Atch_21_-_C-130J_MATS_O-S_Section_M_-_Eval_Criteria.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

For The

C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS) Operations and Sustainment (O&S) Support

Solicitation #FA8621-13-R-6305

10 October 2013

FA8621-13-R-6305

Section J, Attachment 21 – Section M, Evaluation Factors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i

M001 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Process (see FAR 15.101-1) to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. This is a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOASB) set-aside competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 4 March 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, dated 27 Mar 2013, in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated as significantly more important than price. Tradeoffs may be made only between price and past performance and only among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, and included within the competitive range. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation 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, to represent the best value to the Government. This solicitation may result in award to a higher priced offeror, where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of that higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference between that offeror and a technically acceptable offeror with a lesser performance confidence assessment. While the Government source selection evaluation team, the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), and the 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.

Only U.S. companies may be considered for award. A foreign-owned or a foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Security Service (DSS) as a U.S. subsidiary and possesses a Facility Clearance, will be considered as a U.S. prime on the C130J MATS O&S contract. Foreign-owned companies may participate as a subcontractor; however, the prime contractor is responsible for meeting all contract requirements.

Offerors must have a valid U.S. security clearance of Secret or higher in order to be eligible for contract award. Offerors lacking such a clearance may submit a proposal and be considered for award; however, they will not be eligible for award unless they hold a valid Secret Facility Clearance at time of the C-130J MATS O&S contract award. The Government shall not be liable if the requested clearance is not obtained in a timely manner to allow for contract award.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one contract for the C-130J MATS O&S Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP) The Government will mitigate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of GFP beyond the GFP provided by the Government (Section J, Attachment 9). This shall be done by adjusting the offeror’s total evaluated price by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent evaluation factor as specified in FAR 52.245-9.

Discussions The Government may award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary. 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 (EN), 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 may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors (clarifications other than past performance) will not constitute discussions.

Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the FPR request, or for purposes of efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

Evaluation Factors Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below. Offerors must be found Technically Acceptable to be considered for contract award. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

Technical Past Performance Price Factor 1: Technical The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Government must be assured that each offeror has the ability to perform--and will perform--the requirements of the C130J MATS O&S Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section J, Attachment 1. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors, as they apply to the C-130J MATS O&S PWS. Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Paragraph 2.0, Proposal Preparation Instructions. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown below. A rating of Unacceptable in one or more subfactors will constitute an overall rating of Unacceptable for the entire Factor 1 technical evaluation, rendering the proposal unawardable. In order for a subfactor to be rated Acceptable, each of its Measures of Merit must be met.

The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability:

Subfactor 1: Transition and Aircrew Instruction Description: This subfactor evaluates the effectiveness of the offeror’s contract transition, recruiting, and site activation, as well as the offeror’s processes and capabilities to meet C130J MATS O&S guaranteed student requirements for instruction, throughput, training, and graduation.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides:

1. a comprehensive and workable transition plan that:

allows an accurate and complete assessment of the offeror’s transition capability;

demonstrates an effective planning approach for the 30-day transition period, 60-day transition period, 90-day transition period, and 120-day transition period;

includes the activities required to change from the current contractor to the new contract awardee. This should identify the scheduling/manning approach at the 30-/60-/90-/120-day intervals.

1. a sound approach for site activation, including setting up and beginning training at a new site (PWS paragraph 9.3).

1. a reliable process for acquiring and retaining fully qualified C-130J aircrew instructors and maintenance technicians, ensuring personnel have the required clearances, certifications, and education at the beginning of the period of performance (PWS paragraphs 6.1.4 and 6.2.1).

1. a sound approach for student instruction, including proposed qualified staffing for the aircrew training devices and adequate quantity of instructors (PWS paragraph 4.1).

1. a sound approach to remediate students with identified deficiencies without displacing student throughput, at no additional cost to the Government (PWS paragraph 4.3).

Subfactor 2: Sustainment Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed operations, maintenance, and support functions required to sustain training systems and ensure quality workmanship and trainer availability.

