RFP_Attachment_6_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

FA8770-20-R-0004

RFP Attachment 6: Section M

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. GENERAL

1.1 Basis of Contract Award

This is a 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 Acquistion.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon assessment of Technical, Technical Risk, and Price. The Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating contribute equally to the tradeoff decision of each Technical subfactor. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are equally important. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price Factor.

The 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), passes the Gate criteria (See 2.1.1 below), and is evaluated based on the 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 the technical proposal of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the full proposals against all full proposal source selection criteria in the solicitation (See 2.1.2 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the Item Master Program including award of Delivery Order 01, however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.5 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. Furthermore, the Offerors are required to provide a separate Statement of Work (SOW) for both the basic IDIQ and Delivery Order 01 that is contractually enforceable, in accordance with all federal regulations, includes all sections of the Government Statement of Objectives (SOOs), and accomplishes all Government objectives identified in the Government SOOs. (RFP Attachment 1). 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 determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2. GATE AND FULL PROPOSAL FACTORS, AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 Gate and Full Proposal

This source selection consists of a Gate and a Full Proposal Submittal as outlined below.

2.1.1 Gate: Information Technology Functional Requirements (ITFR) Capability

Assertion List If the ITFR Capability Assertion List (RFP Attachment 2), submitted in accordance with Section L (RFP Attachment 5), meets or exceeds the pre-determined minimum score, the offeror will be afforded the opportunity to provide a full proposal. If the submitted ITFR Capability Assertion List does not meet the minimum score the offeror will not be permitted to provide a full proposal.

If afforded the opportunity to provide a full proposal, the Offeror’s proposal shall include all data and information requested by the solicitation and shall be submitted in accordance with the Section L instructions. The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the solicitation.

Non-conformance with the instructions provided in the solicitation may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

2.1.2 Full Proposal: Product, Services, and Price

Offerors who are provided the opportunity to submit a full proposal will be evaluated on the following factors and subfactors. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical and Risk Subfactor 1: Product Description Subfactor 2: Cybersecurity and Lifecycle Support Subfactor 3: Architecture, Integration/Interoperability and System

Maintenance Subfactor 4: Product Evaluation

Factor 2: Price

2.2 Evaluation Factors

2.2.1 Technical and Risk Factor

The technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: (1) the Technical Rating and (2) the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings contribute equally to the tradeoff decision.

Each subfactor will receive separate technical and risk ratings.

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 Table 2, Technical Ratings, below. Ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

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. The assessment of risk may consider the offeror's Full Proposal as well as the assertions provided in the ITFR Capability Assertion List Gate.

Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 3, Technical Risk Rating, below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATING

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 will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Product Description

This subfactor will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s product(s), as identified in SOO (RFP Attachment 1) paragraph 2.1, meets and/or exceeds Item Master Functional requirements.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal exhibits a sound approach to meeting Item Master Functional requirements and is exceeded when one or more strengths are provided to the benefit of the Government (Section L, RFP Attachment 5, Paragraph 4.2.4.1).

A strength may be assigned to the offeror’s proposal if the offeror’s proposal includes a roadmap demonstrating how the product will meet the technical and functional baseline within 60 days after contract award.

2.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Cybersecurity and Lifecycle Support

This subfactor will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s product(s), as identified in SOO Paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3, meets and/or exceeds Item Master Cybersecurity and/or Lifecycle Support requirements.

approach to meeting Item Master Cybersecurity and Lifecycle Support requirements and is exceeded when one or more strengths are provided to the benefit of the Government (Section L, RFP Attachment 5, Paragraph 4.2.4.2).

A strength may be assigned to the offeror’s proposal if the offeror’s proposal includes a roadmap demonstrating how cybersecurity, testing, release, and hosting objectives will be met within 60 days after contract award.

2.2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Architecture, Integration/Interoperability, and System Maintenance

(RFP Attachment 1) paragraph 2.1 and the Requirements List (RFP Attachment 3), meets and/or exceeds Item Master Sustainment capabilities.

approach to meeting Item Master technical and data architectural principles, integration/interoperability requirements, and Maintainability and Scalability objectives and is exceeded when one or more strengths are provided to the benefit of the Government (Section L, RFP Attachment 5, Paragraph 4.2.4.3).

A strength may be assigned to the offeror’s proposal if the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the architecture is scalable, how the components within are integrated to one another and provides a roadmap depicting how the product can fit into the Air Force infrastructure within 60 days after contract award.

2.2.1.4 Subfactor 4: Product Evaluation

(RFP Attachment 1) paragraphs 2.1 and TDP (RFP Attachment 4) Section 4, Contextual Model, meets and/or exceeds Item Master Business Transformation objectives.

approach to meeting Item Master Business Transformation objectives and is exceeded when one or more strengths are provided to the benefit of the Government (Section L, RFP Attachment 5, Paragraph 4.2.4.4).

A strength may be assigned to the offeror’s proposal if the offeror’s product demonstrates functionality that allows the Government to create and manage (change) items, workflows, business rules, reference data, roles and exchanges without a SDK. However, if SDK is required the offeror may still be assigned a strength if the offeror’s proposal includes a roadmap that outlines the resources needed to execute the work required by using a SDK, in lieu of out of the box functionality, to create and manage (change) items, workflows, business rules, reference data, roles and exchanges within 60 days after contract award.

2.2.2 Price Factor

The Price Factor evaluation will assess the Offeror’s price proposal for (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2.2.2.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L (RFP Attachment 5), paragraph 4.3 of the solicitation.

2.2.2.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s TEP will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. Any proposal that is determined to be unreasonable may be rejected.

2.2.2.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether it is unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Offeror is cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. An offer that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.2.2.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the TEP. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) extended prices including other provided values such as: Government provided Travel and Other Direct Costs (ODC) not to exceed amounts per year, Government provided burn down rates, and Government provided Most Probable Orders.

The Government’s most probable orders are not a guarantee, but are simply used to determine a TEP for evaluation purposes only.

3. 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 capacity to meet the requirements of the solicitation.