Attachment 12_SECTION_M_Draft.pdf

FA8621-20-R-0003

Section M, Attachment 12 – Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

FOR THE

JOINT TERMINAL CONTROL TRAINING AND

REHEARSAL SYSTEM (JTC TRS)

Solicitation #FA8621-20-R-0003

14 January 2020

Prepared by:

Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulators Program Office

AFLCMC/WNS

2300 D Street, Bldg. 32 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433-7249

SECTION M- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented. The Government will perform an integrated assessment of Technical Approach, Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price to make a best value award decision. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements in a way that will be most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical risk and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this Section M. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

The Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has an acceptable organizational conflict of interest mitigation plan, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single award contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government may also choose not to award a contract for the requirement identified in this solicitation based on price and/or other considerations if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.2.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 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 judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. A sound Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts), requirements, is required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business Offeror can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented. Award cannot be made to an Offeror deemed not responsible by the CO.

1.3 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals at the time of the determination. If the CO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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 Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.4 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

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, 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 satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

1.5 Discussions:

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW

FAR 15.306.

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 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

1.7 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP):

No additional GFP/GFE/GFM is required in support of this effort. The Offeror shall NOT request any additional GFP/GFE/GFM.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Process

All proposals will intitially be reviewed against the Secure Facility gate (Section L, para 1.4), specifically:

The Offeror shall provide documentation to verify that the proposed facility meets the requirements for SECRET, Open Storage (unattended processing) as outlined in Department of Defense (DoD) Manual 5200.01, “DoD Information Security Program: Protection of Classified Information” and DoD Instruction 8500.01, “Cybersecurity.” The contractor shall demonstrate in writing how its facility complies with the above DoD manual and DoD Instruction. The contractor shall provide documentation that demonstrates its facility has previous certification/accreditation by a Government security agency, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), or Defense Security Service (DSS), to a minimum level of SECRET, Open Storage. Furthermore, Offerors must still possess a valid U.S. facility clearance of Secret at the time the Source Selection Authority (SSA) makes the award decision in order to be eligible for contract award.

The offeror shall further document that the facility has sufficient space to house both the JTC TRS Dome and JTC TRS Desktop. The minimum footprints are as follows:

Minimum footprint for Dome is 850 SF where the facility height should accommodate the 12-foot JTC TRS dome, plus ensure a clearance of 18 inches from the top of the dome to the top of the sprinkler heads, (13’-6” from floor to sprinkler)

Minimum footprint for Desktop trainer is 96 SF with a facility height of 8 ft

Failure to meet the above requirements will make the proposal unawardable

All proposals meeting the facility requirements will then be evaluated for Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price, to establish a competitive range and enter into discussions.

Proposals in the competitive range proposing solutions using other than the current software baseline must demonstrate their software in a System Evaluation Test (SET) of a production article, conducted in a contractor provided system at the offeror’s designated facility. Specific requirements for the SET are delineated in Attachments M-1 – M-6 of this document.

Upon completion of applicable SET, the government will enter into further discussions, as applicable, and award based on best value.

2.1 General

The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings) Subfactor 1: Training Device Production Subfactor 2: TSSC and JTC TRS Support Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Importance

Among the evaluation factors, Technical, which includes the Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Rating, is more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Price. The Technical Acceptability for Subfactor 1 is more important than the Technical Acceptability for Subfactor 2. The Technical Risk Ratings will be considered equally.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical, which includes the Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Rating, and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price;

however, Price will be a substantial part of the decision.

2.3 Factors/Subfactors

2.3.1 Factor I: Technical

2.3.1.1 General

The Government will evaluate each subfactor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis as defined in the below table against the Subfactors description in Paragraphs 2.3.1.1.1 and 2.3.1.1.2.

If any subfactor receives a Technical Acceptability Rating of Unacceptable, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

Adjectival Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.3.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Training Device Production

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offerors approach for producing additional JTC TRS dome training devices compatible with the current operational production software baseline, using Form, Fit, Function hardware.

Measure of Merit: Offeror will provide explanation of their proposed JTC TRS compatible solution and approach to effectively produce, field, and test compatible JTC TRS training devices within 6 months of contract transition.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal addresses the topics outlined in Section L

2.3.2.1 for producing additional JTC TRS compatible devices..

If applicable, Training Device production will be evaluated in both the Technical Volume and through the SET, as defined in Section L 2.3.2.1 and Attachments M-1- M-6.

2.3.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: TSSC, JTAGSS, and JTC TRS Support

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offerors ability to describe their proposed approach to supporting and maintaining all JTC TRS systems.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a sound approach for supporting and maintaining all JTC TRS systems. The offeror must must address the topics of Section L, 2.3.2.2.

2.3.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

In addition to the Technical Acceptability rating, the Government will assess each Offeror’s proposal for Technical Risk at the subfactor levels. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation(s) (if applicable) and document why it believes the Offeror’s mitigation is or is not manageable. Technical Risk will not roll up to the factor level; Subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below. A proposal with an Unacceptable risk rating is considered un-awardable.

