Att 19 - TDAS Section M 17 Jan 2012.pdf

FA8621-12-R-6259

Attachment 19

17 Jan 2012

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

a. This is a Tradeoff Source Selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite/hill.af.mil.

b. The Tradeoff Source Selection process utilized allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and cost/price for technically acceptable proposals, and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal or best past performance rated proposal to achieve a best-value contract award. The Government will evaluate the Technical Acceptability of the offeror’s proposal as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any final offer that is evaluated as Technically

Unacceptable will render the entire proposal as unacceptable and ineligible for award. The

Government will then base the source selection decision on an assessment of Past Performance and Price of the Technically Acceptable proposals. See Paragraph 3 below for important information regarding the methodology used.

c. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, 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 determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

d. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection

Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

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

2. EVALUATION FACTORS.

a. Introduction. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following three factors:

Technical/Risk, Past Performance, and Price. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are approximately equal in importance to price.

b. Factor 1 – Technical/Risk.

http://farsite/hill.af.mil

(1) The Government’s Technical/Risk Evaluation Team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE as defined in the table below titled “Overall Technical/Risk Ratings”:

OVERALL TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal clearly meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

(2) Risk is defined in the below table titled “Risk Levels”:

RISK LEVELS

LEVEL DEFINITION

LOW

Has 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

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

HIGH

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

(3) The Government will make a determination of overall Technical/Risk Acceptability based upon an evaluation of three subfactors (SF): SF1 – Systems Engineering/Program

Management (SE/PM), SF2 – Change Managment, and SF3 - Contractor Logistics Support.

Each subfactor will be evaluated using the same ratings used to evaluate the overall

Technical/Risk factor. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined

Unacceptable. Any Unacceptable rating in one or more sub-factors will constitute an overall

Technical/Risk Factor rating of Unacceptable.

SUB-FACTOR 1: SYSTEM ENGINEERING/PROGRAM MANAGMENT

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach and ability to provide comprehensive management to effectively meet the requirements of the F-15 TDAS Program.

Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal describes a sound and comprehensive approach to:

1. Transition Plan – Ensure a smooth 60-day transition is accomplished with the incumbent contractor including initial staffing of personnel and relocation, setup, and initial functionality verfication of Government Furnished Property.

2. Management Approach – Manage requirements using an effective team devoted to F-15 TDAS and following clear and specific lines of supervision and management to include a viable teaming plan (if applicable) to include sufficient number of personnel with the necessary expertise to maintain and repair the entire complement of TDAS aircrew and maintenance training devices and associated equipment; prevent or mitigate possible issues or risks to schedule or performance; and effectively manage subcontractor performance.

3. Integrated Master Plan (IMP). Successfully execute the TDAS program with a clear and complete allocation of events, defined event entrance and exit criteria, and sound process integration.

4. Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) – Successfully execute the TDAS program with durations and timing consistent with the offeror’s IMP, and that allocates sufficient resources to successfully execute the program (including contractor facilities, realistic support for all program phases, and verification activities).

5. Security – Ensure that facilities, process accreditation, and personnel clearances are approved prior to steady state performance on site by October 2014.

6. Small Business Subcontracting – Subcontract with small businesses complying with Section H Clause H109; and Section I Clauses FAR 52.219-8 (Deviation), 52.219-9 Alternate II, DFARS 252.219-7003, AFFARS 5319.704, and applicable FAR supplements; and including reasonable initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB.

SUB-FACTOR 2: CHANGE MANAGEMENT

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to modify the F-15 TDAS training system devices to add new capability. It will include a comprehensive evaluation of systems engineering and manufacturing processes used for device modifications, as may be required to keep the devices concurrent with the fielded aircraft in support of the program. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s ability to convert TFE-2 and TFE-6 devices from an F-15C configuration to an F-15E configuration, and production of new aircrew training devices.

Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal describes a sound and comprehensive approach to:

1. TSSC Operations - Maintain and operate the TSSC and perform all hardware and software modifications necessary to support TSSC tasks; and identify and document potential obsolescence, technology refresh changes, and process improvements to the training system.

2. Concurrency- Modifying the ATD’s/MTD’s to provide the devices with the capability to maintain concurrency with the F-15 Weapons system and ensures that concurrency modifications will be completed 30 days prior to the expected date for fielding that capability in the aircraft.

3. H/W & S/W Baselines - Manage the software and hardware baselines through an effective configuration management process.

4. Databases - Effectively and efficiently incorporate updates into the visual and sensor simulation databases.

5. Device Conversion – Effectively and efficiently change the “C” configured MTD’s into an ‘E’ configuration (including quantities and types of parts).

6. Build to Print Production – Effectively and efficiently building new IAT devices based on drawings provided by the Government.

SUB-FACTOR 3: CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT (CLS)

Description: The Government will evaluatethe offeror’s approach for CLS of the F-15 TDAS.

Measure of Merit: This sub-factor is met when the offeror’s proposal describes a sound and comprehensive approach to:

1. On-Site Requirements - Ensures a 95% Availability rate can be met and TDAS equipment can be maintained and repaired in accordance with approved technical documentation.

2. On-Call Requirements –Respond to on-call MTD repairs within 48 hours at Sheppard AFB, 72 hours CONUS, and 96 hours OCONUS; and TDAS equipment can be maintained and repaired in accordance with approved technical documentation.

c. Factor 2 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment.

(1) The Past Performance Confidence Assessment 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. Offerors will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in the table below (see

Paragraph 3 below for exception):

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

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 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 reasonable assigned.

