Attch_6_Section_M_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

FA8621-15-R-6315

Attachment 6 - Evaluation Criteria

13 Feb 15

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

T-1A GROUND BASED TRAINING SYSTEM (GBTS)

CONTRACTOR LOGISTICS SUPPORT (CLS) &

TRAINING SYSTEM SUPPORT CENTER (TSSC)

Solicitation No.: FA8621-15-R-6315

Prepared by:

Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulators Division

AFLCMC/WNS

2300 D Street, Bldg. 32

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7249

Date: 13 February 2015

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL

1.1 This is a competitive best value tradeoff source selection set-aside for small business conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and the 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 value offer based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Cost/Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable.

1.2 Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation, and is judged to represent the best value to the Government. By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

1.3 The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria. The basis for award:

Proposals must be technically acceptable to be considered for award.

Past Performance will be considered approximately equal to Price.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offer, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the superior Past Performance Confidence Assessment of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference.

1.4 The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, 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 solicitation, or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation. The

Government retains the right, at any time during the evaluation process, to exclude a proposal from further consideration, without allowing the offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal, if that proposal is found to be grossly deficient.

1.5 While the Government source selection evaluation 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.

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 Acceptability

Subfactor 1: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

Subfactor 2: Training Systems Support Center (TSSC)

Subfactor 3: System Transition

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Technical Acceptability Factor

The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in the paragraph below:

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY 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.

2.2.1 For the Technical Acceptability Factor evaluation, failure to meet any single measure of merit under any Subfactor will result in a rating of Unacceptable for the entire Subfactor. A rating of Unacceptable in one or more Subfactors will render the proposal technically Unacceptable. No extra consideration or credit will be given to an offer that exceeds technical requirements. The proposals will be evaluated against the following Subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) Measure of Merit: The Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to ensuring 95% availability (Section H, Clause H-001) of the T-1A GBTS through:

1. Providing sufficient qualified maintenance technicians to cover operational support window tailored to each USAF site and Naval Air Station (NAS) Pensacola

2. Management of scheduled, unscheduled, and preventive maintenance including spares

Subfactor 2: Training System Support Center (TSSC) Measure of Merit: The Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach to operate and support TSSC operations by:

1. Providing sufficient qualified personnel

2. Maintaining, updating, and testing changes to the Visual Database terrain, texture, and 3-D models

3. Maintaining multiple hardware and software baselines

Subfactor 3: System Transition Measure of Merit: The Subfactor is met when the offeror provides a transition approach that demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach that ensures a maximum of 60-day transition from the incumbent contractor including recruitment and hiring plans, staffing levels, and personnel qualifications for:

1. Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

2. Training System Support Center (TSSC) operations, to include performance of joint

Recompetition Support Package (RSP) audit

2.3 Past Performance Factor

2.3.1 Ratings. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described below – Performance Confidence Assessments:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required

2.3.2 Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying 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. 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 (PM), Contracting Officers (CO), 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, that portion of the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment:

Consideration will be given to recent experience in dealing with aircraft training systems and simulators. Consideration will be given to contract scope and type, similar technology, and complexity of effort.

2.3.2.2.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under the contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors. For each recent past performance contract reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors.

2.3.2.2.2 A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance efforts will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, the Government will evaluate only that effort or efforts performed under the contract that are similar to the role the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner will perform for the proposed effort. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used effort.

No Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Very Relevant Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Past/present performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Past/present performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope or magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment: For each recent and relevant past performance contract reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors; 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:

PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

E Exceptional/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.

G Very Good/Purple

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

S Satisfactory/Green During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

M Marginal/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.

U Unsatisfactory/Red

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

N Not Applicable/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 quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating (see 2.3.1 paragraph above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

2.3.3.1 More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

2.4 Price Evaluation Factor

Price will be evaluated for all offerors based upon unbalanced pricing, price reasonableness, and the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) below.

2.4.1 The Government may determine a proposal to be unawardable should the proposed contract line items 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 contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to Government.

2.4.2 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.

2.4.3 Using the proposed Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices in the Pricing Matrix (Section J, Attachment 2 of the RFP), the Government will calculate the offeror's TEP as described in Attachment 1 of this document, and Section J, Attachment 7. This TEP is an example scenario that will be used to evaluate total price for the purpose of the source selection.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options; at time of contract award, Section J, Attachment 7 will be removed.

3. Additional Information

3.1 Discussions: 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. 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 used in making the source selection decision. Throughout the evaluation period, the Government will consider the "potential for correction" of any proposal. The judgment of such "potential for correction" is within the sole discretion of the Government Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO). If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered to have “potential for correction,” the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors (clarifications other than Past Performance) will not constitute discussions.

3.2 Pre-Award Survey (PAS): The Government may conduct a PAS as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to assist the Contracting Officer in determining each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: It is the Government’s intent to award one contract for T-1A GBTS. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

Section M Attachments:

Attachment 1: Table 1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Attachment 1: Table 1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Total Evaluated Price

CY2015 Base/ Trans i tion

Price

CY2016 Annual Price

CY2017 Annual Price

CY2018 Annual Price

CY2019 Annual Price

CY2020 Annual Price

CY2021 Annual Price (Option to Extend Service)**

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

TSSC CLIN Series 0002 ‐ Randolph AFB 6000 Hours + + + + + + =

TSSC CLIN Series 0003 ‐ NAS Pensacola 4000 Hours + + + + + + =

TEP =

*Surge Requirements wil l be calculated by mul plying the Surge Rate by Indicated Hours (Rate * 60 or 80 Hours ) **Eva luated on the Bas is of 6 Months

Surge CLIN Series 0012 NAS Pensacola* 80 Hours

Surge CLIN Series 0013 Randolph AFB* 60 Hours

Surge CLIN Series 0010 Vance AFB* 80 Hours

Surge CLIN Series 0011 Laughlin AFB* 80 Hours

Surge CLIN Series 0009 Columbus AFB* 60 Hours

CLS CLIN Series 0006 Laughlin AFB 80 Hours Per Week

CLS CLIN Series 0007 NAS Pensacola 80 Hours Per Week

CLS CLIN Series 0008 Randolph AFB 80 Hours Per Week

PM CLIN Series 0001

CLS CLIN Series 0004 Columbus AFB 80 Hours Per Week

CLS CLIN Series 0005 Vance AFB 80 Hours Per Week