Section_M_-_DRAFT_to_Industry_20190308.pdf

FA8730-19-R-0005, Attachment #, Page 1

ATTACHMENT xx

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

FOR

FORCE PROTECTION SITE SECURITY SYSTEM SOLUTIONS

(FPS4)

xx MARCH 2019

FA8730-19-R-0005, Attachment #, Page 2

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Number Date Description Sections Affected 1 8 Feb 19 Initial Publication 2 8 Mar 19 Second Draft

FA8730-19-R-0005, Attachment #, Page 3

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 source selection will be 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 make award to all qualifying offerors (as defined below), based on an assessment of the Technical Factor.

“Qualifying” is defined as:

1) “Acceptable” for all four Technical subfactors;

2) “Low” or “Moderate” for all four Technical subfactors;

3) “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).

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.

b. Number of contracts to be awarded The Government anticipates awarding Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for the Force Protection Site Security System Solutions (FPS4) contract to all Qualifying Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to make no awards at all as determined to be in the best interest of the Government dependent the availability of funds.

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

FA8730-19-R-0005, Attachment #, Page 4

c. Rejection of Unsatisfactory Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unsatisfactory in terms of program commitments, or contract terms and conditions, 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. Discussions The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

e. Small Business This solicitation is intended to result in award of FPS4 IDIQ contracts to all qualifying offerors, in accordance with the RFP. This could result in a mix of other than small businesses and small businesses (within the NAICS code 561621) as FPS4 contract holders. If two or more small businesses are awarded FPS4 contracts, then the Government may set-aside FPS4 delivery orders for small business fair opportunity evaluations in accordance with FAR 16.505(b)(2)(i)(F), the provisions of FAR Subpart 19.5 as supplemented, and other applicable laws or regulations where appropriate.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and their Relative Order of Importance

The following evaluation factor will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical

• Sub-factor 1: Detection o Intrusion Detection System (IDS) o Immediate Visual Assessment (IVA) o Video Management System (VMS) o Surveillance System

• Sub-factor 2: Infrastructure o Communication Infrastructure o Communication Networking o Power Infrastructure

• Sub-factor 3: Entry Control o Entry Control (EC) o Access Control System (ACS) o Automated Entry Control System (AECS) o Other identified non-IDS physical & electronic security

• Sub-factor 4: Management o Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

FA8730-19-R-0005, Attachment #, Page 5 o Risk Matrix o Basis of Estimates (BOE) o Verification Approach o Interim Contractor Support (ICS) Approach o Small Business Participation

b. Technical Factor Ratings

The following definitions will be used in the Technical Evaluation:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful sample problem performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that significantly increases the risk of unsuccessful sample problem performance.

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of sample problem performance to an unacceptable level.

The Technical evaluation shall assess the offeror’s solution to the Sample Problem and determine whether the offeror has proposed an adequate solution that demonstrates adequate knowledge to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each Technical Sub-factor will be assessed with a Technical Quality rating and a Technical Risk rating. Table 1 – Technical Quality Rating Method and Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating Method describe the different colors and ratings for technical quality and technical risk based on assessed weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of each offeror’s Technical Volume submittal.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL QUALITY RATING METHOD

Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation or proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

FA8730-19-R-0005, Attachment #, Page 6

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring would likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which might potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring would likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which would likely cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance to an unacceptable level.

The Government will evaluate the adequacy, efficiency, soundness, reasonableness and inherent risks of the offeror’s technical approach and demonstrated capability to design, install, integrate, verify and deliver a solution to the sample problem project requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s Technical Volume demonstrates an adequate approach to the Sample Problem and demonstrates a clear understanding of Technical Volume requirements through an assessment of the following:

1. Detection: Adequacy and thoroughness of the offeror’s understanding of the IDS, IVA, VMS and Surveillance System Sample Problem requirements for the protection of assets as demonstrated by the soundness of the offeror’s Sample Problem Design/Install approach, Site Design & Install Drawings and List of Equipment (LOE) and the extent to which it provides an appropriate and efficient solution to the Sample Problem.

2. Infrastructure: Adequacy and thoroughness of the offeror’s understanding of the communications infrastructure, communications networking and power infrastructure Sample Problem assumptions/requirements for the infrastructure/connectivity/networking of Sample Problem areas as demonstrated by the soundness of the offeror’s Sample Problem Design/Install approach, Site Design & Install Drawings and LOE and the extent to which it provides an appropriate and efficient solution to the Sample Problem.

3. Entry Control: Adequacy and thoroughness of the offeror’s understanding of the Entry Control, ACS, AECS and other identified non-IDS physical and electronic security Sample Problem assumptions/requirements for the Entry Control of areas as demonstrated by the soundness of the offeror’s Sample Problem Design/Install approach, Site Design & Install Drawings and LOE and the extent to which it provides an appropriate and efficient solution to the Sample Problem.

FA8730-19-R-0005, Attachment #, Page 7

4. Management: The reasonableness, efficiency, thoroughness, and adequacy of the offeror’s proposed Sample Problem IMS, Risk Matrix, BOEs, Verification Approach and ICS Approach and extent to which the IMS, Risk Matrix, BOEs, Verification Approach and ICS Approach convey a clear and comprehensive understanding of the assumptions/requirements for the Sample Problem. The IMS will be evaluated for its schedule level of detail, schedule critical path, schedule task duration, schedule task relationships, traceability from resource identification/allocation to schedule and traceability to Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS). The Risk Matrix will be evaluated for risk identification and risk handling plans. The BOEs will be evaluated for labor hour estimates, labor identifications, labor-skill mix by task, and labor traceability to CWBS. The Verification Approach will be evaluated for the verification plan and verification method selections. The ICS Approach will be evaluated for traceability to the Sample Problem requirements, organizational level sustainment plan, depot level sustainment plan, and OEM/sub-contractor sustainment plan.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small business participation for the sample problem.

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. Cost will not be evaluated at the IDIQ level, but will be evaluated on individual DOs. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.