Section_M_-_Eval_Factors.pdf

Solicitation FA8630-14-R-5030

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

16 April 2015

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

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

AFFARS 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 to achieve best value, only among those Offerors who have been determined to have acceptable technical capability.

If a technically acceptable offer with a past performance assessment rating of Substantial

Confidence is the lowest priced Offeror, that offer represents the best value for the Government;

an award shall be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

The Government may determine a technically acceptable offer with a past performance assessment rating of higher confidence and higher price is the best value, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors specified.

The Government may award without discussions, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary.

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the Source Selection Authority

(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. 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.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

Factor 1 – Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Process Performance

Subfactor 2: Program Management

Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Factor 2 – Price

Factor 3 – Past Performance

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

“Unacceptable”. Among Technically Acceptable proposals, tradeoff analysis will be conducted between Past Performance and Price; Past Performance is approximately equal to price.

2.1 Technical Capability

Each subfactor within the Technical Capability factor will receive one of the ratings described in

Table 1. Only those proposals determined to be Technically Acceptable ( either initially, or as a result of discussions, if convened) will be considered for award. An “Unacceptable” rating under any subfactor will render the offer un-awardable. The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability:

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Process Performance

Description: The subfactor evaluates the offeror’s understanding of the methods of processing requisitions from receipt to shipment in a timely manner. Two supply and one repair sample procurement scenarios (Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2.1.1) are provided for the purposes of evaluating this subfactor.

Measure of Merit: The proposal is acceptable under the subfactor if the Offeror’s proposal meets the processing requirements specified in the PWS column for each Measure of Merit listed in TABLE-2 and Paragraph 2.1.1.1, Contract Award Objectives (Timeliness) Narrative.

Item Measure of Merit PWS Para Section L

Para 1 Acknowledge receipt of a requisition. 1.2.2, 3.7.2 4.2.2.1.1

2 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 Identify qualified vendors for supplies, repairs, and task orders. 4.1.3, 4.1.5 4.2.2.1.1

4 Promoting and obtaining competition from vendors. 2.3 4.2.2.1.1

5 Solicit bids, proposals, and quotes from vendors. 2.3 4.2.2.1.1

6 Document fair and reasonable prices in a pricing memorandum. 2.3.2 4.2.2.1.1

7 Minimize pass-through costs through competition, negotiation, and other cost savings methods.

2.3 4.2.2.1.1

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.

TABLE 2 – Measures of Merit

8 Meet the contract award objectives listed by category (HLS, Urgent, and

Routine)

2.1 4.2.2.1.1

9 Monitor and enforce vendor ship dates. 3.2.1, 3.7.4, 3.7.5

4.2.2.1.1

10 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

4.2.2.1.1

11 Package, handle and ship items to customers and vendors IAW all regulatory guidance.

4.6 4.2.2.1.1

12 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

4.2.2.1.1

13 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 4.2.2.1.1

2.1.1.1 Contract Award Objectives (Timeliness) Narratives

IAW Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2.1.2, the Offeror’s narratives must clearly substantiate their 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 will be evaluated to ascertain Offeror 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 and the Process Performance Measures of Merit above.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s business and program management strategies. The Offeror’s submittal in response to Tables 3-9 will be evaluated based on the

Offeror’s ability to define their method to meet the PWS requirements necessary to manage the

PROS program.

Measure of Merit: This proposal is acceptable under the subfactor when the Offeror’s proposal

(in the form of seven written descriptions – IAW Section L, Paragraph 4.2.2.2) meets the PWS requirements as set forth in the following tables:

TABLE-3 CONTRACT START UP PLAN

Measure of Merit RFP Reference

The proposal clearly describes the Offeror’s plan to receive requisitions no later than 30 days after contract award and achieve full operating capability no later than 90 days after contract award, and includes facility, equipment, schedule, staffing, vendor qualification, and training considerations.

PWS Para 4.8

Section L, Para

4.2.2.2

CDRL A009

TABLE-4 STAFFING PLAN

The proposal clearly describes the Offeror’s Staffing Plan that includes staffing levels, labor mix, experience, roles / responsibilities, oversight, organization, locations, and surge capability covering performance throughout the life of the contract.

PWS Para 3.0

Section L, Para

TABLE-5 VENDOR QUALIFICATION PLAN

The proposal clearly describes the Offeror’s Vendor Qualification

Plan to determine qualified sources and maintain a qualified vendor base, including the following criteria: Designated OEM, FAA/JAA approved source, U.S. CAGE code, ISO 9000 certification, ongoing performance surveillance, small business certification, OEM traceability, and unsatisfactory performance remediation.

