TSA IV Draft Section M - Evaluation Factors.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

TRAINING SYSTEMS ACQUISITION (TSA) IV

Solicitation #FA8621-21-R-0030

8 October 2020

Prepared by:

Agile Combat Support Directorate, Simulators Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) 2300 D Street, Bldg. 32 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

FA8621-21-R-0030

Section J, Attachment 12 – Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Basis for Contract Award TSA IV will be acquired under a partial set-aside competition resulting in multiple-year, multi-award contracts in an Unrestricted Pool and Small Business Pool of training system contractors. This acquisition will utilize the FAR 15.101 Source Selection Process to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The award decision will be made independently within each pool (unrestricted and small business). The Technical Acceptability Factor will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as explained in Paragraph 2.1. Tradeoffs will be made among each of the past performance subfactors and will be made only among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions. Award will be made to the offerors who are deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

Offerors are advised that the Government will evaluate technical acceptability and past performance of the prime offerors only. Note: if the prime offeror is a joint venture, the Government will evaluate technical acceptability and past performance for that joint venture. This will allow the prime to form teams as necessary, in the future, at the task order level. The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet the requirements of TSA IV. While the Government source selection evaluation team, the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

For large businesses, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements is required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business contractor can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include the subcontracting goals expressed at the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract level as a percentage only of annual total obligated dollars on awarded task orders for each of the following: small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women owned small business. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on the offeror’s approach to meeting each of its subcontracting goals.

Only U.S companies will be considered for award as prime contractors. A foreign-owned or foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Security Service (DSS) as a U.S. subsidiary will be considered as a U.S. prime on TSA IV. Foreign-owned companies may participate as a subcontractor on TSA IV task orders.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award multiple ID/IQ TSA IV contracts (approximately 1015 under unrestricted competition [e.g., Unrestricted Pool] and approximately 10-15 under small business competition [e.g., Small Business Pool]). The Government reserves the right to award more or fewer ID/IQ contracts than indicated in the range above, if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest. Offerors need to identify if they will be competing in the unrestricted or small business set-aside pool. Offerors may only bid in one of the two pools for initial contract award. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial offers should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and past performance standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions with offerors if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale discussing the exception. 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, unless such exceptions are identified and supported as required. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination will be based on all evaluation criteria. 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 that are not among the most highly rated based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request; the range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they will be notified by the CO and may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

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.

Discussions The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and past performance 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. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

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 competitive range.

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 will be rated at the subfactor level (same subfactors as technical) with the order of importance for the subfactors in descending order with Subfactor 1 being the most important.

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance 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 the requirements of the TSA IV Statement of Objectives (SOO) on subsequent task orders. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

The offeror’s proposal shall address each of the subfactors. 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 result in an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. Offerors must meet each measure of merit (MoM) with risk of unsuccessful performance no worse than moderate for each of Subfactors 1 through 4 in order to be considered technically acceptable under those subfactors.

The assessment of risk will include the offeror’s self-identified risks and proposed mitigations (if applicable). The Government may also identify and consider risks not identified by an offeror. The definitions of risk are as follows:

· Low - Proposal contains weakness(es) which may present a low probability of negatively affecting performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

· Moderate - Proposal contains weakness(es) which may present a modest probability of negatively affecting performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

· High - Proposal contains weakness(es) which may present a high probability of negatively affecting performance. Contractor is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

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

Subfactor 1: Engineering and Innovation This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the following and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

a. MoM 1: Systems Engineering. A sound Systems Engineering Management Plan (SEMP), prepared IAW Data Item Description (DID) DI-SESS-81785A, which describes the offeror’s technical processes and technical management processes to ensure the processes are consistent with the Simulators Division OSEP, as well as TSA IV requirements.

b. MoM 2: Configuration Management (CM) and Control. A sound Configuration Management Plan (CMP) IAW DI-SESS-80858D, which describes the offeror’s change management and configuration control tools and processes which will be utilized under TSA IV.

c. MoM 3: Concurrency Modifications. A sound change management process for maintaining training system concurrency, as well as including innovative concepts the offeror would apply to improve training system concurrency by reducing time and/or cost to implement modifications.

d. MoM 4: Technology Integration. A sound process for identifying, evaluating, and integrating beneficial new technologies into the Air Force Simulator environment, to improve performance, reduce cost, or enhance lifecycle supportability.

