Section_M__Ukraine_Case_X7-D-4ZZ_NAVAIDS_Program_Evaluation_Factors_22_MAR_2019.docx

ATTACHMENT 4

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

FOR

Government of Ukraine (GoU), Navigational Aids (NAVAIDS) Program for the Ukrainian Air Force (UAF) located at Starokonstantyniv Air Base Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Case X7-D-4ZZ 22 Mar 2019

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

The United States Government (USG) will conduct a competitive best value source selection in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.101-1, as supplemented, and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to cost or price considerations. 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 price factor. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Step 1: Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability (if rated “unacceptable”, consider and document the correction potential if discussions were to be conducted).

Step 2: Evaluate all technically “acceptable” proposals to determine whether the price is fair and reasonable (in accordance with FAR 15.404 and FAR 31.201-3), balanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1), and affordable (within any budgetary information included in the solicitation) (include “unacceptable” proposals with correction potential) then rank by total evaluated price.

Step 3: Assess performance confidence for each technically acceptable Offerors (include “unacceptable” proposals with correction potential).

Step 4: Best Value Decision.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The USG intends to award one (1) contract in response to this Request for Proposal (RFP) however, the USG reserves the right to award no contract at all.

1.2 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The USG may reject any proposal evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence, failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program, or failure to respond to Section L of this solicitation. Unrealistic program commitments include contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low costs/prices when compared to USG estimates and/or information gleaned from the proposal itself.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The USG 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 USG. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the USG’s requirements is considered not correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination and Discussions

The USG reserves the right to award a contract without discussions with respective Offerors. IAW FAR Subpart 15.306(a)(2), if award is made without conducting discussions, Offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an Offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the USG to hold discussions, the USG may conduct one or more Competitive Range determinations. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) may limit the number of Offerors in the Competitive Range for purposes of efficiency in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2) and FAR 52.215-1(f)(4). Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the best value decision. If Offerors are excluded from the Competitive Range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR Subparts 15.505 and 15.506.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Factor 1, Technical Factor 2, Cost/Price Factor 3, Past Performance

2.1 FACTOR 1, Technical:

The USG technical evaluation team shall evaluate the Technical Acceptability of proposals on an Acceptable (Pass)/Unacceptable (Fail) basis as described in Table 2–1 Technical.

Table 2-1. Technical

All technical sub-factors must be rated “Acceptable" to be considered Technically Acceptable. An “Unacceptable” assessment will render the offer un-awardable. Only those technical proposals determined to be Technically Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The USG will evaluate the proposals against the following sub-factors:

2.1 Sub-factor 1: Management Approach

Under the Management sub-factor, the USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach (Contractor’s Statement of Work, CSOW) to adequately address all threshold requirements of the USG’s Ukraine NAVAIDS Program Statement of Objectives (SOO) using the following criteria:

a) Offeror proposed Site Survey Plan and Site Survey Report demonstrates an efficient and effective approach to meet the SOO.

b) Offeror’s proposed administration of Contractor Logistics Support for the Ukraine NAVAIDS Program systems that demonstrates an efficient and effective approach to meet the SOO.

c) Offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates an efficient and effective approach for overall management of work effort to include planning, monitoring, controlling, and communication.

d) Offeror’s proposed approach adequately provides details of an efficient and effective Installation and Test.

e) Offeror’s proposed approach adequately provides an efficient and effective plan to manage resources during the performance of this effort.

2.2 Sub-factor 2: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

The Offeror’s proposed IMS demonstrates an efficient and effective approach to meet the SOO.

2.3 Sub-factor 3: Repair and Return/Warranty Plan & Procedures

The Offeror’s proposed warranty procedures are an efficient and effective approach to manage warranty. The warranty procedure lists warranty procedure information relative to the warranty, warranty repair procedures, and procedures for obtaining repair and replacement of failed items during the warranty period.

