Attach_4_-_Section_M.pdf

RMS/LMDB FA8770-16-R-0002

Section M, Basis for Contract Award RFP Attachment 4

AIR FORCE LIFE CYCLE MANAGEMENT CENTER (AFLCMC)

AFLCMC/HIAR

WRIGHT PATTERSON AFB, OH 45433-5006

Section M

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

For

REQUIREMENTS MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

(RMS)

LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT DATA BANK

(LMDB)

Solicitation Number FA8770-16-R-0002

Contents

1. Source Selection

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3. Discussions

1.4. Competitive Range

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Factors

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

2.2. Technical Factor

2.2.1. Technical Rating

2.2.2. Technical Risk Rating

2.2.3. Subfactor 1: Technical Program Management (PWS Sections: 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.6, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.3.1.3, and 1.4.1)

2.2.4. Subfactor 2: Functional/Systems Engineering (PWS Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.3, 1.1.5, 1.4, 1.4.6.1, 1.4.6.5, 1.5, and 1.5.1)

2.2.5. Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan (PWS Section 1.2.1)

2.3. Past Performance Factor

2.3.1. Ratings

2.3.2. Evaluation Process

2.3.2.1. Recency Assessment

2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings

2.4. Price Factor

3. Additional Evaluation Procedures

3.1. Pre-award Survey

3.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1. Source Selection

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a full tradeoff best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an 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 technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (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. Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the RMS/LMDB Maintenance and Sustainment Program. The Government reserves the right not to award the contract.

1.3. Discussions

The Government intends 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 hold discussions if, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4. Competitive Range

A competitive range determination will be made and a competitive range established if discussions are conducted. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ criteria, the Government will establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals. If, after exchanges are held with Offerors, the Contracting Officer determines that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal shall be eliminated from consideration for award. When eliminated from the competitive range, unsuccessful Offerors will be provided a written notice in accordance with FAR 15.503.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Factors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Program Management Subfactor 2: Functional/Systems Engineering Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Price) least in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are more important than price.

2.2. Technical Factor

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

2.2.1. Technical Rating

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Technical Ratings http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf below. Ratings will focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal as defined in Table 2 below. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. Strengths identified in Offeror's proposal may be incorporated in the PWS at time of award.

2.2.2. Technical Risk Rating

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

TABLE 2 – TERMINOLOGY DEFINITIONS

Term Definition

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 during contract performance.

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement. See

FAR 15.001.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation will address the Offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

2.2.3. Subfactor 1: Technical Program Management (PWS

Sections: 1.2.2, 1.2.3, 1.2.6, 1.2.8, 1.2.9, 1.3.1.3, and 1.4.1)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the knowledge and ability of the Offeror to manage schedule, risk and performance while meeting the functional customer’s requirements and applying the standards of practice described in the PWS and referenced in the Business Enterprise Systems (BES) Business Process Directory (BPD).

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

TABLE 4 – TERMINOLOGY DEFINITIONS

Term Definition

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency Combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Measure of Merit: This Subfactor is met when the proposal clearly and adequately satisfies the following requirements:

1. Address each PWS Paragraph referenced in the narrative response

a. Summarized Schedule

b. Approach for schedule, risk and performance management

c. Documentation and approval requirements

2. Address D200A BCR requirement described in example of Subfactor 1 in Section L

3. Address D200A problem/deficiencies described in example of Subfactor 1 in Section L

4. Address responses required by the PWS and timeframe of responses pertaining to the example of Subfactor 1 in Section L

5. Address the regular reporting of status for April and May

Strengths may be assigned if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a PWS and BPD compliant approach which exceeds requirements in an efficient and effective method in managing the balance of schedule and performance while meeting the RMS/LMDB sustainment/maintenance requirements. All PWS paragraphs above must be addressed and all questions from the Subfactor 1 examples must be answered.

2.2.4. Subfactor 2: Functional/Systems Engineering (PWS

Sections 1.1.1, 1.1.1.2, 1.1.1.3, 1.1.5, 1.4, 1.4.6.1, 1.4.6.5, 1.5, and 1.5.1)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the knowledge and ability of the Offeror’s understanding and approach to work within the current systems functional and system engineering activities in an efficient and effective manner while meeting the functional customer’s requirements.

