Atch_4_-_KDAM_ATARS_SectionM_DRAFT_rev13.pdf

Section J, Attachment 4 – Evaluation Criteria

FA8621-15-4-6328

06-Apr-15

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. GENERAL

1. SOURCE SELECTION:

a. Basis for Contract Award: This is a 100% Small Business set-aside competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 4 March 2011, AFFARS 5315.3, and Air Force Source Selection Procedures, dated 21 April 2014. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price among those offerors deemed Technically Acceptable, responsible and not unbalanced IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

b. The Source Selection Authority’s (SSA) integrated best value award decision will be based upon the following: Technical Risk is more important than Past Performance. When combined, Technical Risk and Past Performance are significantly more important than Price.

This may result in an award to a higher priced offeror, where the award decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines, based upon an integrated assessment of the lower Technical Risk and/or superior Past Performance, that the value of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team 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.

c. Offerors must have an existing or be eligible/capable to receive a valid U.S. security facility clearance of Top Secret (TS) in order to be eligible for contract award. Failure to obtain the required TS clearances (both awardee and personnel) by 1 October 2016 will be grounds for a default termination. The 1 October 2016 deadline corresponds to the end of the transition period and the start of this contract.

d. The evaluation of priced options shall not obligate the Government to exercise said priced options.

e. Award Selection: The Government will list the Technically Acceptable offerors with either Low or Moderate Technical Risk ratings from the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) to the highest TEP. If the lowest TEP, technically acceptable offer, is assessed to have “Low Risk” and a “Substantial Confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, that offeror will represent the overall best value for the Government. Award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers. If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have the lowest risk and a “Substantial Confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment Rating, the SSA will make an integrated best value award decision among all offers that have been

06-Apr-15 determined to be Technically Acceptable, Moderate or Low risk, reasonable and balanced (either initially or as a result of discussions).

II. EVALUATION

1. EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Proposals will be evaluated using the factors and subfactors listed below. Offeror’s proposals must be found Technically Acceptable and assessed as Moderate or Low Risk to be considered for contract award (either initially or as a result of discussions).

b. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: Technical Risk is more important than Past Performance; and when Technical Risk and Past Performance are combined they are significantly more important than Price.

2. FACTOR 1: Technical Factor

a. Utilizing the offeror’s proposal, the Government must be assured each offeror has a thorough approach to perform and fully understands the requirements of the KDAM ATARS Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section J Attachment 2. Proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Technical Solution Subfactor 2: UH-1N WST/OFT HTAWS/TCAD Concurrency Mod

b. Assessment of Technical Acceptability: Each offeror shall, for each subfactor identified below, provide a proposal meeting the requirements of the solicitation and demonstrating an understanding of the requirements to meet each of the subfactors.

Detailed proposal preparation instructions are included within Section L. The Government will evaluate each subfactor’s Technical Solution on a pass/fail basis and will assign an evaluation rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in the below table. If any subfactor receives a Technical Acceptability Rating of Unacceptable, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY RATINGS

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not clearly meet the requirements of the

c. Assessment of Technical Risk: In addition to the Technical Acceptability ratings described above, the Government will assess the proposal for Technical Risk under each subfactor and assign one of the evaluation ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, see table below. This risk rating is based on the risk associated with the proposed technical solution in meeting the program requirements, which is established by the identification of http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvalult/usA007183-10-DPAP.pdf

06-Apr-15 proposal weaknesses and significant weaknesses. All weaknesses and significant weaknesses will consider the potential for disruption to schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A proposal with a High Risk rating for either subfactor shall be considered unawardable.

d. For the Technical Factor evaluation, failure to meet any single measure of merit under any Subfactor will result in an Unacceptable rating for the entire Subfactor. The proposals will be evaluated against the following Subfactors:

SUBFACTOR 1: TECHNICAL SOLUTION

This subfactor evaluates the soundness and comprehensiveness of the Offeror’s proposed Technical Solution and is met when the Technical Solution evidences the following:

a) The Offeror’s approach to manage across all locations of performance the integration of CLS

(PWS Para 2.b), training management (PWS Para 4.7.b, 4.7.1, 4.7.4.d), and Cybersecurity (PWS Para 6.1.1.c and 6.1.1.d) to accomplish Annual Student Throughput and On-Time Graduation.

b) The Offeror’s approach to Ramp-Up Transition for this contract to include plan variations for a 60-day and a 30-day Ramp Up Transition (PWS Para 1.11.a, 4.7.4.a).