Measures of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach to:

1. ensuring the Government receives quality workmanship meeting the requirements of the PWS paragraph 11.0 through an effective Quality Control Plan.

1. manage all support resources to include the Logistics Support Package (LSP) and fully qualified maintenance technicians to meet the training system availability and throughput requirements (PWS paragraphs 4.1 and 5.9.3).

1. track current and historical maintenance data and spares management using a web-based data collection system (PWS paragraph 5.1.1.2).

1. forecast, identify, monitor, and mitigate deficiencies due to obsolescence and material shortage issues within the current system (PWS paragraph 5.1.1.3).

Factor 2: Past Performance Past performance will be evaluated as described below.

Confidence Assessment Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the evaluation of an offeror’s past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs. The Past Performance evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent, relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the technical subfactors. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

The offeror will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in the table below. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. As a result, they will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance Factor.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Evaluation Process The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed “Very Relevant”, “Relevant”, or Somewhat Relevant” to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. In addition, recent and relevant performance from the SDVOSB prime contractor will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than recent and relevant performance from subcontractors.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources.

Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, offerors’ contract citations must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five calendar years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevance Assessment In determining relevance, consideration will be given to performance of efforts involving training systems that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity as those under the Technical Subfactors. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local Governments and commercial customers. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated past performance on the basis of its breadth, depth, and similarity to the work required to meet the contract objectives. Each offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which they obtained similar or otherwise relevant experience on aircraft training system contracts or subcontracts performed for products or services similar in scope, nature, and complexity as those under the Technical Subfactors.

Relevancy Ratings

Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant 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, regardless of its source. 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:

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.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Factor 3: Price Each offeror’s price proposal and total evaluated price (TEP) shall be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness. In the evaluation of an offeror’s individual rates the Government may use information provided by DCMA, DCAA, or other information sources deemed appropriate by the Government.

Completeness Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, Volume III. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete.

Submission of an incomplete Price Matrix as set forth in Section L, 6.2.2 will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP rendering the proposal ineligible for award.

Unbalanced Pricing The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing may exist 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.

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 price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The following are examples of the price analysis techniques that may be applied: comparing proposed labor rates to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE); comparing proposed labor rates proposed by other offerors, and comparing proposed labor rates to historical labor rates proposed on recently awarded competitive and sole source training system acquisitions.

Evaluation of option prices as part of the TEP, shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be calculated using the prices proposed in the price matrix contained in Section J, Attachment 23, Pricing Matrix. Instructions for completing the spreadsheet are in Section L, paragraph 6.2.2. Offerors shall review and make sure they concur with all TEP totals on the TEP Tab of the Pricing Matrix.

The TEP will be calculated as follows:

The offeror enters a price for a 30-, 60-, 90-, and 120-day transition period in the Transition Tab. These prices are summed and divided by four to arrive at an average transition price. This average price is then linked to the TEP Tab and will be used for evaluation purposes only.

The offeror enters a monthly price for program management support for each option year. The annual price is automatically calculated and linked to the TEP Tab and will be used for evaluation purposes only.

The offeror enters prices for Student Throughput and Government Use Time in the Student Throughput Tabs. These prices are summed and divided by the number of ranges (11) to come up with an average price for each course for each year for each site. These average prices will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be linked to the TEP Tab.

The offeror enters prices for CLS ranges in the Aircrew Training Devie (ATD) CLS Tabs. These prices are summed and divided by the number of ranges (11) to come up with an average ATD CLS price for each year and each site. These average prices will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be linked to the TEP Tab.

The offeror enters a monthly price for Maintenance Training Device (MTD) CLS for Little Rock AFB only for each option year. The annual price is automatically calculated and linked to the TEP Tab and will be used for evaluation purposes only.

All prices are summed in the TEP Tab to calculate a total price to be used for evaluation purposes.

Trade-off Methodology If the evaluation does not result in a lowest price technically acceptable proposal with substantial confidence, the SSA will then assess the price and past performance ratings for all evaluated offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Then those proposals will be traded-off between past performance and price, as described in paragraph 1 above.

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.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Per Section L, paragraph 7.2, offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Alternate proposals are not acceptable. 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.