(2) Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, (as defined in Para 2.c. (3)(B) below) or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Instead, they will receive an "Unknown

Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. Offerors receiving a “No Confidence” rating are not awardable.

(3) Individual past performance efforts will be evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessment of recent efforts, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. More relevant efforts will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment rating than less relevant efforts. 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 assessment rating than a less relevant record with a higher quality rating. Due to the multifaceted nature of the solicitation, past performance efforts submitted that are relevant to only one or a few aspects of the requirement, though recent and relevant, may not warrant a substantial overall rating.

(A) Recency. An assessment of each individual past performance effort will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, efforts sited shall be active or completed within the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Individual past performance efforts that are not recent will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality.

(B) Relevancy. An assessment of each recent individual past performance effort will be made to determine relevance; focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors. Higher relevance will be given to performance of efforts involving training systems that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear on, or significantly influence the performance of, the proposed effort. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers. In determing relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy will be rated in accordance with the table below:

RELEVANCY RATINGS

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.

(C) Quality.

(i) The Government will consider the performance quality of each individual recent and relevant effort. The quality assessment will be an in-depth evaluation of information that may be retrieved from performance questionnaire responses, Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and/or commercial clients.

It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

While conducting the Past Performance assessment, the Government reserves the right to use data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources.

(ii) Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8

(Deviation), Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9 Alternate II, Small

Business Subcontracting Plan.

(iii) The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Should the

Government decide to conduct discussions, offerors with adverse past performance information, which they have not previously had an opportunity to respond, may be given the opportunity to provide clarifications and address the adverse information in accordance with FAR 15.306.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%20/%20P291_46240%20/%20FAR%2015.306 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.

(iv) The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing each individual recent and relevant effort:

QUALITY RATINGS

E Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements with many exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than a few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

G Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements with some exceeded to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with no more than some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

S Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were satisfactory.

M Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N Neutral Performance was not observed or not applicable to the current effort being reported against.

d. Factor 3 – Price.

(1) The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the total evaluated price

(TEP).

(A) TEP will be calculated by taking the sum of all CLINs for all years, except for the following CLINs:

1002AB, 2002AB, 3002AB, 4002AB, 5002AB, 6002AB – TSSC Engineering Materials

0002, 1007, 2007, 3007, 4007, 5007, 6007 – Travel

1008, 2008, 3008, 4008, 5008, 6008 – Additional or Replacement Spares

(B) The ATD CLS CLIN prices (CLINs 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003, 5003, 6003) will be included as part of the TEP by averaging the prices for all alternatives each year, and then taking the sum of all averages.

(C) The Concurrency Upgrades, Modifications, Conversions CLIN prices (CLINs

1005, 2005, 3005, 4005, 5005, 6005) will be included as part of the TEP by averaging the price for each item across all possible ordering periods, and then taking the sum of all items’ average prices.

(D) The Device Relocation CLIN prices (CLINs 1009, 2009, 3009, 4009, 5009, 6009) will be included as part of the TEP by averaging the price for each item across all possible ordering periods, and then taking the sum of all items’ average prices.

(2) The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP beyond the GFP presently provided by the Government (Section J, Attachment 8).

(3) Balanced Pricing. The Government may determine a proposal to be unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable program risk to the Government.

(4) Price Reasonableness. The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposed TEP. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

(5) Price Proposal Submission Sheet. The TEP will be calculated using the Price

Proposal Submission Sheet found at Attachment 18A. Instructions for completing and submitting the spreadsheet are in Section L, Paragraph 4.c.(3).

3. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY.

a. The Government requests that Past Performance Volumes be submitted prior to the due date of Technical and Price Volumes. At that time the Government will begin collecting past performance information and evaluating past performance. There is a possibility that not all offerors’ past performance information will be evaluated and that not all offerors will receive a

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, given the source selection process we intend to follow.

b. Once Technical and Price Proposal Volumes have been received, the Government will evaluate Technical and Price of all proposals at the same time. Past Performance will continue to be evaluated for all offerors. However, once an offeror’s proposal is rated Technically

Acceptable, or if Unacceptable but is deemed to have correction potential (as defined in

Paragraph 4.g below), it will be ranked according to price (proposals rated Technically

Unacceptable will not be ranked). Past performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be determined beginning with the lowest priced of these proposals. The parallel evaluation is only a means to expedite the overall evaluation process.

c. If the lowest priced offeror is rated Technically Acceptable, and is judged to have a

Substantial Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, that offeror represents the best value to the Government and the evaluation process is finished. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offerors.

d. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Past Performance

Confidence Assessment rating (or has been rated Technically Unacceptable but deemed to have correction potential as defined in Paragraph 4.g below), the next lowest priced offeror’s past performance will be considered and the process will continue (in order by price) until an offeror rated as Technically Acceptable is judged to have a Substantial Confidence Past Performance

Confidence Assessment rating or until all proposals are evaluated. The Source Selection

Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision (potentially trading off) after considering only those offerors who received a Past Performance Confidence

Assessment rating.

4. MISCELLANEOUS.

a. Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions. However, during the evaluation period, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices and the Final Proposal Revision will be used in making the source selection decision. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. The Procurement Contracting Officer

(PCO) reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

b. 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.

c. Review and Visits. The 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/sub-factors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal.

d. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in an alternate proposal. Unless such exceptions are identified and supported as required, by submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors are cautioned that failure to meet such solicitation requirements may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

e. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract for the F-15 TDAS program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract. 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.

f. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government may reject without discussions, any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or is unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

g. Correction Potential of Proposals. Throughout the evaluation, the Government will consider the "correction potential" of any proposal. 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.