efficient conduct of the source selection process. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

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.

1.6 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

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 SECURITY CLEARANCE

A DD 254, DoD Contract Security Classification Specification, at the Top Secret level applies to this procurement. Offerors must have a valid U.S. security clearance of Top Secret or higher in order to be eligible for AFLCMC Unique ITSS contract award. Offerors shall provide documentation that the Offeror currently holds a valid final Top Secret Facility Security Clearance (FCL) at the time of proposal submittal.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable:

Factor 1: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: Program Management Approach Subfactor 2: AFLCMC/PK Performance Work Statement Subfactor 3: AFLCMC/WI Performance Work Statement Subfactor 4: AFLCMC/WL Performance Work Statement

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

1.5.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.2 TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

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 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 C-1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to managing the AFLCMC Unique IT Support for Contract FA8604-18-R-1001, Attachment 1, “AFLCMC Unique IT Support Performance Work Statement (PWS).”

Measure of Merit 1: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly addresses a single program management approach for the contract’s total 5-year performance period, as well as for each of the three (3) initial task order awards. The contractor shall evidence a thorough understanding of the requirement for each of the following:

a) Management of staff; paragraph 1.5

b) Recruiting and retaining qualified personnel; paragraph 1.5

c) Maintaining service levels; paragraph 1.5

d) Providing certified personnel; paragraph 1.5

e) Providing appropriately cleared personnel; paragraph 1.5

f) Providing a Transition plan approach; paragraph 5.11

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s understanding of the required IT support services, as well as the overall technical approach for executing the FA8604-18-R-1002 PWS for AFLCMC/PK Unique IT Support requirements. Reference Contract FA8604-18-R-1002, Attachment 1, “AFLCMC/PK Unique IT Support PWS;” paragraph 1.3 “Tasks” for the following Measure of Merits (MoM).

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

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management Approach

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: AFLCMC/PK Performance Work Statement

a) Project Management; paragraph 1.3.2

b) Customer Support and Helpdesk Interaction; paragraph 1.3.3

c) Information Systems Security; paragraph 1.3.4 and Information Protection and Network

Security; paragraph 1.3.5

d) Hardware Maintenance, IT Equipment Custodian (ITEC), and Software Accountability

Support; paragraph 1.3.8

e) Government Off The Shelf (GOTS) Application and Environment Maintenance;

paragraph 1.3.9

f) Organizational Unique Application Software and Database Support and Documentation;

paragraph 1.3.12

g) Software Implementation Support; paragraph 1.3.13

h) Requirements Analysis Support; paragraph 1.3.18

Measure of Merit 2: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal evidences an appropriate labor matrix stating the quantities and labor mix of personnel to meet the performance requirements of Contract FA8604-18-R-1002, Attachment 1, “AFLCMC/PK Unique IT Support

PWS.”

services, as well as the overall technical approach for executing the FA8604-18-R-1003 PWS for AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support requirements. Reference Contract FA8604-18-R-1003, Attachment 1, “AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support PWS;” paragraph 1.3 “Tasks” for the following Measure of Merits (MoM).

c) Information Systems Security; paragraph 1.3.4 and Information Protection and Network

Security; paragraph 1.3.5

d) Communication Security (COMSEC) Support; paragraph 1.3.6

e) Multi-media (Video Teleconferencing (VTC) and Audio/Visual (AV)) Equipment

Support; paragraph 1.3.7

f) Hardware Maintenance, IT Equipment Custodian (ITEC), and Software Accountability

Support paragraph 1.3.8

g) Government Off The Shelf (GOTS) Application and Environment Maintenance;

paragraph 1.3.9

h) Telephone, Voice Mail, and Commercial Mobile Technology Management (CMT);

paragraph 1.3.11

i) Organizational Unique Application Software and Database Support and Documentation;

paragraph 1.3.12

j) Software Implementation Support paragraph 1.3.13

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: AFLCMC/WI Performance Work Statement

k) Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Business to Business (B2B), and Unique Application Support; paragraph 1.3.14

l) Website Support; paragraph 1.3.15

m) Training Support; paragraph 1.3.17

n) Requirements Analysis Support; paragraph 1.3.18 requirements of Contract FA8604-18-R-1003, Attachment 1, “AFLCMC/WI Unique IT Support services, as well as the overall technical approach for executing the FA8604-18-R-1004 PWS for AFLCMC/WL Unique IT Support requirements. Reference Contract FA8604-18-R-1004, Attachment 1, “AFLCMC/WL Unique IT Support PWS;” paragraph 1.3 “Tasks” for the following Measure of Merits (MoM).

c) Information Systems Security; paragraph 1.3.4 and Information Protection and Network

Security; paragraph 1.3.5

d) Multi-media (Video Teleconferencing (VTC) and Audio/Visual (AV)) Equipment

Support; paragraph 1.3.7

e) Hardware Maintenance, IT Equipment Custodian (ITEC), and Software Accountability

Support; paragraph 1.3.8

f) Telephone, Voice Mail, and Commercial Mobile Technology Management (CMT) ;

paragraph 1.3.11

g) Organizational Unique Application Software and Database Support and Documentation;

paragraph 1.3.12

h) Software Implementation Support; paragraph 1.3.13

i) Foreign Military Sales (FMS), Business to Business (B2B), and Unique Application

Support; paragraph 1.3.14

j) Website Support; paragraph 1.3.15

k) Training Support; paragraph 1.3.17

l) Requirements Analysis Support; paragraph 1.3.18 requirements of Contract FA8604-18-R-1004, Attachment 1, “AFLCMC/WL Unique IT Support

2.2.4 Subfactor 4: AFLCMC/WL Performance Work Statement

2.3 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The Past Performance Evaluation results are an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

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.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors. 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, as well as information obtained from other sources available to the Government, which include but are not limited to: the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); the Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS); or other databases; interviews with Program Managers,

2.3.1 Ratings

2.3.2 Evaluation Process

Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and commercial sources.

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 and 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 subfactor1 and the elements of the MoM 1 in each of the subfactors 2 through 4 (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to information technology support services, similar in magnitude, scope and complexity to the overall AFLCMC Unique IT Support 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, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts:

TABLE 2.3.2.2: Relevancy Assessment Ratings

Rating: Definition:

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

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

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

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

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 2.3.2.3: Performance Quality Assessment Quality Assessment Rating/Color:

Description:

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

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

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

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

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

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

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

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating, see table 5 in paragraph 2.3.1 above, is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4 PRICE FACTOR

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, (4) Price Realism and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable or unrealistic 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.

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

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings

2.4.1 Completeness

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 31.201-3.

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.

The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed costs. This will include an evaluation of the Professional Employee Compensation plan to the extent to which proposed prices are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor.

In accordance with FAR 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the total compensation plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation.

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 Paragraph 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

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing

2.4.4 Price Realism

2.4.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

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.