Att 19 - TDAS Section M.pdf

FA8621-12-R-6259

Attachment 19

13 Mar 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/vffara.htm.

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 proposal that is ultimately 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 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 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. This source selection will use the following three evaluation factors:

Technical, 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.

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

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE

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

(2) The Government will make a determination of overall technical factor acceptability based upon an evaluation of each subfactor (SF): SF1 – Systems Engineering/Program

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

Proposals will be evaluated for each subfactor on a pass/fail basis, as either meeting or not meeting the measure of merit. A proposal meets the subfactor‟s measure of merit if it clearly meets minimum requirements of the solicitation, and has been given either a low or moderate risk rating. A proposal does not meet the subfactor‟s measure of merit if it does not clearly meet minimum requirements or has been given a high risk rating. Assessment of technical risk at each subfactor, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror‟s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. Risk ratings are defined in the below table titled “Technical Risk

Ratings”:

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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) Failure to meet a requirement may result in the overall Technical Factor being rated

Unacceptable. If a proposal is evaluated to not meet any one subfactor‟s measure of merit, then the overall Technical Factor will be rated Unacceptable. All Technically Acceptable proposals will be considered equal, regardless of whether they result from subfactors with low risk ratings, or from subfactors with moderate risk ratings.

(4) Subfactors.

(A) Subfactor 1: System Engineering/Program Management. Measure of

Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror‟s proposal describes a sound and comprehensive approach with low or moderate risk to meet minimum requirements of the solicitation as evidenced by:

(i) Management Approach. A Management Approach that describes an effective team devoted to F-15 TDAS ensuring that:

(a) Effective management structure and qualifications, facilitating proactive oversight of F-15 TDAS engineering and support activities; and

(b) Sufficient number of personnel with the necessary expertise to perform the requirements of the PWS to include maintenance and repair of the F-15 TDAS aircrew and maintenance training devices and associated equipment; and

(c) Possible issues and risks to schedule or performance are prevented or mitigated; and

(d) Proposed subcontractor management is realistic and effective.

(ii) Transition Plan. A Transition Plan with attached Microsoft Project

2007 schedule that ensures an effective 60-calendar day transition will be accomplished with the incumbent contractor while adequately addressing:

(a) Initial staffing of personnel that includes identification of key positions, recruiting and hiring plans, and personnel qualifications; and

(b) If applicable, relocation, setup, and initial functionality verfication of Government Furnished Property.

(iii) Draft System Security Plan. A draft System Security Plan that encompasses and clearly describes all activities to ensure that facilities, process accreditation, and personnel clearances will be approved prior to steady state performance on site by January

2015.

(iv) Small Business Utilization. A Small Business Participation Plan that commits to and clearly supports the requirement of small business participation of a minimum of

20% of the offeror‟s Total Evaluated Price minus the offeror‟s Start of Contract Transition Price, while reflecting reasonable initiatives to assist, promote, and utilize SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, VOSB, and SDVOSB; including commitments with specific small businesses or reasonable rationale where commitments have not yet been accomplished.

(v) Integrated Master Plan. An integrated Master Plan that defines a comprehensive set of systems engineering and program management events supporting a sound and complete set of systems engineering and program management processes, with well-defined and achievable event entry/exit criteria that can be applied against an integrated, time-phased, resource driven Integrated Master Schedule to accomplish the tasks identified in the PWS. The defined events/criteria encompass requirements analysis, software and hardware design and implementation, integration, verification/validation, and configuration management consistent with the scope of program requirements.

(B) Subfactor 2: Change Management. Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror‟s proposal describes a sound and comprehensive approach with low or moderate risk to meet minimum requirements of the solicitation as evidenced by:

(i) Concurrency. An effective and efficient approach and schedule for implementing Suite 8 OFP that ensures completion by April 2016. The Suite 8 schedule is based on IMP-defined events and milestones and reflects a time-phased allocation of constrained program resources, with clearly identified predecessor/successor relationships and an identified critical path.

(ii) Databases. An effective and efficient approach to incorporate updates into the visual and sensor simulation databases. The IMP includes appropriate events and entry/exit criteria applicable to the visual/sensor simulation database update process that will support future taskings for such effort.

(iii) Device Conversion. An effective and efficient approach to changing the “C” configured MTD‟s into an „E‟ configuration (including quantities and types of parts).

The device conversion schedule is based on IMP-defined events and milestones and reflects a time-phased allocation of constrained program resources, with clearly identified predecessor/successor relationships and an identified critical path.

