Attachment_11_-_Evaluation_Criteria_Section_M.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Criteria

1. GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a tradeoff of Past Performance versus Price source selection 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, DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 11, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Acceptability, Past Performance, and Price. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Price among those Offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

1.2 A Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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. The government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. 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 superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the cost/price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the government source selection team and the SSA will strive for objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the process.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The government intends to award one Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract for RDIF Support. The government reserves the right to award no contract as a result of this solicitation.

1.4 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’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Discussions

The government intends to award a contract without discussions. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notifications (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may increase risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 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. The government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal therefore, ineligible for award.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. RFP COMPLIANCE

Initially, the government contracts team will evaluate the Offerors’ proposals for compliance with instructions in Section L. Any proposals that fail to comply with RFP Section L - Instructions to Offerors may be determined unawardable.

3. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

3.1 The technical factor is comprised of three subfactors: Sample/Live Task Order and IDIQ Management Plan. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. In order for the proposal to be technically acceptable, all technical subfactors must be rated as Acceptable.

3.2 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, 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.

Failure to meet a technical requirement will result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. An unacceptable rating in the technical factor renders the Offeror’s proposal unawardable. Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings are defined in the table below:

3.3 Technical Subfactor 1 – Sample Task Approach

The government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to performing the sample task order to ensure the Offeror understands the work to be performed. Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror’s proposal reflects the following:

3.3.1 A sound and comprehensive technical approach for accomplishing the sample order that uses the RDIF facility located on WPAFB for work that can be completed using RDIF Equipment (See RFP Section C, RDIF Equipment list).

3.3.2 Labor Categories from the RDIF Labor Category Qualifications document (See RFP Section C) and Labor Hours which are commensurate with the technical approach described by the Offeror in response to RFP Section L – Paragraph 6.1.1.

3.3.3 Personnel qualified to perform the labor hours described by the Offeror in response to RFP Section L – Paragraph 6.1.2 with experience working in aircraft component development, integration, prototyping, and production for military aircraft.

3.3.4 A comprehensive list of materials, including quantities, necessary to complete performance of the sample task order, accompanied by the name and DUNS number for each supplier of material.

3.3.5 A comprehensive list of tasks that must be subcontracted to complete the sample task order, accompanied by the name and DUNS number of all identified subcontractors.

3.4 Technical Subfactor 2 – Live Task Order

The government will evaluate the Offerors approach to performing the live task order to ensure the Offeror understands the work to be performed. Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror’s proposal reflects the following:

3.4.1 A sound and comprehensive technical approach for accomplishing the live order that uses the RDIF facility located on WPAFB for work that can be completed using RDIF Equipment (See RFP Section C, RDIF Equipment list).

3.4.2 Labor Categories from the RDIF Labor Category Qualification document (See RFP Section C) and Labor Hours which are commensurate with the technical approach described by the Offeror in response to RFP Section L – Paragraph 6.2.1.

3.4.3 Personnel qualified to perform the labor hours described by the Offeror in response to RFP Section L – Paragraph 6.2.2 with experience working in aircraft component development, integration, prototyping, and production for military aircraft.

3.4.4 A comprehensive list of materials, including quantities, necessary to complete performance of the live task order, accompanied by the name and DUNS number for each supplier of material.

3.4.5 A comprehensive list of tasks that must be subcontracted to complete the live task order, accompanied by the name and DUNS number of all identified subcontractors.

3.5 Technical Subfactor 3 – Management of IDIQ

The government will evaluate the Offerors approach to managing the IDIQ contract to ensure the Offeror understands how to obtain the resources necessary to successfully perform tasks requiring any of the capabilities listed in RFP Section C – Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 5. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal reflects all of the following:

3.5.1 An effective process for qualifying and managing performance of its subcontractors, teaming partners, and material suppliers.