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost 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, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

06-Apr-15

SUBFACTOR 2: UH-1N WST/OFT HTAWS/TCAD CONCURRENCY MOD

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s Solution for the KDAM ATARS UH-1N WST/OFT HTAWS/TCAD Concurrency Mod Statement of Objectives and the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements. The subfactor is met when the Offeror’s Solution evidences the following:

a) A sound Technical Solution to meet the minimum requirements of Section J, Attachment 6 –

Statement of Objectives; and

b) A comprehensive Statement of Work (SOW) (Data Item Description DI-MGMT-81606), demonstrating:

i. The Offeror’s solution to meet the minimum objectives detailed within the Section J, Attachment 6 - Statement of Objectives

ii. The Offeror’s rationale, including tradeoffs, used to select the final integrated solution for hardware, software, firmware and courseware

1. FACTOR 2: Past Performance

a. The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of an offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based upon an offeror’s recent historical performance. Past Performance will be evaluated as described below for each offeror.

b. If the prime offeror is a joint venture, the Government will evaluate past performance for the joint venture company and/or for each joint venture member up to the prime offeror contract citation limitations stated within Section L, paragraph 4.2.6.

c. Offerors are hereby advised the Government Past Performance for prime offerors and subcontractors, however for an offeror to receive "credit" (by way of relevance/quality) for any proposed team member's Past Performance, they must be committed to bringing those same resources to bear, as proposed, in the contact execution stage.

d. Evaluation Process

(1) The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of an offeror’s recent performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. A more recent and a more relevant performance will have greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or a less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance relevant to the PWS sections: 2 – CLS, 3 – TSSC, 4 – Training Management, 5 – Courseware, and 6.1.1 – Cybersecurity, and training device modifications. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

06-Apr-15

(2) In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(3) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have at least six months of performance and either be active or have been completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation. Past performance information failing this condition will not be evaluated.

(4) Relevancy Assessment: For all recent past performance information, the Government will evaluate all past performance information to determine its relevance. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to past performance of efforts involving PWS sections: 2 – CLS, 3 – TSSC, 4 – Training Management, 5 – Courseware, and 6.1.1 – Cybersecurity, and training device modifications (however, all aspects of performance relating to this acquisition may be considered).

(a) Relevancy assessments of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

(b) The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts:

Rating Definition VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

06-Apr-15

e. Performance Quality Assessment:

(1) The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and 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 PWS sections: 2 – CLS, 3 – TSSC, 4 – Training Management, 5 – Courseware, 6.1.1 – Cybersecurity, and training device modifications (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment of each contract reviewed 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.

(a) Adverse findings are defined as past performance information supporting a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised).

Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

(2) The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY

(S)/GREEN

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

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

06-Apr-15

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.

f. Performance Confidence Assessment:

(1) Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the evaluation of an offeror’s past work record to determine 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 an offeror’s recent, relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is recent and relevant to training management, contractor logistics support, training system support center, cybersecurity, and modifications. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on recent performance relevant to PWS sections: 2 – CLS, 3 – TSSC, 4 – Training Management, 5 – Courseware, 6.1.1

– Cybersecurity, and training device modifications, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Each offeror will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in DOD Source Selection Procedures, see table below.

(2) 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 ASSESSMENTS

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 effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

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

06-Apr-15

2. FACTOR 3: Price Factor

a. Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for Unbalanced Pricing, Price Reasonableness and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

b. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing and may determine a proposal to be unawardable should the proposed priced items 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. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Price Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal and TEP will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

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.

d. TEP: The TEP will be calculated using the prices proposed in the Price Matrix, Section J, Attachment 5 to include the proposed Table Rates matrix. Instructions for completing the spreadsheet are in Section L, Paragraph 4.3 Volume III - Price.

e. The Offeror’s TEP will be calculated by summing the following:

(1) Pre-determined instruction bands for the base year and each option year for each respective instruction CLIN;

(2) Pre-determined DMO bands for the base year and each option year for each respective

DMO CLIN;

(3) Pre-determined quantity for the base year and each option year for Geocells, Airfields, Models, Objective Areas and Targets from the Database Generation Services (DGBS) CLIN pricing matrix;

(4) Pre-determined quantity of students for each Commercial Training course for the base year from the Commercial Training CLIN pricing matrix;

(5) All other base year, option year, and add options CLINs;

(6) The value of any additional GFP an offeror proposes;

(7) The proposed fully burdened Table Rates for the base year and each option year will be averaged across all base year and option year Table Rates and then multiplied by 15,000 hours (see Section J, Attachment 5 Pricing Matrix for an example).

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.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars219.htm%23b15404 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm%23b312013

06-Apr-15

*Pre-determined bands and quantities are not disclosed in the RFP, and are being used for evaluation purposes only.

3. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

a. 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 determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and will assist in the determination of contractor responsibility.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the KDAM ATARS Program. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP: The Government will mitigate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP by determining an appropriate cost (IAW FAR 45.2) of said GFP and applying the appropriate cost within the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation for the respective offeror’s proposal, as applicable.

d. Discussions:

(1) The Government intends to award this contract without discussions. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors do not constitute discussions. Therefore, each offeror’s initial offer should contain the best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

(2) If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will conduct discussions with those offerors determined to be within the Competitive Range. In the event discussions are conducted, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

(3) 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 (FPR) are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

e. Competitive Range:

(1) Offerors are hereby advised that only those proposals determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to have a reasonable chance for contract award will be included within the competitive range, should discussions be deemed necessary. If the CO determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be included within the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO may further limit the number of proposals included within the competitive range to the greatest number permitting an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

06-Apr-15

(2) The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is at 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 reasonably correctable, the offeror will be eliminated from the competitive range.

(3) 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.