2.4 Sub-factor 4: Risk Mitigation.

The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation plan demonstrates an efficient and effective approach to the specific risks listed below.

a) The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation plan for how the USG may validate the site survey report (if applicable) if the USG cannot travel to the Ukraine is an efficient and effective recommendation.

b) The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation plan for how the USG may assess contractor performance if the USG cannot travel to the Ukraine is an efficient and effective recommendation.

c) The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation plan for how the Offeror may mitigate the risk to the power is not available at the Initial Flight Test (IFT) is an efficient and effective recommendation.

d) The Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation plan for how the Offeror will list the equipment to assist the USG to decide which equipment will be purchased or not purchased if the amount of equipment to be replaced exceeds funds available is an efficient and effective recommendation

e) The Offeror’s proposed approach to implementing a comprehensive, disciplined, integrated, structured Program Protection Plan (PPP) process that addresses Critical Program Information (CPI) identification, anti-tamper procedures, criticality analysis, vulnerability assessment, malicious code insertion, and threat assessment is an efficient and effective approach to address CPI.

2.5 Sub-factor 5: Small Business Evaluation

The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan is an efficient and effective plan which identifies and commits to the participation of small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, Historically Underutilized Business Zones (HUB Zone) small business concerns, small disadvantaged business (SDB), and with women-owned small business concerns, whether as joint venture partners, teaming partners, or subcontractors.

3.0 Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor

The USG shall rank all Technically Acceptable offers (and Unacceptable offers with correction potential) by price. The Offeror’s Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 Proposal Analysis Techniques, in order to determine if the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is reasonable and realistic.

Reasonableness – Cost/price is considered to be reasonable when it represents a cost/price that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prevailing market prices. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the USG may require submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of fair and reasonable cost/price.

3.1 Unbalanced Pricing

Offeror’s are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing increases performance risk and often results in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable overall price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The USG will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

3.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

For the best-value award determination, the TEP will include the following CLINs as described below:

1) Total evaluated price of the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN 0001 and FFP OPTION CLINs 0002-0005.

2) Total cost for the cost reimbursable Travel OPTION CLIN 0006.

4.0 Factor 3: Past Performance

4.1 General Information

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).

4.2 Evaluation

The Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all recent performance data provided and obtained from other sources identified below in this section, to determine how relevant the work performed under those efforts is to the proposed effort. The PPET will verify past performance data identified in the Offeror’s proposal. The PPET reserves the right to obtain additional past performance data, if available, from other sources. The PPET may consider the Offeror’s subcontractors, joint ventures, and past performance in aggregate, in addition to an effort (contract) by effort basis. Commercial and USG past performance are considered of equal importance. The Government will not consider in its assessment a past/present contract, submitted by the Offeror, where performance cannot be verified through the customer point of contact of that contract.

When a performance record reveals a performance problem, the USG will consider the number and severity of the problem/problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of the corrective actions taken. No consideration will be given to planned or promised corrective actions. The USG reserves the right to review more recent contracts and performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

Contract(s) identified in the Federal Past Performance Information (PPI) Retrieval System (PPIRS) will be evaluated individually. Higher relevancy may be assigned to efforts that are most similar to the stated requirements. Past performance information may be obtained through, but not limited to, information obtained from the PPIRS, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems (CPARS) and similar systems of other USG departments and agencies. In addition, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, and interviews with program managers and contracting officers, site visits and other sources known to the USG including commercial sources may be used.

4.3 Assessment Ratings

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet USG needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on recency and relevancy (as described in paragraph 4.3.1, and 4.3.2) to the subject acquisition, and the quality of the work performed (as described in paragraph 4.3.3). Each Offeror will receive one of the performance confidence ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available 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 favorable impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or less relevant efforts. Additionally, efforts showing a sustained track record of relevant performance will generally increase the overall Performance Confidence Assessment.

4.3.1 Recency

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be on-going 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.

4.3.2 Relevancy

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude, and complexity of this effort. The relevancy of the Offeror's efforts will focus on, but not be limited to the similarity of service/support, complexity of the effort, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming in relation to this effort.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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. Only recent performance information rated by the team as 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 4-1. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

4.3.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The USG will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with USG customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the USG. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse present or past performance 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 whether corrective actions have been effective and resulted in sustained improvements. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to adverse PPI the USG intends to use in its determination that is not already documented in the CPARS.

Table 4-2. Quality Ratings

4.3.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

The following Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings definitions will be used to evaluate overall past performance based on recent, relevant, and quality ratings.

Table 4-3. Performance Confidence Assessments

5.0 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements identified in the Solicitation, Offer, and Award document, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in addition to those identified as evaluation factors to be eligible for award. Failure to meet a requirement or comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions, and must provide complete rationale with submittal of the Offeror’s proposal.

1 | Page