Measure of Merit: This Subfactor is met when the proposal clearly and adequately satisfies the following requirements:

1. Address the steps to capture the quarterly/monthly summary cycle of D200N and to pass secondary item data to DD1000

2. Aircraft Availability Model (AAM)

a. Address the AAM's fit into D200

b. Address acquiring and maintaining the knowledge to support AAM

3. Address the system engineering approach to D200A maintenance BCR in Example 1 of Subfactor 1 of Section L

a. Analysis, development, and testing

b. Validation of data processed correctly

4. Address understanding of interrelationships between D200A, D200N, D200E, D200F, DD1000 and LMDB to include details on the cycle sequence of events and frequency

5. Address each PWS Paragraph referenced in the narrative response

Strengths may be assigned if the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a PWS and BPD compliant approach which exceeds requirements in an efficient and effective method in systems functionality and technical framework while meeting the RMS/LMDB sustainment/maintenance requirements. All PWS paragraphs above must be addressed and all questions from the Subfactor 2 examples must be answered.

2.2.5. Subfactor 3: Staffing Plan (PWS Section 1.2.1)

Description: This subfactor evaluates proposed staffing plan of the offer, including both the labor categories as defined and described in the proposal, and the volume of that labor applied to all the requirements of the PWS.

Measure of Merit: This Subfactor is met when the proposal clearly and adequately satisfies the following requirements:

1. Completed Skill Matrix, validated against the labor quantity in the Price proposal

2. Descriptions of Labor Categories used in Skill Matrix

3. Descriptions of the Role Assignments in the Skill Matrix

4. Assessment of the Labor Categories, Role Assignments and labor quantity to the

Estimated Workload listed in PWS section 1.7

The Offeror’s staffing plan to meet Subfactor 3 will be evaluated against the requirements described in the PWS paragraph listed above.

2.3. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.3.1. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments below.

TABLE 5- 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

2.3.2. Evaluation Process

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. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 2.1.2 above. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to 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 available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), or other resources.

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 (5) 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

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, including their relative order of importance (reference paragraph 2.1.2 above). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable 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.

assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Criteria considered for relevancy includes, but is not limited to responses to questionnaire, (RFP Attachment 9). Once the performance is determined to be recent, a determination of relevancy will be given to each of the following areas:

1. Magnitude, complexity, and scope of effort (PWS 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6)

2. Functional Applicability (PWS 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, and 1.1.5)

3. Technical Applicability - software/programming languages/architecture (PWS 1.1.1, 1.1.1.3, 1.12, 1.1.3, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, and Appendix C)

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies’ key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the proposed effort.

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 forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 6 below).

TABLE 6- RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this

2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. 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 7- PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENTS

Color Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

Blue EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE 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.

Purple VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE 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.

Green SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Yellow MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW 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.

Red UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED 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.

White NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

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

2.3.3. 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 recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful 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 relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less 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 of favorable performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Price Factor

1. The total evaluated price equals the total proposed price for all base period and option period CLINs including the Extension of Services, which is the Total Program Price from the Pricing Template, RFP Attachment 7.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for all FFP

CLINs for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Offeror’s proposal will also be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

b. There is a reasonable expectation that this acquisition will result in adequate price competition (APC). If APC is not realized, other information shall be submitted as requested by the (CO), and price analysis techniques, such as those described in FAR 15.403 and FAR 15.404, as supplemented, may be used.

c. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total evaluated price for basic requirements (basic award) and all options.

2. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Offerors must include their proposed pricing for all items in the Pricing Template (RFP Attachment 7).

3. Reasonableness: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. Both the labor rates and the prices will be evaluated for reasonableness.

The Pricing Template shall be used to price this effort. Each CLIN in the Pricing Template will be evaluated for reasonableness. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) efforts will identify the projected labor categories, location (Dayton Ohio metro area), hours, and the overall price to support reasonableness evaluation. Rates considered unreasonable may render a proposal non-awardable.

4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to labor rates and categories in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/31.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/31.htm

3. Additional Evaluation Procedures

3.1. 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.

3.2. 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 or subfactors. 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 intends to evaluate proposals and award the task order without discussing the proposal with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the CO determines it necessary.