Tech_Recovery_III_Section_M_LPTA_-_18_Sep_17.pdf

FA8629-17-D-5003

Section M

18 September 2017

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection conducted in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix C, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price from among those that are technically acceptable and have an acceptable Past Performance Rating.

1.2 The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed Responsible in accordance with

FAR Part 9.1, 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 lowest price technically acceptable proposal and which has an

“Acceptable” past performance rating. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Technical Recovery III Program.

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

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established in accordance with FAR 15.306(c), In that event, Offeror responses to discussion Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal

Revision (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 introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htm http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/affars/MP5315.3_(CPM_16-C-04).pdf http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

1.6 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. The

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

1.7 Pre-Award Survey (FAR 9.106)

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (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. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The

Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Training

Subfactor 2: SRD Compliance

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one rating described below for each subfactor. Any deficiency documented in the evaluation of a given subfactor results in an Unacceptable rating for that subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

Note: No additional evaluation credit (i.e., assigning a strength) will be given for proposed items that exceed the threshold requirements of the SRD.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Training

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to provide training in accordance with SOO paragraph 9.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

A. An effective staffing plan to successfully accomplish all training requirements in

SOO section 9.A through 9.D and 9.F, with at least the minimum instructor qualifications per SOO paragraph 9.E.

B. The ability to develop a teaching syllabus and training plan for each of the Tech

Recovery Kits. For evaluation purposes, the Structural Collapse Kit syllabus must meet training requirements and will be evaluated for completeness and military understanding of proper employment of TR Kit components.

C. A realistic training facility plan IAW SOO paragraph 9.A through 9.D and 9.F.

D. The ability to develop training scenerios IAW SOO paragraph 9.F that address all mission considerations to effectively and safely execute missions requiring employment of the Technical Recovery Kits.

Subfactor 2: SRD Compliance

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to provide equipment items that meet the requirements of the Technical Recovery program.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal:

A. Contains a System/Subsystem Specification including:

(1) All Brand Name items and all Brand Name or Equal items required in each kit.

(SRD Appendices B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J)

(2) All Brand Name or Equal items (that differ from the items listed in the SRD) are determined to be equal to those listed in the SRD, are Berry Amendment compliant (as applicable), and meet the requirements of SRD Section 3. (SRD

Appendices C, E, G, I)

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

2.3.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process. 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 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

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with

Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Additionally, the effort must have at least six months of performance elapsed by the date proposals are due under this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the

Technical subfactors and Annual Maintenance Service Visits (AMSV) (SOO Section 10). For each recent past performance contract reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the technical subfactors and AMSV (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to hands-on training, training scenario development, equipment procurement/kitting, and AMSV requirements. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime or teaming partner. The past performance information forms and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and AMSV (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color

Description

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

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not substantially meeting (or did not substantially meet) contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available;

therefore, no rating is assigned.

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level, as noted in Table 2 above. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

2.4 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, the offeror may not be eligible for award.

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

2.4.2 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.

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to all CLINs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will calculate the TEP for each offeror using the price inputs provided by each respective offeror in Section L, Attachment 4 as described below. The Government will use the TEP for evaluation purposes only and shall not be obligated to exercise any CLIN or the notional quantities used for evaluation. The TEP is the sum of the following:

2.4.4.1 For CLIN 0001 – “Confined Space (CS) Kit”, the TEP will include five

(5) CS kits per year (base year and all out years). The TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing by “qty 5” to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.2 For CLIN 0002 – “Structural Collapse (SC) Kit”, the TEP will include five (5) SC kits per year (base year and all out years). TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing by “qty 5” to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.3 For CLIN 0003 – “Heavy Rapid Extrication Deployment System (REDS)

Kit”, the TEP will include five (5) Heavy REDS kits per year (base year and all out years). TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing by “qty 5” to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.4 For CLIN 0004 – “Light Rapid Extrication Deployment System (REDS)

Kit”, the TEP will include ten (10) Light REDS kits per year (base year and all out years). TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing by “qty 10” to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.5 For CLIN 0005 – “Mechanical Ascender Kit”, the TEP will include twenty-eight (28) Mechanical Ascender kits per year (base year and all out years).

TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing by

“qty 28” to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.6 for CLIN 0006 – “Replacement Parts” will be included in the TEP for a quantity of (1) one of each part on the Replacement Parts List. CLIN 0006 will be evaluated for Completeness (2.4.1), Reasonableness (2.4.2), and Unbalanced

Pricing (2.4.3.)

2.4.4.7 for CLIN 0007 – “Repair Parts” will be included in the TEP for a quantity of (1) one of each part on the Repair Parts List. CLIN 0007 will be evaluated for

Completeness (2.4.1), Reasonableness (2.4.2), and Unbalanced Pricing (2.4.3.)

2.4.4.8 For CLIN 0008 – “Operator Training”, the TEP will include four (4) operator training courses per year (base year and all out years). TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing using the following formula (CONUS training*4) to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.9 For CLIN 0009 – “Operator Refresher Training”, the TEP will include four (4) operator enhanced refresher courses per year (base year and all out years).

TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing using the following formula (CONUS training*3 + OCONUS training*1) to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.10 For CLIN 0010 – “Just-in-Time Training (JIT) Training”, the TEP will include eight (8) JIT operator refresher training courses per year (base year and all out years). TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing using the following formula (CONUS training*6 + OCONUS training*2) to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.11 For CLIN 0011 – “Self-Contained Hybrid Integrated Evolution Life

Support Device (SHIELD) Training”, the TEP will include ten (10) SHIELD training courses per year (base year and all out years). TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing using the following formula (CONUS training*8 + OCONUS training*2) to calculate the total CLIN

Price.

2.4.4.12 For CLIN 0012 – “Annual Maintenance Service Visits (AMSV)”, the

TEP will include 8 CONUS and 3 OCONUS Annual Maintenance Service Visits per year for five years (base year and all out years). Note: Insert the cost per individual visit into the pricing matrix. TEP pricing will automatically multiply each year’s individual item pricing using the following formula (CONUS training*8 + OCONUS training*3) to calculate the total CLIN Price.

2.4.4.13 For CLIN 0013 – “System Engineering/Program Management”, the TEP will include 12 months of Systems Engineering and Program Management support per year for five years.