Section_M_-_Version_2.3_2152019.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This source selection is 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 Mar 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 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. Among technically acceptable offerors, Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. However, price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

1.2 Source Selection

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 who 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.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the MQ-9 Unmanned Aerial System (UAS) Aircrew and Support Services.

1.4 Grossly Deficient

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors 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 RFP or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP and does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offer to address the requirements of the RFP.

1.5 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.

1.6 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 an offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR will be evaluated. Evaluations could result in changing an Acceptable rating to an Unacceptable rating and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.7 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 or determine the exception is acceptable and extend it to all offerors.

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 Management/Staffing Plan Subfactor 2: Transition Plan Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: 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, 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. See Table 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS, below.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Program Management/Staffing Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s plan to staffing and program management in order to meet the requirements described in the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

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

a. A successful organization chart or company narrative which demonstrates a sound organizational construct which facilitates effective lines of authority and communication IAW PWS 2.5 and 3.3.

b. A successful narrative which demonstrates a sound understanding of necessary personnel quantity, skillsets, qualification, & certification needs to meet the PWS requirements.

c. A successful MSQC which demonstrates a sound manning approach to meet the PWS requirements.

d. A successful schedule which demonstrates a sound understanding of the concept of operations and required aircrew manning levels to meet aircrew daily and monthly requirements IAW PWS 2.6 and 3.1.

e. Successful résumés for Key personnel which demonstrate a sound understanding of the education, relevant experience and qualifications needed for key personnel.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 2: 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 4.3.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when:

a. The offeror's Milestone Chart substantiates a sound transition plan to meet the prescribed checkpoints within the 30-day timeline IAW PWS Section 4.3.

b. The offeror's narrative substantiates a sound approach to recruiting/attracting and hiring aircrew and unit-level support personnel to meet the PWS section 3 personnel requirements within the 30-day transition period.

c. The offeror's Risk Cube and mitigation strategies substantiate a sound understanding of the risks associated with transition.

Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to meeting the requirements set for in their plan.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when:

a. An acceptable Small Business Participation Plan is one which clearly identifies a course of action to meet the requirements of the PWS.

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 below in Table 2.

TABLE 2 -- Performance Confidence Assessments 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.

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 three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If the effort began more than 3 years ago, only the effort which occurred during the past 3 years will be considered recent. 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 Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Test contract efforts. 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 Questionnaire, Past Performance Volume, and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following Table 3 Relevancy Definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – Relevancy Definition 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 in Table 4 when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – Quality Levels 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 a "Neutral 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. Offerers with a strong record of past performance can be considered more highly than one without a record of past performance.

2.4 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). 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 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 competition, but additional analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404 may be considered.

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 all basic effort CLINs plus all option CLINs. TEP will be evaluated based on attachment 5 of Section L with the exception of cost reimbursable 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 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.

file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR52.215.doc#b15404