2.3.1.2.1 Technical Risk Rating Matrix

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.3.2 Factor II: Past Performance

2.3.2.1 General

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in Offeror’s performance shall be considered.

2.3.2.1.1 Past Performance Ratings Matrix

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

2.3.2.2 Past Performance Evaluation Process

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 categories of technical scope detailed in paragraph 2.3.2.4.1 below.

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Adjectival

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.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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 successfully perform the required effort.

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. If the Government considers adverse past performance information based on interviews or surveys, the Offeror will be notified and have a chance to respond.

The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ past performance WILL NOT include the past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2.3.2.3 Recency Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of the past performance information to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be on-going with at least six (6) months of performance history or must have been performed during the past five (5) years preceding the issuance date of this solicitation. For contracts that began more than five years before the date of solicitation issuance, only the year(s) that were partially or completely performed in those five years will be evaluated as recent. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of all recent performance information obtained from the Offeror, including joint venture partner(s) and critical subcontractor(s). The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. In determining the relevancy of efforts performed under individual past performance citations, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner. The Past Performance Information Tool outputs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the relevancy assessment ratings matrix and definitions in paragraph 2.3.2.4.3 when assessing relevancy.

2.3.2.4.1 Relevancy Assessment Technical Categories

The following is a list of categories of technical scope the Government will use in determining contract relevance. The categories are listed in descending levels of relevance. Relevancy will be assessed through a combination of performance demonstrated in each of the following categories of technical scope and the programmatic and logistical scope and magnitude of the effort as described in paragraph 2.3.2.4.2 below.

1) Designing, developing, producing, and/or fielding a high fidelity training simulator similar to a JTC TRS device

2) Support of training system modifications (including situations with limited or no technical data and/or no source code), encompassing both hardware and software modifications/upgrades

3) Conducting front-end analysis, design, development, production, and/or fielding of modifications to multiple types of similar training systems at sites for Continental United States (CONUS) and/or Outside CONUS (OCONUS).

4) Providing TSSC for training systems simultaneously at multiple locations CONUS and/or OCONUS.

5) Networking distributed training assets to include Combat Air Force (CAF) DMO standards, including delivery of timely Mission Packet updates and participation in Federation events

2.3.2.4.2 Programmatic and Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations, including but not limited to, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, and number of geographic sites serviced and any Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs). When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort.

2.3.2.4.3 Relevancy Assessment Ratings Matrix

RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

VERY

RELEVANT

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

RELEVANT Past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT

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

NOT

RELEVANT

Past performance effort involved little or none of the scope or magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.3.2.5 Quality Assessment

The Government will assess the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on past contract citations). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services and the work performed will be assessed for the categories of technical scope listed above (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) will be assessed holistically. In making the quality assessment, the Government will review the received PPQs and/or CPARs, as well as other relevant CPARs available to the Government. Pursuant to FAR 15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the past performance assessment will also consider the extent to which the

Offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 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 element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the assessment 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. Should the Government determine that contractor performance does not meet the letter of one of the descriptions of the quality ratings, the Government will rate that performance with the color that, in the Government’s sole discretion, most correctly captures the contractor’s performance.

Rating Description

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory

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

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score.

2.3.2.6 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 at the factor level (see table 2.3.2.1.1). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the categories of technical scope identified in paragraph 2.3.2.4.1, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an assessment of the

Offeror’s 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 a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

Performance that is more recent may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent effort. Likewise, a more relevant record of favorable past performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

2.3.3 Factor III: Price

2.3.3.1 General

The Government will evaluate the Price proposal and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of each proposal. The Price proposal will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness (3) unbalanced pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.3.3.1.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.3.3.1.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.3.3.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item 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. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

2.3.3.1.4 Total Evaluated Price

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 3).

For CLINs that require a pricing matrix, the Government, prior to issuing the solicitation, has determined most probable scenarios for each CLIN. The summation of the proposed prices for each predetermined selection of cells for each CLIN will represent the TEP for all Offerors. The Government will not disclose these predetermined cells to the Offerors in the solicitation.

The TEP will be utilized to evaluate Offerors and make tradeoffs when necessary, but will not be the ultimate contract price for this acquisition. The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only. Offerors should follow the instructions in the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet for inputting prices in each tab.

3. CONTRACTS DOCUMENTATION

3.1 General

The Contracts Documentation will be evaluated to ensure compliance with Section L and all RFP terms and conditions as well as consistency with the entire proposal as submitted.

3.2 Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan

The CO will assess the Offeror’s Organizational Conflict of Interest Mitigation Plan for compliance with laws, regulations, and Section L requirements. Acceptable plans will successfully avoid or mitigate actual conflicts and significant potential conflicts. Unacceptable plans will make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

4. ATTACHMENTS

M-1. System Evaluation Test (SET) Plan and Test Points M-2. Scenario 1 Description and Test Points M-3. Scenario 2 Description and Test Points M-4. Scenario 3 Description and Test Points M-5. Scenario 4 Description and Test Points M-6. Supplemental and EME Test Points