TDB_Section_M_-_Final_DRAFT_13_Feb_19.pdf

FOUO

TRY-DECIDE-BUY (TDB)

SECTION M

NICCUM, NOEL P 1st Lt USAF AFMC AFLCMC/WNU

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Try-Decide-Buy

Section M: EFFA

FA8606-19-D-0014

14 Feb 2019

Table of Contents

1 GENERAL

Basis for Contract Award

Number of Contracts to be Awarded

Clarifications

Discussions

Correction Potential of Proposals

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

2 SOURCE SELELCTION PROCESS FLOW

Gates: IAW Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph 3.5

2.1.1 Shipping: Continental United States (CONUS)/ Outside Continental United States

(OCONUS) Gate:

2.1.2 ITAR Compliance Gate:

Technical Factor:

3 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Technical Factor

Technical Risk Rating

Subfactor 1: Capability Assessment

Subfactor 2: NAICS Code

1 GENERAL

Basis for Contract Award

This competitive source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, 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 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 TDB multiple award contract (MAC) indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) will be a small-business set-aside. The

Government will select the proposal(s) with Acceptable Rating and Low-to-Moderate Risk ratings under the Technical Factor. Price/cost will be evaluated at the delivery order level.

A contract will be awarded to the offerors who are deemed responsible IAW 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 is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government will select those offerors whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government based upon an assessment of the Technical

Subfactors. The source selection process is, by its nature, subjective and professional judgement is, therefore, implicit throughout the entire process.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria (described below) in the solicitation.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award multiple contracts, one to each acceptable offeror that has both

Acceptable Technical Capability with Low or Moderate Technical Risk. The Government anticipates awarding the TDB MAC IDIQ to approximately 10-12 qualified small businesses.

The government reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the government.

Clarifications

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm 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

FPR response are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

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.

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. 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.

2 SOURCE SELELCTION PROCESS FLOW

The Government will perform this source selection in the following manner:

STEP ONE:

Gates: IAW Statement of Work (SOW) paragraph 3.5

2.1.1 Shipping: Continental United States (CONUS)/ Outside Continental United States

(OCONUS) Gate:

The government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for documentation which demonstrates that the offeror has the capability to ship products CONUS/OCONUS. Any proposal received that does not meet this requirement will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award.

2.1.2 ITAR Compliance Gate:

The Government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for documentation which validates that the vendor is International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) compliant. The vendor must be registered with the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC). Offeror’s must provide their valid DDTC registration. Any proposal received that does not meet this requirement will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award.

STEP TWO:

Technical Factor:

The Government will rate the technical factor at the subfactor level for compliance and risk as detailed herein. A proposal with a technical subfactor found to be Technically Unacceptable or rated as High or Unacceptable Risk will be ineligible for award.

3 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The Government will evaluate the technical factor at the subfactor level for both compliance and risk. The following evaluation technical subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Capability Assessment

Subfactor 2: NAICS Code

Technical Factor

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. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. 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.

Technical Risk Rating

In addition to the Technical Compliance Ratings noted above, Technical Subfactors will also receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2. Assessment of Technical Risk identifies weaknesses and significant weaknesses (See FAR 15.001) and considers potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, which may result in the need for increased Government oversight and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

TABLE 1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Table 2 Technical Risk Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Subfactor 1: Capability Assessment

Description: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a sound process to establishing teaming arrangements in order to provide the supplies required in the SOW.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to perform and deliver the listed items in accordance with the TDB Statement of Work (SOW).

Subfactor 2: NAICS Code

Description: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides documentation of being capable of performing under the core NAICS codes in accordance with the SOW paragraph

3.1.1.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides documentation that the offeror has the capability to perform under at least one (1) out of the four (4) core NAICS codes.

The offeror’s documentation shall include:

1. Documentation of contract performance for one (1) contract out of the core NAICS

Code, found in SOW paragraph 3.1.1.

2. Documentation of contract performance for two (2) contracts out of the entire scope of NAICS Code found in SOW, paragraph 3.1.1.

3. Documentation of contract performance shall be one (1) government contract out of the three (3).

4. Customer point of contact for all three (3) contracts.

The contracts provided shall be from the last five (5) years (the five year period preceding the initial closing date of the solicitation). The government will contact the offeror’s points of contact, if needed, to verify the offeror’s capability of performance. The government will evaluate the contracts in order to verify the offeror’s capability within the scope of the program, in accordance with the SOW.