FA8771-16-R0023_Attachment_3_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_-_Section_M_(3_Jun_2016).pdf

Attachment 3 – FA8771-16-R-0023

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center Directorate for Operations

Air Force Systems Networking Support

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (3 JUN 2016)

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for 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 the Air Force (AF) FARSite, 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. Contract(s) 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 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; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one contract to an 8(a) business concern for the Air Force Systems Networking (AFSN) requirement.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property. The Government will not be providing any Government-Furnished Property under this contract.

d. Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

e. Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially.

However, 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 FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Technical), Volume IV (Price), and Volume V (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume III (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

f. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions) Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) 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: Interface & Interoperability Subfactor 2: Design, Development, & Testing

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(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) is next in importance, and Factor 3 (Price) is last 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 significantly more important than price. b. Technical Factor The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating.

(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 below in Table 1 – Technical Ratings. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal, as defined below in Table 2

– Terminology Definitions. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. Strengths identified in an offeror’s proposal may be incorporated in the PWS at the time of award.

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.

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

Significant Weakness

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

Subfactor 1: Interface & Interoperability

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to ensure the interface and interoperation of network hardware (e.g. routers, switches, firewalls) from multiple vendors into the AF Network environment. (Reference PWS paragraph 4.1.1.k, 4.2.1.c6 and 4.2.1.c7) Ensure response includes your methodology for achieving interoperation of a multivendor solution into an operational network environment. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and provides an approach to ensure the interface and interoperation of network hardware from multiple vendors into the DoD Network environment.

Subfactor 2: Design, Development, & Testing

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to design, development, and test network solutions utilizing cryptography, network/systems security, authentication, authorization, and general security knowledge to meet the operational DoD and AF network functional and security requirements.

(Reference PWS paragraph 4.1.3.e) This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and provides an approach to the design, development, and testing of network solutions utilizing cryptography, network/system security, authentication, authorization, and general security knowledge to meet operational DoD and AF network functional and security requirements.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of threshold requirements.

(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.

Each of the Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described below in Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

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 unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described below in Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments.

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- 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 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.

(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 with regard to magnitude and complexity of the work performed.The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government will use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS). Additionally, the Government will contact organizations submitted as past performance for the purpose of verifying past performance data submitted by the offeror.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Performance within 36 months of the date of RFP release will be considered recent. Performance prior to 17 May 2013 will not be considered.

(ii) 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 with regard to magnitude and complexity of the work performed. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to network development and integration experience, and scope of effort to include magnitude and complexity. Higher relevancy will be assessed for efforts that are most similar to Network Systems Technical Support (PWS 4.1.1), Integration Facility Support Services (PWS 4.1.3), Base Network Implementation Support (PWS 4.2.1), and Implementation support of multi-vendor upgrades into network environments (PWS 4.2.1 (c)). For example: Functional experience in enterprise-level (DoD, Service level (Air Force, Army, Navy), other federal agency-level, and/or corporate-level with global reach) network design, testing, and implementation of multi-vendor upgrades into network environments. Within the

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.

subjects listed below, it is preferred that offerors reference experience which shows worldwide support.

Network Systems Technical Support The offeror should reference efforts where they have defined Network Systems Technical Support Expertise. The offeror should also show how they demonstrated the steps needed to provide architectures in accordance with prescribed guidance.

Areas where the offeror should cite past efforts include:

- Defined technical expert design level expertise within a LAN/WAN domain

- Defined complex network implementation solutions

- Developed full range technical implementation plans/strategies

- Designed/Developed large scale physical and logical communication solutions

- Utilized technical solutions within DoD scale architecture

Integration Facility Support Services The offeror should reference efforts where they have performed Integration Facility Support Services. The offeror should reference methods, resources and tools they have used to integrate/test and deploy information technology systems.

Areas where the offeror should cite past efforts include:

- Maintain DoD Directive 8570.1 certification for Information Assurance Technical

(IAT) III

- Build test plans, configuration testing environment, and author test reports

- Analysis of technical solutions

- Provide survey, install, configure, tests, and integration of networks

Base Network Implementation Support

- Support BAN equipment/component removal/installations

- Ascertain Network topology

- Network discovery using automated tool such as Whats Up Gold (WUG)

- Implement and integrate multi-vendor upgrades

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) individually and 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 volume and information obtained from other sources identified in paragraph M002 c(2) above will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions described below in Table 5

– Relevancy Assessment when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 5 – Relevancy Assessment

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all recent and relevant past performance information available from sources identified in paragraph M002 c(2) above. 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 quality levels described below in Table 6 – Performance Quality Assessment when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 6 – Performance Quality Assessment

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

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

UNKNOWN (UK) Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

(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, 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. 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. Upon completion of Past Performance Relevancy and Past Performance Quality assessments, the ratings assigned using Tables 5 and 6 will be combined using Table 7 – Combined Quality and Relevancy Past Performance Rating Chart. Note, this table will be populated based exclusively on ratings previously given; its only purpose is to combine assessments into a single chart for easier viewing.

Table 7 - Combined Quality and Relevancy Past Performance Rating Chart

Relevancy

Very Relevant

Relevant Somewhat Relevant

Not Relevant

N/A

Q u al it y

Exceptional VR-E R-E SR-E NR NA

Very Good VR-VG R-VG SR-VG NR NA

Satisfactory VR-S R-S SR-S NR NA

Marginal VR-M R-M SR-M NR NA

Unsatisfactory VR-U R-U SR-U NR NA

Not Applicable (N) N N N NA NA

Unknown

(UN) UN UN UN NA NA

d. Price Factor

Offeror’s price proposal will be reviewed and evaluated to determine that the total acquisition price is fair and reasonable. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s price proposal in accordance with FAR 15.305, Proposal Evaluation and 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques.

The Offeror’s Cost/Price volume will be evaluated for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing.

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

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

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

(3) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. A fair and reasonable price is a price that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business, considering the agreed-upon conditions, including the promised quality and time of contract performance.

(4) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(5) Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data: If requested by the CO, data other than certified cost or pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

(6) Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Total Evaluated Price will include all Firm-Fixed Price and Cost Reimbursement CLINS, including options. All Firm-Fixed Price CLINS to include Firm-Fixed Price options will be evaluated at offeror’s proposed prices. Cost Reimbursement CLINS, to include Cost Reimbursement options, will be evaluated at values provided by the Government in the Vendor Price Proposal Worksheets located in Section J, Attachment 6.

M003 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.