Subfactor 2: Sustainment This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the following and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

a. MoM 1: Training System Support Center (TSSC). A sound process for TSSC operations, responsibilities, and interaction with development teams and data suppliers.

b. MoM 2: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS). A sound process for managing the support resources, technical data, spares, support equipment, maintenance, Government-Furnished Property (GFP) accountability, device status reporting, student throughput, and technicians to sustain training systems and ensure the continued achievement of normal and surge trainer availability requirements.

c. MoM 3: Distributed Mission Operations (DMO). A sound process for executing DMO requirements including network integration, event planning, and execution.

d. MoM 4: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Materiel Shortages (DMS/MS). A sound process for forecasting, identifying, monitoring, and mitigating deficiencies due to obsolescence and DMS/MS issues within training systems.

Subfactor 3: Courseware Development/Instruction This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the following and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

a. MoM 1: Courseware Development. A sound process for the development and planning for lifecycle sustainment of computer-based training products for training systems.

b. MoM 2: Student Instruction. A sound process for meeting student instruction requirements and student throughput requirements.

c. MoM 3: Training Management. A sound process to operate and maintain a training management system, analyze student data, and report this information.

Subfactor 4: Program Management This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides the following and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

a. MoM 1: Program Management. A sound program management approach.

b. MoM 2: Risk Management. A sound Risk Management Plan (RMP) IAW DI-MGMT-81808, which identifies known and anticipated TSA IV risks in addition to describing the offeror’s risk management process. In addition, the offeror’s self-identified risks include executable mitigation strategies to reduce/eliminate these risks.

c. MoM 3: Quality Assurance. A sound Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) IAW DI-QCIC-81794A.

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 Technical Subfactors 1 through 4. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment ratings will be made at the subfactor level.

The offeror will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in the table below for each subfactor. The subfactor order of importance for past performance is in descending order with Subfactor 1 being the most important. 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 a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the applicable subfactor.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Evaluation Process The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the offeror’s performance deemed 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 may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Problems not addressed by the offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems, and institutionalized this process improvement to prevent future recurrence, will be evaluated.

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: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, 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, 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 that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevance Assessment As discussed in Paragraph 1 above, only U. S. companies will be considered for award as a prime TSA IV contract holder. If a foreign-influenced company has been approved through the DSS as a U.S. subsidiary then they are considered a U.S. company and may be a U.S. prime on TSA IV. However, in order for past performance to be considered relevant, it must have been performed by the U.S. company submitting the proposal. A foreign parent company is not the offeror, so a foreign parent company’s past performance is not relevant to what the U.S. subsidiary is proposing to do.

Since the details of specific tasks to be performed under TSA IV are not known at the time of this source selection, the offeror’s past performance will be judged on the basis of their application of general processes which are anticipated to be required for TSA IV task orders, rather than close similarity of prior products or services. Thus, a wider variety of past work may be deemed relevant than might be expected if the contract were for a single system or service, to the extent that processes relevant to TSA IV requirements were used in these efforts.

In determining relevance, consideration will be given to performance of efforts involving aircraft training systems as they relate to Technical Subfactors 1 through 4. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local Governments and commercial customers. DoD contracts will generally be deemed more relevant than non-DoD federal, and non-DoD federal will be deemed more relevant than state or local contracts. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the offeror’s performance will be considered. Relevance will be rated in accordance with the table below.

Each offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which they demonstrate performance on aircraft training system contracts or subcontracts. The Government will evaluate how an offeror’s performance is relevant to Technical Subfactors 1 through 4: 1) Engineering and Innovation, 2) Sustainment, 3) Courseware Development/Instruction, and 4) Program Management.

Relevancy Ratings

Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for Technical Subfactors 1 through 4. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. In making the quality assessment, the Government will review Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and/or CPARs, as well as other relevant information available to the Government. PPQs and CPARs will be considered equally and will be evaluated holistically. The Government will assign a quality rating to the past performance evaluated.

Where 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). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

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:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive a performance confidence assessment rating for each subfactor based on the definitions provided in Paragraph 2.2.1.