Section_M_Draft.pdf

Solicitation FA8630-14-R-5030

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

9 January 2015

Section M

Source Selection With Technical Proposals

M001 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT (JANUARY 2015)

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 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 A, 04 March 2011 and Air

Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 21 April 2014. These regulations are available at the Air

Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

Tradeoffs will be made between price and past performance only among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. The Government may award without discussions, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary.

If the lowest priced technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” past performance assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of anything other than “Substantial Confidence”, the Government may 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 technically acceptable, superior past performance of higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference.

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is, by its nature, subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the Parts and Repair Ordering System (PROS) Program. Based on price and other considerations, the government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements

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. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the cost/price factor.” Failure to meet a requirement shall result in an offer being ineligible for award.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

1.2.1 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Process Performance

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation

Factor 2 – Price

Factor 3 – Past Performance

Proposals will be evaluated for Technical Capability and rated either “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable”. Past Performance and Price will also be evaluated with potential trade-offs between the two; past performance being substantially the same as price.

2.0 Technical Capability

Each subfactor within the Technical Capability factor will receive one of the ratings described below. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. An “Unacceptable” subfactor assessment will render the offer un-awardable. The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability:

2.1 Subfactor 1: Process Performance

Description: The two supply (Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2.1.1) and one repair (Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2.1.2) sample procurement scenarios will be evaluated on how clearly your proposal describes each phase of the procurement process and how successfully your scenario is cross-referenced to the PWS and TABLE-2.

Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met if the offeror’s proposal meets the Measures of Merit listed in TABLE-2.

TABLE-2 PROCESS PERFORMANCE

Measure of Merit PWS Para Section L

Para Meets

Does Not

Meet 1 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to acknowledge receipt of a requisition.

1.2.2, 3.7.2 4.2.2.1.1 4.2.2.1.2

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to differentiate between standard and non-standard items; identify, process, and handle classified, hazmat, and other service type items.

3.2.2 4.2.2.1.1

3 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to identify qualified vendors for supplies, repairs, and task orders.

4.1.3, 4.1.5 4.2.2.1.1

4 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach for promoting and obtaining competition from vendors.

2.3 4.2.2.1.1

5 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to solicit bids, proposals, and quotes from vendors.

6 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to obtain fair and reasonable prices via Price Negotiation Memorandum

(PNM) or Price Competition Memorandum

(PCM).

2.3.2 4.2.2.1.1

7 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to minimize pass-through costs through competition, negotiation, and other cost savings methods.

8 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to meet the contract award objectives listed by category (HLS, Urgent, and

Routine)

2.1 4.2.2.1.1

9 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to monitor and enforce vendor ship dates.

3.2.1, 3.7.4, 3.7.5

4.2.2.1.1

10 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to communicate with the customer (USG and 100+ countries) throughout the lifecycle of the requisition.

3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7

11 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to package, handle and ship items to customers and vendors IAW all regulatory guidance.

4.6 4.2.2.1.1

12 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s understanding of the Security Assistance

Management Information System (SAMIS) status codes and application of the codes to the transaction circumstances.

3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, 3.7, 4.2, 4.6, 4.7

13 The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s viable approach to develop a competitive price for Test, Teardown and Inspection (TTI) for maintenance items and a methodology to ensure a fair and reasonable price for repair of that item.

2.3, 3.2.1.2, 3.4

2.1.1 Contract Award Objective Narratives

The offeror’s narratives must clearly substantiate a viable approach for meeting the contract award objectives for each Level of Service (LOS) category within each service area (Supply;

Maintenance Test, Teardown, & Inspection (TTI); and Maintenance (actual repair)). The narratives shall demonstrate offeror’s understanding of the complexity and time constraints of the effort, for example: nature of the requirements; volume of requisitions, communications, and status reporting; and time requirements associated with transactions.

2.2 Subfactor 2: Program Management

Description: Contract Start-Up Plan, Quality Assurance (QA) Plan, Staffing Plan, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan, Security Management Plan, Contract Closeout

Plan, and Vendor Qualification Plan. These plans will be evaluated based on the offeror’s ability to define their method to meet all requirements necessary to manage the PROS program IAW

Tables 3-9. “Meets” or “Does Not Meet” determinations will be made based on the offeror’s ability to clearly demonstrate an understanding of the various aspects of the program outlined below.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal (in the form of seven written plans – one for each required area delineated above and in Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2.2 of Section L) substantiates a complete and thorough understanding of all corresponding requirements from the PWS.

