Section_M_-_22_Jan_15.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a tradeoff of Past Performance versus Cost/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 04 Mar 2011, 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 Cost/Price. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Cost/Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Past Performance is significantly more important than Cost/Price.

1.2 Contract(s) 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 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 one contract for the Production Acceptance and Developmental Test Support Services Program.

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 without discussions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions 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.

1.6 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 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Execution Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall 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, 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

Rating Description

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Program Execution

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the complexity of the tasks, nature and scope of work required as described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS) section 3.1 – 3.3.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s Program Execution plan:

a. Substantiates a sound and comprehensive understanding of the manning levels and skillsets required to perform MQ-1/9 Developmental Testing and Evaluation;

Production Acceptance Testing; and Unit Level Support per the PWS sections 3.1 -- 3.3.

b. Demonstrates a sound approach for aircrew manning given:

1) Temporary increases in operations tempo due to programmatic deadlines.

2) Indefinite increases in operations tempo necessary to execute Joint Urgent

Operational Needs (JUONs), Urgent Operational Needs (UONs), and Quick Reaction Capabilities (QRCs) test efforts.

c. Demonstrates a sound plan for maintaining their pilots’ FAA Commercial/Instrument Pilots’ licenses.

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s strategy to execute the contract requirements and evaluates how they are organized to fulfill the requirements of the contract.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s Program Management plan:

a. Demonstrates a sound organizational construct which facilitates effective lines of authority and communication; and depicts functional relationships, geographical location; and roles and responsibilities of key personnel.

b. Demonstrates Key Personnel possess the experience required to support AFLCMC Det 3 OL operations per PWS Section 3.

c. Describes sound processes for personnel management (includes recruiting, hiring and retention practices that target personnel with the requisite experience; managing vacancies; and Government notification of imminent vacancies).

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 3: Transition Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to maintaining continuity of mission support while transitioning/phasing in resources and personnel following contract award, in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.2.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s Transition Plan:

a. Reflects an effective strategy to successfully plan, implement and accomplish seamless transition, in accordance with PWS paragraph 4.2.

b. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the risks and corresponding mitigation strategies associated with executing their transition plan.

c. Demonstrates ability to hire sufficient MQ-1/9 aircrew and Unit Level Support personnel that possesses the required qualifications as required by the PWS Sections 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 within the 30-day transition period.

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.3.1 Ratings. 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 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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

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. 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 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; interviews with Program Managers, 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 or must have been performed during the past five (5) 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 in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/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 relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Consideration will be given to RPA Test Experience. 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 degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

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 contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent 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 in-depth 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 a less than satisfactory 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:

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.

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 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 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 an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

2.3.3.1 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 an "Unknown 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, and (5) 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 Cost/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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm%23b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm%23b312013

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to CLIN prices, variable quantity options, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP is the sum of price of the basic effort plus all option CLINs.

2.4.5 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

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 capacity to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4 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.