Attachment_5_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_factors_for_Award.docx

Section M COMBS III Attachment 5

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Source Selection Basis for Contract Award This is a tradeoff of Past Performance versus Price source selection 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, 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 best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

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 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 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.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the JPATS COMBS T-6 Program. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c). The Government reserves the right to limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to those that will permit an efficient competition.

Discussions The Government may award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions, if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the SS decision.

Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property A list of all Government furnished property (GFP) will be made available to all Offerors in order to ensure an equal starting point towards meeting contract performance. As no additional GFP may be proposed, there will not be any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of GFP beyond what this solicitation offers. The GFP list is located in Section J, Attachment 2 of the solicitation.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Section L, Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

Pre-Award Surveys 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 capacity to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan If applicable, an approved Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required in order to be eligible for award per FAR 52.219-9(c).

Cost and Software Data Reporting (CSDR) System A standard CSDR system, as determined by the Defense Cost and Resource Center, is required in order to be eligible for award per DFARS 234.7100(b).

1.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors and Subfactors Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is deemed to represent the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management Subfactor 3: Transition (Phase-In)

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price Factor 1 - Technical Factor The Government Technical Evaluation Team will evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning technical ratings as detailed in Table 1. Only technical proposals rated as acceptable will be considered awardable. Proposals rated as unacceptable will be unawardable. In order to determine the overall technical rating, each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described in Table 1. Each technical subfactor must be rated as acceptable in order to receive an overall acceptable technical rating. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be eligible for award.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

1.0.1. Subfactor 1: Program Management

Description The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach to meet the solicitation requirements.

Measures of Merit The subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a Program Management approach to meet the following requirements:

a. A sound support staffing plan demonstrating an understanding of requirements and sets forth logical and adequate personnel at the Offerors’ Program Office, the JPATS Government Program Office, COMBS operating locations IAW PWS paragraphs 1.1.2 and 1.1.3

b. A sound business relationship plan demonstrating an understanding of and plan for establishment/participation in business relationships which are essential to the success of the T-6 JPATS program IAW PWS paragraphs 1.1.1

c. A Small Business Participation Document demonstrating a sound approach to meeting the Governments objective of subcontracting at least 23% of the value of all subcontracts to approved small businesses.

1.0.2. Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management

Description The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Supply Chain Management approach to meet the solicitation requirements.

Measures of Merit The subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a Supply Chain Management approach to meet the following requirements:

a. A sound approach to quality processes and methodologies demonstrating contractor quality control program with measurable quality objectives and metrics IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.8.c

b. A sound plan to replenish, replace or repair and return property to the Government PWS paragraph 3.1.1.d

c. A sound plan and processes for monitoring, forecasting, managing and delivering Time Change Items (TCI), to include Major Time Change Items (MCTI), IAW 1T-T6ABD-6 and PWS paragraphs 1.3.11 and 1.4

d. A sound plan for processes to ensure identification and continuing services with only qualified vendors IAW PWS paragraphs 1.3.1a, 1.3.1b, 1.3.1c, 1.3.14.1a, 1.3.14.1b, and 1.3.14.1c

e. A Property Management Plan demonstrating a sound approach to the management, control, use, protection of GFP IAW PWS paragraph 3.1.5a

f. A sound approach and schedule for compliance with Government Furnished Material Accountability (GFM-A) IAW PWS paragraph 3.1.4

1.0.3. Subfactor 3: Transition (Phase-In)

Description The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Transition approach to meet the solicitation requirements.

Measures of Merit The subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a sound Transition (Phase-In) approach for an orderly transition from the existing Contractor IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.16.1.

Factor 2 – Past Performance The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

1.0.4. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following Performance Confidence Assessments described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

1.0.5. Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet the contract requirements as outlined in the proposed solicitation. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on the quality of the performance relevant to the technical subfactors. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant performance. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider Past Performance in the aggregate in addition to 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, including but not limited to, responses to ITO Attachments, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

1.0.5.1. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if a contract is recent. To be recent, a contract must have been performed between December 9, 2011 and the submission of the Offeror's Final Proposal. If any portion of a contract's performance fell or falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety will be evaluated for Past Performance.

1.0.5.2. Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of the current proposed effort (Relevancy definitions in this paragraph below Table 3). A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including significant subcontractor(s)/teaming partner(s), as defined in paragraph 4.1.2 of the ITO, Section L) Past Performance will be made based upon scope, magnitude and complexity. In determining relevancy, the Government will consider only the portion(s) of the effort accomplished on previous/ current contracts by the Offeror, teaming partner, subcontractor, and/or joint venture compared to similar efforts being proposed. For example, Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the JPATS COMBS III contract.

The Past Performance information contained in ITO, Section L Attachments and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of Past Performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in Table 3 below:

TABLE 3. – Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Scope, Magnitude and Complexity will be assessed based on the prime, subcontractor, teaming partners, and/or joint venture proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. To be relevant in these areas, efforts must involve Supply Chain Management. Additionally, in determining degree of relevance to these areas the government will consider the following:

1.0.5.3. Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth quality evaluation of recent and relevant Past Performance. The Quality Assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as Past Performance information that supports a less than acceptable assessment on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal assessment 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 when determining the Quality Assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality assessment. 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 and relevant efforts:

TABLE 4. – Past Performance Quality Assessment

1.0.6. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the Relevancy and Quality Assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment based on Table 2 above. The Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of Contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant Past Performance, or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" assessment for the Performance Confidence Assessment. Offerors that receive a “Neutral Confidence” assessment will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance; however, the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment is more advantageous than a “Neutral Confidence” assessment.

Factor 3 – Price Offeror’s Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the ITO, section L. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Unbalanced Pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

1.0.7. Completeness

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with ITO, Section L. All prices shall be contained in the Pricing Volume III - Pricing Matrix, Section J, Attachment 7 of the solicitation. Incomplete proposals may be considered unawardable.

1.0.8. Reasonableness

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of Price proposals will be performed using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine Price Reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Government intends for adequate price competition to establish price reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will be considered unawardable.

1.0.9. Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. An Offeror’s proposal may be determined to be unawardable if the lack of balance results in an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.0.10. Total Evaluated Price

Each CLIN calculation will be computed IAW the detailed methodology in Table 5 below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

The TEP will be evaluated based upon the maximum potential Period of Performance possible within the proposed IDIQ structure, which would represent a 9 year, 6 month period of performance. This maximum potential Period of Performance reflects 5 years of performance on the initial 5 year ordering period, 4 years of performance on the 3 year option ordering period as well as a 6 month extension period IAW Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. This TEP Price rollup is based on the specific CLIN series calculation methodology provided in Table 5.

TABLE 5. – CLIN Structure

(FFP)

Proposed Calendar Year unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated in the Pricing Matrix. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN series.

(FFP)

Proposed Calendar Year unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated in the Pricing Matrix. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN series.

(FFP)

Proposed Calendar Year banded unit prices will be multiplied by a percentage (unknown to Offerors) that reflects the likelihood of quantities ordered within each band during the associated evaluation period. The sum of these weighted unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated in the Pricing Matrix. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN series.

(FFP)

Proposed Calendar Year unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated in the Pricing Matrix. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN series.

(NSP)

Offerors shall not propose any additional price for Data as it is Not Separately Priced

(FFP)

Proposed Calendar Year unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated in the Pricing Matrix.

(CR)

Value is provided by the Government in the Pricing Matrix.

NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.