Attachment_9_-_FPS3_Section_M_05_Dec_13.doc

ATTACHMENT 9

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

FOR

FORCE PROTECTION SITE SECURITY SYSTEM (FPS3)

5 DECEMBER 2013

REVISION HISTORY

Revision

Number

Affected

M-I Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

Notice: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, “SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE,” the following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

A. FAR 52.217-03 EVALUATION EXCLUSIVE OF OPTIONS (APR 1984)

B. FAR 52.232-15 PROGRESS PAYMENTS NOT INCLUDED (APR 1984)

C. FAR 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2004)

M-II Solicitation Provisions in Full Text

Notice: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated in full text:

Clauses M001-M004 (Inclusive)

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for contract award

This is a best value, Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 Source Selection, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offers, based upon an integrated assessment of the Technical Factor, Small Business Participation Factor (applicable to other than small businesses only), Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the 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, to represent the best value to the Government. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements. This may result in award to higher rated, higher priced offerors, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall proposed approach and/or superior past performance of the higher price offerors outweighs the cost differences. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the offerors’ proposals against the evaluation factors (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the 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. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, therefore each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

b. Number of contracts to be awarded

The Government anticipates awarding 5 total Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts with 2 contracts for small businesses for the Force Protection Site Security System (FPS3) contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make fewer, more, or no awards at all as determined to be in the best interest of the Government dependent on quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or is unrealistically low or unreasonably high in cost when compared to Government estimates or by using other proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15-404-1, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or an inherent failure to understand/comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

d. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiencies or weaknesses. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is considered not correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

e. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

In accordance with FAR 45.2, Solicitation and Evaluation Procedures, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

f. Discussions

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 Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Pools: This solicitation is intended to result in award to a mix of small and other than small businesses such that small business set-aside delivery orders may be awarded IAW FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), the provisions of FAR Subpart 19.5 as supplemented, and other applicable law or regulation when appropriate. To accomplish this goal, offerors that represent themselves as small businesses under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 561621 (hereinafter “small business”), and those that do not (hereinafter “other than small business”) will be segregated for evaluation purposes into two competitive “pools.” The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate each pool of offerors using the same process and evaluation criteria except that the Small Business Participation factor will not be applicable to any small business offeror. The Source Selection Advisory Council will provide a comparative analysis and recommendation to the SSA that addresses the small business offeror pool and the “other than small business” offeror pool separately. The SSA award decision will be made separately for each pool, based on a best value determination as described in M001a above. As such, the decision may result in a circumstance where an acceptable small business offeror may receive a contract award even if its ratings are lower and/or total evaluated price is higher than an offeror evaluated in the “other than small business” pool that does not receive an award. While this solicitation is intended to result in the award of sufficient contracts to small businesses to allow set-aside delivery orders, the SSA my chose to award to one or no small businesses if the quality, risk, or cost of a proposal does not merit selection based on the best value criteria described herein.

In the event that only one small business proposal is determined to merit consideration for award, that proposal will be compared to other awardable offerors for a best value decision by the SSA without regard to the goal of establishing sufficient IDIQ awards to small businesses to allow small business set asides for delivery orders.

b. Evaluation Factors and their Relative Order of Importance

(1) The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Small Business Participation factor is applicable to “other than small business” proposals only. Award will be made to the offerors proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1:

Technical Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Small Business Participation Factor 4:

Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: The Technical and Past Performance Factors are equal in importance. Factor 3, Small Business Participation, is only applicable to “other than small business” proposals and is evaluated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” In order for an “other than small business” offeror to be eligible to receive an award, they must be rated “Acceptable” for the Small Business Participation Factor. The responses in the proposals to the two Sample Problems will be evaluated as part of the Government’s integrated assessment of the Technical and Cost/Price Factors.