(iv) Build to Print Production. An effective and efficient approach to building an Integrated Aircrew Trainer (IAT) device based on drawings provided by the

Government while incorporating any necessary changes to the baseline. The production schedule is based on IMP-defined events and milestones and reflects a time-phased allocation of constrained program resources, with clearly identified predecessor/successor relationships and an identified critical path.

(C) Subfactor 3: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS). Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror‟s proposal describes a sound and comprehensive approach with low or moderate risk to meet minimum requirements of the solicitation as evidenced by:

(i) On-Site Requirements. An effective and efficient approach to on-site

CLS maintenance/logistics support ensuring that:

(a) A 95% IAT Availability rate can be met; and

(b) TDAS equipment can be maintained and repaired.

(ii) On-Call Requirements. An effective and efficient approach to on-call

CLS maintenance/logistics support ensuring that:

(a) MTD repairs occur within 48 hours at Sheppard AFB, 72 hours

CONUS, and 96 hours OCONUS; and

(b) TDAS equipment can be maintained and repaired.

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 past 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 will be considered more advantageous to the

Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record will 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 fighter/bomber training systems that are similar in scope, magnitude, and complexity to 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 IAW 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 IAW FAR 15.306. 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.

(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.

VG 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).

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%20/%20P291_46240%20/%20FAR%2015.306

(A) TEP will be calculated by taking the sum of all CLINs for all years, except as described in Paragraphs (B) through (G) below:

(B) The following cost reimbursement CLINs will not be included as part of the TEP because offerors will not be proposing any cost for these CLINs with their Volume III - Price

Proposal:

1002AB, 2002AB, 3002AB, 4002AB, 5002AB, 6002AB – TSSC Material

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

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

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

(D) The Concurrency Upgrades, Modifications, and Conversions CLIN prices

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

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

(F) The End of Contract Transition CLIN prices (CLINs 1010, 2010, 3010, 4010, 5010, 6010) will be included as part of the TEP by averaging the extended price across all possible ordering periods.

(2) Proposed prices shall reflect that offerors are prohibited from proposing the use of

Government Furnished Property, Facilities, or Equipment beyond the GFP to be provided by the

Government as identified in the Recompetition Support Package found at Attachment 5.

(3) Balanced Pricing. The Government may determine a proposal to be unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced IAW 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 the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable 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.d.(1)(H).

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 fully evaluated and that not all offerors will receive a Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, given the source selection process we will follow.

b. Once Technical and Price Proposal Volumes have been received, the Government will evaluate Technical and Price Volumes of all proposals at the same time. Past Performance will continue to be evaluated for all offerors. If an offeror‟s proposal is rated Technically Acceptable, or Unacceptable but is deemed to have correction potential (as defined in Paragraph 4.h below), it will be ranked according to price. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be determined beginning with the lowest priced of these proposals. The parallel evaluation is a means to efficiently conduct the overall evaluation process.

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

Substantial Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating, that proposal 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 proposal 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.h below), the next lowest priced offeror‟s past performance will be considered and the process will continue (in order by price) until a proposal 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 make an integrated assessment best value award decision (in which a trade off may occur) after considering only those offerors whose proposals are rated Technically

Acceptable and 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 Government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

b. Determination of Competitive Range. 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, pursuant to FAR 15.306, the Contracting Officer‟s determination of competitive range of proposals submitted as a result of this solicitation will consider such criteria as set forth in Section M of this solicitation.

(1) Offerors are hereby advised that only those proposals determined to have a reasonable chance for award of a contract will be included in the competitive range. While every effort will be made to maintain strong competition, the PCO will also look to eliminate time consuming and unnecessary discussions with those offerors whose proposals have no reasonable chance for award. This procedure is considered beneficial to both the Air Force and the offerors involved since, in addition to saving further expenditure of resources, acquisition lead time should be reduced.

(2) Accordingly, offerors should submit initial proposals on their most favorable terms, from a technical, past performance, and cost/price standpoint. Again, it should be noted that proposals will not be included in the competitive range solely on the basis of technical acceptability or strong past performance, nor will they be included due to cost/price considerations alone.

(3) Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable. Additional information relative to such proposals will be provided through debriefing of unsuccessful offerors.

c. Pre-Award Survey. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection in accordance with FAR 9.106. If used, results of the PAS will be evaluated to aid in determination of each offeror's responsibility.

d. 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.

e. 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. 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.

f. 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.

g. 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, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

h. 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 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.