Atch 6 AS Followon Section M 30 Mar 12.docx

SECTION M -

FA8818-12-R-0025

Attachment 6 Section M Evaluation Criteria 30 March 2012

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value tradeoff 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), and as supplemented, modified herein, and current as of the date of release of this RFP. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. This solicitation is for a Firm Fixed Price contract with a provision for Cost Plus Fixed Fee studies. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance, Technical Capability/Technical Risk, and Cost/Price. 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) 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 past performance and/or technical and/or overall business approach 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 for the Rocket System Launch Program (RSLP) Aging Surveillance (AS) and Disposal Programs.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

d. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

e. Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP).

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP by making all items in GFP List Attachment 3 available to all offerors. Proposal cost/price will be adjusted to include costs incurred to provide GFP.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors and their Relative Order of Importance:

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Tradeoff may be made between past performance, technical and cost where the Government deems it appropriate and necessary. 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: Past Performance Factor 2: Technical Capability Subfactor 1: AS Testing/Analysis & Sustainment Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Motor/Component Disposal Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Factors are listed above by relative order of importance, with Past performance being more important than Technical Capability, and Technical Capability being more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical Capability Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance.

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

b. Factor 1, 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 below:

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

(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 Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. 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 Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) 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 six (6) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(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 Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference M002a). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. For example, relevancy criteria might include the technologies, functions and partial scope of effort (experience with a single Peacekeeper or Minuteman motor). 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 whether contracts are recent or relevant:

(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 Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 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:

(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 Capability subfactors and cost/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 recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or 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 may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

c. Factor 2, Technical Capability Factor.

The Technical Capability Factor will be evaluated against requirements in the PWS. The technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Capability Rating and the Technical Risk Rating, which have equal impact for the rating of each subfactor.

(1) Technical Capability Rating. The Technical Capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical Capability subfactor requirements.

TECHNICAL RATINGS

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 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.

The Technical Capability subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described 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.

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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.

(3)Technical Capability ratings and technical risk ratings will be assigned at the Subfactor level to determine an overall assessment of the offeror’s technical capability. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical Capability factor. requirements are met when the offeror’s proposal addresses:

(i) Subfactor 1, Aging Surveillance (AS) Testing/Analysis & Sustainment, will be evaluated against PWS requirements to determine how well the offeror’s proposed solution/capability:

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s processes to meet the AS testing and analysis requirements in the PWS.

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s AS testing and analysis capabilities and processes necessary to meet the PWS requirement, to include component testing, static fires, etc.

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s resources necessary to meet the Government provided five-year test plan found in Annex 2 of the PWS.

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s proposed ten-year AS test plan that identifies testing at the component level to ensure highest likelihood of identifying age related trends while maintaining a cost effective approach.

· Demonstrates sustainment capabilities required to meet the PWS requirements.

(ii) Subfactor 2, Program Management, includes the contractors Small Business Plan (SBP) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and will be evaluated against PWS requirements to determine how well the offeror’s proposed solution/capability:

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s process and planned content of the individual test reports as identified in the PWS.

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s process to procure materials and maintain/calibrate test equipment as indentified in the PWS.

· Provides an Integrated Master Plan (IMP) that details the configuration management, quality control, system safety, systems engineering and security activities required to meet the requirements in the PWS and addresses how discrepancies are documented, tracked and closed.

· If the offeror is other than a small business, the offeror provides a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 that also identifies and specifies the extent of offeror's commitment to the participation of small businesses (SB), historically black colleges or universities (HBCU) and minority institutions (MI), whether as joint venture members, teaming arrangement partners, or subcontractors. If applicable, offeror provides a copy of its approved Master Subcontracting Plan (FAR 19.704(b) and 52.219-9(f). If applicable, offeror provides a copy of its approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan (DFARS 219.702). If the offeror has an approved Master Subcontracting Plan or an approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, the offeror provides an addendum with their proposal covering any additional information required by this solicitation. In the event the offeror has negotiated a Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan pursuant to DFARS 219.702, the offeror provides the information that identifies and specifies the extent of their commitment to the participation of SB, HBCU and MI.

· The offeror describes how they will meet the following Small Business Subcontracting Plan Requirements:

· Total Small Business – 2% (to include Small Disadvantaged Business, Woman Owned Small Business, HUB Zone, Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business, and Veteran Owned Small Business)

(iii) Subfactor 3, Motor/Component Disposal, will be evaluated against PWS requirement and thresholds identified in PWS Annex 2, Government 5 Year Plan, to determine how well the offeror’s proposed solution/capability:

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s facilities and infrastructure necessary to dispose of motors/components and proposed disposal methods necessary to meet the PWS requirements.

· Identifies, describes and demonstrates offeror’s throughput capabilities for proposed disposal methods.

d. Factor 3:Cost/ Price. The Government will evaluate the realism and reasonableness of each offerors' proposal. Cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low will be quantified by the Government evaluators. When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will determine that the offeror does not understand the technical requirements and is not able to meet the corresponding subfactors.

(1) The evaluation of contract price will include an assessment of reasonableness using one or more price analysis techniques in FAR Subpart 15.404-1(b). If the CO determines that adequate price competition has not been obtained, reasonableness will be evaluated using cost analysis techniques described in FAR Subpart 15.404-1(c).

(2) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated forfor award purposes based upon the total price proposed for requirements and Government’s best assessment of anticipated requirements over the 5 year contract period of performance as provided in the five-year test plan found in Annex 2 of the PWS.

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

e. Discussions The Government anticipates award without discussions. 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 Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Information submitted after the due date for or submitted separately from the final proposal revision will not be evaluated.

M003. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations, certification, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors, subfactors to be eligible for award. 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.

SECTION M FA8818-12-R-0025

Attachment 6 Section M Evaluation Criteria PAGE M - 1 of 8