(2) Importance of Cost/Price. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

c. Technical Factor Ratings The Technical evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. It focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and risks in the offeror’s proposal. The Technical factor will receive one of the Combined Technical/Risk color ratings described in DOD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1, Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings excerpted below based on the assessed strengths, deficiencies and inherent risks of each offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical requirements in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Red

The Government will evaluate the adequacy, soundness, reasonableness and inherent risks of the offeror’s technical approach and capability to successfully design, install, integrate, and test, fixed and tactical Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) which comply with applicable AF Integrated Defense Systems requirements at AF installations both inside and outside the United States (U.S.). The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of AF fixed and tactical IDS requirements through an assessment of the following:

1. Adequacy, thoroughness, and completeness of the offeror’s understanding of AF fixed site IDS requirements for protection of assets including supporting infrastructure (such as power and communications) as demonstrated by the soundness of the offeror’s technical approach and conceptual design and the extent to which it provides an appropriate solution to the Fixed Site sample problem, including the soundness and completeness of required drawings and other supporting sample problem documentation which conveys a clear understanding of AF IDS requirements; demonstrates a sound approach to verify system/subsystem performance; and provides a sound, adequate approach to provide effective quality assurance of the installation and an effective approach to providing Interim Contractor Support (ICS) to meet sample problem requirements.

2. Adequacy, thoroughness, and completeness of the offeror’s understanding of AF Tactical Automated Security Systems (TASS) requirements for protection of assets as demonstrated by the soundness of the offeror’s sample problem technical approach and conceptual design which provides an appropriate solution to the TASS sample problem including the soundness and completeness of required drawings and other supporting sample problem documentation which conveys a clear understanding of AF TASS requirements and demonstrates a sound approach to verify subsystem/system performance.

3. The adequacy of the offeror’s management structure and reporting chain relationships to provide effective direction and control of the work activity including effectiveness of the integration, management, and control of subcontractor effort as evidenced by the offeror’s management approach to direct sample problem work activity.

4. The reasonableness, adequacy, and completeness of the offeror’s proposed Integrated Master Schedules (IMS) and extent to which the schedules convey a clear and comprehensive understanding of the requirements for each sample problem and present a sound and realistic execution plan to accomplish the proposed sample problem efforts.

5. Reasonableness and thoroughness of identified programmatic risks inherent in the proposed technical and management approach to the sample problems and the adequacy and reasonableness of the offeror’s approach to reduce/mitigate those risks.

6. Adequacy, thoroughness, and completeness of the offeror’s supply chain risk management procedures and processes to reduce supply chain vulnerability and mitigate threats and vulnerabilities to system equipment and mission effectiveness.

7. Adequacy and effectiveness of the offeror’s processes to manage schedule and control cost growth, and the adequacy and effectiveness of the offeror’s understanding of and approach to mitigating unanticipated schedule delays caused by external circumstances (weather, base exercises, etc.) to avert schedule impact and cost growth.

d. Past Performance Factor

The past performance evaluation results in assessment of the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply the products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance including cost and schedule. This assessment is based on the performance quality of the offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertains to the products and/or services outlined in this solicitation requirement. (See FAR 15.305).

(1) Ratings: 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. One performance confidence assessment rating will be assigned for each offeror after evaluating the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant. Each offeror will receive one of the following Past Performance Factor performance confidence assessments (in accordance with DOD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.3.3) as described in Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments, below.

TABLE 2- 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.

(2) Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule. Performance is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offer’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the contract requirements. Unless otherwise stated, the term “offeror” includes the prime contractor, subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners. “Prime contractor” means the legal entity with which the Government creates contractual privity by entering into a contract. “Subcontractor,” “teaming partner,” and “joint venture partners” mean any supplier, distributor, vendor, or firm that furnishes supplies or services to or for a prime contractor or another subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume, Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ), information obtained from other sources such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) or similar systems, interviews 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 each Offeror and data obtained from other sources. If the Government is unable to obtain performance information from a customer/reference on an effort, the Government will not use that effort at all in the assessment. The Government considers the customer to be the organization with whom you have a contract/agreement in place to perform some specified work. If you were a subcontractor to a prime on a Government contract, that prime is your customer. In addition, the Government will consider the source of the performance information provided by the customers/references.