PWS Para 4.1.5

TABLE-6 QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA) PLAN

The proposal clearly describes the Offeror’s internal QA policy that includes quality certification/standards, records management, FAR conformance, standard contract terms & conditions, training, surveillance, communication, procurement process, vendor qualification, flight safety and critical safety items, and transportation and shipping.

PWS Para 4.1.3

Section L, Para

CDRL A006

TABLE-7 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) PLAN

The proposal clearly describes 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. The proposal clearly describes that 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

Measure of Merit RFP Reference

The proposal clearly describes how the Offeror’s plan complies with DOD 5220.22M Chapter 2 Section 3, ensures proper handling of classified material, protects country information, and ensures appropriate clearances for personnel and facilities.

PWS Para 4.4

Section L, Para

CDRL A007

TABLE-9 CONTRACT CLOSE-OUT PLAN

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

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

Government while addressing schedule, transition assistance, lessons learned, message matrix delivery, remaining requisition processing, and open SDR resolution.

PWS 4.9

Section L, Para

CDRL A010

2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to promote small business participation. The Offeror’s submittal in response to Table 10 will be evaluated based on the

Offeror’s ability to define their method to meet the PWS requirements necessary to manage the

PROS program.

Measure of Merit: This proposal is acceptable under the subfactor when the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements as set forth in Table 10:

TABLE-10 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The proposal describes Offeror’s compliance with requirements of the clauses at FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business

Concerns, and 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan; and quantifies the expected participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

4.2.2.3

2.2 Price Evaluation Factor

The price volume will be evaluated for (1) Reasonableness and (2) Balanced Pricing.

2.2.1 Reasonableness

Reasonableness will be determined through evaluation of a completed Section J, Attachment 5-

Pricing Matrix. 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 and calculate the Total

Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose TEP is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. 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. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of all CLIN prices for the base period and all option periods to include Fill Fees, Service Fees, Travel, OPIs, Task Orders, and Material Pass-Through (Section

J, Attachment 5). Adequate price competition is to be used to establish price reasonableness, however, other price techniques as described in FAR 15.404 may also be used to determine price reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only, and does not necessarily reflect an actual award value of any ensuing contract; however, all fill and service fees in the completed Pricing Matrix will become part of the contract and binding on the successful offeror. Evaluation of option prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.2.2 Balance

Proposed CLIN prices will be evaluated for Balance. An offer may be unawardable if it is determined Unbalanced pricing exists. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite a reasonable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

2.3 Past Performance Evaluation Factor

The past performance volume will be evaluated to assess the degree of confidence the

Government has in an Offeror’s ability to meet requirements based on a demonstrated record of performance. The past performance information will be obtained from Section L, Attachments 3 and 4 and information obtained from other sources. Past Performance is assessed at the factor level. Past Performance is approximately equal to price.

2.3.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 11-Past Performance Confidence Assessments based on evaluation of past performance recency, relevancy, and quality.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet requirements. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information

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.

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.

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. The

Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis.

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

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is relevant. Relevancy ratings are described in Table 12-Past Performance

Relevancy Ratings.

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 (Section M Paragraphs 2.1.1-2.1.3).

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). Consideration will be given for individual contracts for the effort (or portion of the effort) being proposed by the Offeror (teaming partner, or subcontractor) whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

The Government may consider: Value of contract, customer, role, and standard/non-standard parts during this assessment.

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.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance (Table 13) in order to arrive at a past performance confidence rating (Table 11). The performance quality will be assessed based on each Offeror’s Past

Performance proposal volume, questionnaire responses, and information obtained from other sources; such as, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee-determining officials, and commercial sources.

The past performance quality assessment will focus on performance relevant to the technical subfactors; 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 a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment. 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.

In addition, small business performance records will be assessed pursuant to FAR

15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will also 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 Government will use the quality ratings in Table 13- Past Performance Quality Ratings, 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.

2.3.2.4 Assigning Past Performance Confidence Assessment 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 past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors, 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 will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

3.0 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.

4.0 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. The Government reserves the right to eliminate any offer from the competition that takes exception to the solicitation requirements. The Government reserves the right to reject any exceptions taken to the proposal requirements and consider such offers unacceptable.