TABLE-4 STAFFING PLAN

Measure of Merit RFP Reference

The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s Staffing Plan for performance throughout the life of the contract.

Section L, Para

4.2.2.2

TABLE-5 VENDOR QUALIFICATION PLAN

The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s Vendor

Qualification Plan to determine qualified sources and maintain an ongoing qualified vendor base.

PWS Para 4.1.5

Section L, Para

TABLE-6 QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) PLAN

The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s internal QA policy. PWS Para 4.1.3

Section L, Para

CDRL A006

TABLE-3 CONTRACT START UP PLAN

The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s ability to begin processing requisitions no later than 30 days after contract award and achieve full operating capability no later than 90 days after contract award.

PWS Para 4.8

Section L, Para

CDRL A009

TABLE-7 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) PLAN

Measure of Merit RFP Reference

The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s company policy and procedures to implement FAR Subpart 9.5 and mitigate any OCI prior to submitting a proposal on an individual requisition. If granted access to proprietary information of other contractors, the offeror must describe how it will protect proprietary data from unauthorized use or disclosure.

PWS Para 4.11

Section L, Para

CDRL A014

TABLE-8 SECURITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

The proposal clearly substantiates how the offeror’s plan complies with appropriate regulations.

PWS Para 4.4

Section L, Para

CDRL A007

TABLE-9 CONTRACT CLOSE-OUT PLAN

The proposal clearly substantiates the offeror’s approach to process all remaining open requisitions, invoices, resolve all Supply

Discrepancy Reports (SDRs), and provide non-proprietary data to the Government.

PWS 4.9

Section L, Para

CDRL A010

2.3 Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation

Description: The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s ability to meet all small business subcontracting goals.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides an acceptable Small Business

Subcontracting Plan.

TABLE-10 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

The Small Business Subcontracting Plan clearly substantiates compliance with FAR Subpart 19.7, FAR 52.219-9, DFARS

252.219-7003 and AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1).

PWS Para 2.2

Section L, Para

CDRL A001

3.0 Price Evaluation Factor

The Government shall rank all technically acceptable offerors by price, including the option prices identified in Section J, Attachment 5. In the event discussions are conducted, any offer which was originally rated “Unacceptable” could become “Acceptable”, and would also be ranked by price. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the Total Evaluated

Price (TEP), calculated as stated in Paragraph 2.2.3.

3.1 Balance. The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed

CLIN prices be materially unbalanced. 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.

3.2 Reasonableness. The offeror’s proposed TEP will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a

TEP 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR

31.201-3.

3.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror-proposed prices for the base period and all options. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Instructions for completing the Pricing Matrix are contained in Section J, Attachment 5. The

Pricing Matrix adds up to a bottom-line dollar figure for the base period and all option years.

The Pricing Matrix will contain all CLIN prices proposed by the offeror and calculate the TEP.

The fill fees contained in the completed Pricing Matrix will be the official fees for this contract for the successful offeror.

4.0 Past Performance Evaluation Factor

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to meet the customers’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance.

Past performance is more important than price.

4.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 11-Past Performance Confidence Assessments, shown below:

TABLE 11- PAST 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.

4.2 Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s present and recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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, such as the Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

4.2.1 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. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to product/service similarity. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical 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, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information (Section L, Attachments 3 and 4) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will also consider the following areas when determining relevancy: Value of contract, customer, role, Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has an 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 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.

standard/non-standard parts. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent contracts:

TABLE 12-PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Description

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.

4.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical sub factors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee-determining officials, and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. Pursuant to FAR

15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged

Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the 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 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 13- PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Quality Assessment

Rating

Description

Exceptional (E) 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) 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) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting

(or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Marginal (M) 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.

Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory(U) 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) Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

4.2.4 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. 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.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no 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 and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

5.0 Pre-Award Survey

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.

6.0 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. 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.