(i) 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 (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation up to the award date. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products and services performed under those contracts or delivery orders relate to scope, magnitude, and complexity of the FPS3 delivery order efforts including the extent to which the offeror performed as a prime contractor on those contracts/delivery orders. Special emphasis will be placed on performance related to the Technical factor criteria and nuclear security systems requirements. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made. In determining relevancy for individual efforts, consideration will be given to the effort or portion of the effort being proposed by the offeror, the extent to which the offeror performed as a prime contractor, and the effort of teaming partners or subcontractors whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Only Recent performance information rated by the team as Somewhat Relevant, Relevant, or Very Relevant will be considered; recent performance information rated as Not Relevant will not be considered. The following definitions will be used to determine relevancy of past performance.

TABLE 3 - PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

The Government will evaluate the quality of the performance on all the efforts that are included in their relevancy determination using the rating scale identified in Table 4, Quality Assessment Ratings, which are also the ratings used for the past performance questionnaire. When an offeror’s 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/delivery orders or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

TABLE 4 - PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts/delivery orders evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating in accordance with Table 2, Performance Confidence Assessments. The past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to FPS3 effort. 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. 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.

e. Small Business Participation Factor Factor 3, Small Business Participation, shall result in a single rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with Table 2 below. This rating applies to other than small business proposals only. In order for an offeror to be eligible to receive an award, they must be rated “Acceptable” for Factor 3.

TABLE 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

The rating for Factor 3 focuses on the offeror’s performance in the utilization of small business concerns.

1. For offerors with a Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Form 640 review, ratings provided by DCMA will be used in conjunction with a review of the offeror’s proposed Small Business Subcontracting Plan to determine an acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating.

2. If no DCMA Form 640 is available, then offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Subcontracting Plan only to determine an acceptable or unacceptable rating.

f. Cost/Price Factor

(1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): For the best-value award determination, the TEP will include the following CLINs as described below except that the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government Furnished Property (GFP).

(a) T&M CLINS 0012; 0015; 0018; and 0020: The amount included in the TEP will be determined by multiplying each proposed B-Table labor rate for each Government provided labor category by the Government provided number of labor hours for each labor category. The Government provided labor hours and labor categories are identified in Section L, Attachment L-7 (FPS3 Cost Formats.xls).

(b) CPFF CLINs 0006AA; 0006AB; and 0011AA: The amount included in the TEP will be the Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) plus the proposed fixed fee (dollar amount) for the sample problems. The GEMPC will be calculated in accordance with Section M, paragraph f(2)(b).

(c) For GFP proposed as part of the solution to Sample Problem #2, the Government acquisition cost for the GFP will be added to the TEP. A list of available GFP along with the Government acquisition cost of those items is identified in Section L, Attachment L-7 (FPS3 Cost Formats.xls).

(2) General Information. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable, realistic, complete, and not unbalanced in accordance with the following:

(a) Reasonableness – For a cost/price to be reasonable, in its nature and amount, it must not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (see FAR 31.201-3). Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. If the Government finds the proposed costs/prices are not fair and reasonable, the Government may determine that the offer is unacceptable, and therefore unawardable.

(b) Realism – The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s cost proposal for the sample problems. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which the proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1)). The realism analysis may result in a potential adjustment to the offeror’s cost proposal resulting in a Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) for CPFF CLINS that differs from the offeror’s proposed cost. The GEMPC will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s cost proposal; however, the Government will not reduce the offeror’s cost proposal below the offeror’s proposed prices in making its GEMPC adjustment.

(c) Completeness – If an offeror’s cost/price proposal does not provide complete and accurate cost/price information as outlined in Section L such that the Government is unable to assess reasonableness and realism, the Government may determine that the offer is incomplete, and therefore unawardable.

(d) Unbalanced Pricing – The Government will evaluate whether the proposed costs are materially unbalanced as described in FAR15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may be an indication of a lack of understanding of the requirement, an unacceptable or risky technical approach, or an unacceptable risk that the unbalancing will result in unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

M003 RESERVED

M004 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 to be eligible for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.

FA8730-14-R-0004, Attachment 9, Page 2