Section_M_11_Jun_2018.pdf

FA8614-17-R-0001

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

C-17 ROLL-ON CONFERENCE CAPSULE (ROCC) PROGRAM

11 JUN 2018

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value tradeoff small business set-aside 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, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Capability (technical compliance and risk), Past Performance, and Cost/Price. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

1.2 The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated contract 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 seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. 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 Technical Capability of the higher priced offer outweighs the Cost/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.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to one (1) contract for the Roll-On Conference Capsules (ROCC) for the C-17A Globemaster III Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

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 any 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 reserves the right 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 necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htm http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/affars/MP5315.3.htm#TopOfPage 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 FPR 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, 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.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Proposals will be evaluated using the following Factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. There are three Technical Subfactors: System Engineering and Program Management, Testing and Airworthiness, and Integrated Logistics Support. All proposals will be evaluated for all Factors and Subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: System Engineering and Program Management Subfactor 2: Testing and Airworthiness Subfactor 3: Integrated Logistics Support

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.2 Relative Order of Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Tradeoff will only be made between Technical Subfactor 1 and Cost/Price. Technical Subfactor 1 is more important than all other Factors and Subfactors. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

2.3 Factor 1: Technical

Technical Subfactor 1, Systems Engineering and Program Management, will be evaluated in accordance with Table 1 and Table 3. For Table 1, the highest rating achievable for this acquisition is Purple – Good, due to only one possible strength. For Subfactor 1, the Government may consider Low risk more favorable than a Moderate risk. Technical Subfactors 2 and 3 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/ Unacceptable basis, in accordance with Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 1: Technical Ratings for Subfactor 1

Table 2: Technical Acceptability Ratings for Subfactors 2 and 3

2.4 Assessment of Technical Risk

The Government will evaluate the risk associated with the offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements in the RFP. The Government will accomplish this by identifying

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

weakness(es) in the proposal, including those identified by the offeror, and by considering potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The assessment also addresses the offeror's proposal for mitigating self-identified risk(s), why that approach is or is not manageable, and whether the mitigation plan brings the risk to an acceptable level. The Government will evaluate the risks and any mitigation plans to determine final risk rating. Technical risk will be evaluated at the Subfactor level using the ratings listed in Table 3 below. The Government will consider a proposal rated as Low or Moderate risk to be Acceptable, if it complies with the RFP requirements. However, a proposal that has a High or Unacceptable risk rating even if RFP requirements are met will be considered Unacceptable, and therefore unawardable.

Table 3: Technical Risk Ratings

TABLE 3 - TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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.

2.5 All System Requirements Document (SRD) and Statement of Work (SOW) sections identified below are meant to be inclusive of all subsections.

2.6 Technical Subfactors The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.6.1 Subfactor 1: Systems Engineering and Program Management

Description: This Subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to satisfy the system requirements contained in SRD Sections 3.8.1, 3.8.4, 3.8.6, 3.8.7, 3.10.5 and 3.10.6 and SOW Section 3.4.2. It also evaluates the offeror’s ability to integrate the requirements in SOW Section 3.4.5 (Production Planning), SOW Section 3.4.6 (Risk Management), and the CDRLs called out in all of these sections of the SOW.

Measures of Merit: This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria and has a Low or Moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance IAW Table 3:

a. The proposal demonstrates a sound preliminary ROCC design.

b. The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to develop and analyze ROCC structures and occupant seating.

c. The proposal demonstrates a sound approach for planning, scheduling and managing all facets of the ROCC Program. Program schedule for delivery of the First Article (FA) ROCC to the USAF is 18 months (threshold) after contract award per Section L, paragraph 1.1.2. For this Subfactor, an offeror can earn a strength by reducing delivery timing post-contract award to 15 months, while still meeting all requirements of the SOW and SRD.

d. The proposal includes evidence of the offeror’s ISO 9001:2008 or later ISO certification and/or AS9100 certification, or a quality management system that is equivalent to either of the listed systems.

e. The proposal shows evidence that the offeror will have the personnel with the technical expertise necessary to execute the contract.

2.6.2 Subfactor 2: Testing and Airworthiness

Description: This Subfactor evaluates the offeror’s methodology for accomplishing the verification/test activities as specified in the SRD Section 4 and SOW Section 3.4.7, SOW Section 3.4.2.11, and the CDRLs called out in all of these sections of the SOW.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria and has a Low to Moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance

a. The proposal demonstrates a complete understanding for performing test and evaluation activities that the offeror is required to perform on the C-17 ROCC program.

b. The proposal demonstrates a complete understanding for supporting USAF airworthiness certification of the ROCC.

2.6.3 Subfactor 3: Integrated Logistics Support

Description: This Subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to providing an integrated logistic support (ILS) package IAW SOW Section 3.4.9; Training IAW SOW Section 3.4.10, Contractor Operations and Maintenance Support (CO&MS) IAW SOW Section 3.4.11, and the CDRLs called out in all of these sections of the SOW.

Measures of Merit: This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria and has a Low to Moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance

a. A sound approach for producing, managing, and delivering all spare parts, components, and Technical Data necessary to sustain the ROCCs.

b. A sound approach for providing capability to the Air Force to accomplish operational level maintenance, and for accomplishing contractor heavy maintenance on delivered ROCCs using supplied bench equipment.

c. A sound approach for training ROCC maintainers, operators, and flight attendants.

3.0 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in 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.

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

Table 4: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

TABLE 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

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 has no 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

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. 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, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the recency of past performance information will not be made. All past performance submittals will be deemed recent.

3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. For each past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to:

Building of roll-on/roll-off pallets /modules /capsules on any transportation mode such as aircraft, rail cars, ships, and land vehicles;

Integrating with other like systems/equipment;

Building of open or enclosed pallets /modules /capsules occupied by personnel during transportation on a mode of transportation;

Supporting commercial or Government airworthiness certification processes; or Providing logistics support of similar delivered end items.

NOTE: The Government will make no distinction between past military or commercial contracts to determine relevancy.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

4.0 Cost/Price Factor

Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) cost realism (Cost-Plus Fixed Fee CLINs only), and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose cost/price is determined to not be reasonable, realistic, and balanced 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. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4.1 Price Reasonableness: Reasonableness will be determined based on adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.404 and as described in FAR 15.403-1.

4.2 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items IAW FAR 15.404-1.

4.3 Cost Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed costs on Cost-Plus Fixed Fee CLINs only (CLINs 0002, 0006, 0009, 0010, and 0011). This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s proposal (FAR 15.404-1(c), FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and FAR 2.101).

4.3.1 Probable Cost: The Government will compute the Probable Cost (PC) for the Cost- Plus Fixed Fee CLINs only. The PC will be determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): As calculated in Section L, Attachment 8 – Pricing Matrix, the TEP is the sum of all FFP CLINs (Basic & Option CLINs) and the PC for Cost-Plus Fixed Fee CLINs (Basic & Option CLINs).

5.0 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.

6.0 REVIEWS and VISITS

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 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.