3.5.2 An effective process for obtaining fair and reasonable prices for subcontracted work and materials.

3.5.3 A sound quality control plan that it will follow throughout the contract.

3.5.4 A comprehensive plan for maintaining a qualified and experienced workforce performing aircraft component development, integration, prototyping, and production within 50 miles of WPAFB.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 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 and relevant past performance. The government may consider the relevancy of past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual basis when determining performance confidence. The government will review the contracts submitted into the RDIF Past Performance Information Tool (RFP Section J – Attachment 4).

4.2 The government will assess recency and relevancy of each contract submitted in the RDIF Past Performance Information Tool, See RFP Section J - Attachment 4.

4.2.1 If performance on the project occurred within the last 5 years prior to the RFP release date, the past performance effort will receive a rating of “Recent,” otherwise, the past performance effort will receive a rating of “Not-Recent,” and will not receive further evaluation.

4.2.2 The government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the capabilities required in PWS Section 5 and the extent to which performance involved the development, integration, prototyping, and production of aircraft components in a rapid environment requiring adaptive collaboration.

4.3 The government will then evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated record of performance quality in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including schedule. This evaluation will be based on responses to the RFP Section J Attachment 5 - RDIF Past Performance Questionnaire that will be completed by the government. Performance information may also be gathered from sources outside the submissions provided by the Offeror. Sources of performance information may include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System, Past Performance Integrated Reporting System (PPIRS), and System for Award Management.

This 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. 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. The government will use the following quality levels when assessing past performance:

Performance Assessment Rating/Color Description

4.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

More recent past performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably that a less relevant record of favorable past performance.

5. PRICE

5.1 The government will review the Offerors price proposal for completeness, reasonableness, and balance.

5.1.1 Completeness

The government will review the RDIF Price Matrix (RFP Section J – Attachment 3) for completeness. For the IDIQ pricing to be considered complete, the Offeror must submit a fully burdened labor rate for every fiscal year for each labor category identified. The Offeror must also provide a markup rate for materials for fiscal years 2015 – 2020. For the Live Task Order pricing to be considered complete, the Offeror must provide labor hours necessary to complete the live task order. These hours must match the hours identified in the Offerors technical proposal in response to RFP Section L 6.2.2. The Offeror must also provide pricing for all materials it listed in response to RFP Section L 6.2.4 and for all tasks it intends to subcontract as listed in response to RFP Section L 6.2.5. Failure to provide complete pricing may result in a proposal being deemed unawardable.

5.1.2 Reasonableness

The government will review the prices submitted in the RFP Section J Attachment 3 - RDIF Price Matrix for reasonableness. 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 cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.1.3 Balance

The government will review the prices submitted in the RFP Section J Attachment 3 – RDIF Price Matrix for balance. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items or labor categories 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. Failure to provide balanced pricing may result in a proposal being rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

5.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculation

5.2.1 The TEP is derived from three cost groups including overall labor costs based on forecasted labor hours, material costs based on forecasted dollars spent on materials, and the live task order.

Total labor price: For each fiscal year of the contract’s period of performance, including the option to extend services period, the government has provided the Offeror with an estimated number of hours per labor category and an estimated amount of materials.

The RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3 requires the Offeror to provide fully burdened labor rates for each labor category for each fiscal year. The RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3 automatically multiplies the government estimated labor hours for each fiscal year by the fully burdened NTE labor rates established by the Offeror. The results for each fiscal year are summed by labor category and are identified in the TEP contribution column.

Total material price: On an annual basis, the RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3 calculates the Offerors annual material TEP contribution by adding the government estimated material costs to the Offeror’s material markup (G&A, Profit, etc…). The material markup is calculated by multiplying the estimated price of materials by the Offeror’s material markup rate (G&A and Profit). The anticipated material costs for each year are included in the TEP contribution column of the RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3

Live task order price: The live task order total labor price will be established by multiplying the number of hours the contractor requires to complete the live task, by the respective hourly labor rate. The labor prices for all labor categories will be added together. The materials costs quoted by the contractor will be extended by the material G&A and Profit rates. The total material costs will be added to the total labor costs. The total live task order price is included in the TEP. The TEP sums all values in the TEP contribution column to generate the TEP.

5.2.2 The RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3 includes all formulas and will calculate the Offeror’s TEP.