Atch_10_-_Addendum_to_Section_M.docx

FA8823-15-R-0001 Section J Atch 10 Addendum to Section M – Evaluation of Proposals Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award.

1.1. This source selection is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection strategy in accordance with the FAR §15.10l-2, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) §215.3, the DOD Source Selection Procedures, the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) §5315.3, and Air Force Mandatory Procedure (MP) MP 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

1.2. To be eligible for award, the offeror must be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR §9.104, as supplemented; meet all requirements of the RFP; conform to all required terms and conditions. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, this source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3. Discussions, if necessary, will be conducted in accordance with FAR § 15.306. 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 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. 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 and 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 reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

1.5. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for this acquisition

2. Technical Evaluation. Technical Proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability. Each subfactor will receive a single rating. Descriptions of the ratings are taken from the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1, excerpted below:

Table 2-1. Technical Factor Subfactor Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

2.1. Evaluation Assistance. (See Section H – Special Clause) With the exception of the FFRDC contractor, Aerospace, non-governmental advisors will not be used

2.2. Evaluation of Technical Factor. During the evaluation process, the Government will base its evaluation on the responses to the associated Factor/Subfactors in Section L. Each of the offeror's responses to the technical criteria will be evaluated against the descriptions provided in Section L. All Subfactors are of equal importance and failure of any one subfactor will result in a failure of the entire technical factor evaluation. If a proposal is deemed not technically acceptable after all rounds of discussions (if applicable), the proposal will be excluded from consideration for award.

2.2.1. SUBFACTOR 1 – Phase and Transition: This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for staffing leadership, management and technical personnel for all GEARSS locations. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

2.2.1.1. Provides a Phase-In Plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to ensure leadership and management personnel are ready to execute requirements at contract award IAW PWS 3.5.2, STD #1.

2.2.1.2. Provides a Phase-In Plan that demonstrates a clear understanding of the requirements to ensure all technical staff to perform GEARSS PWS tasks are ready to execute requirements at contract start IAW PWS 3.5.2, STD #2.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Critical Staffing. This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for staffing the overall effort and the staffing of key PWS tasks. The criteria are met when the Offeror.

2.2.2.1. Demonstrates a clear understanding of its ability to provide key technical staffing consistent with paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.3, 3.3.5, 3.3.10, 3.3.12, 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.8 of the PWS.

2.2.2.2. Demonstrates a clear understanding of sufficient hiring procedures, retention history and contingency offers to obtain the staffing to satisfy all the tasks in the PWS.

2.2.2.3. Provide an organizational structure with detailed skill mixes and hours that demonstrates a clear understanding that all tasks in the PWS will be properly executed and managed.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Technical Process Approach. This subfactor evaluates the proposal to determine if the proposal meets the requirements for technical understanding. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

2.2.3.1. Provides an overall proposed approach that demonstrates a clear understanding of the GEARSS environment described in PWS 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.

2.2.3.2. Provides an Attachment 3, Rights in Data that satisfies the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP.

3. Price Evaluation. The Price Evaluation assesses each offeror's proposed price, base, and all options, and evaluates each offeror's proposal for realism, reasonableness and affordability. An assessment that the proposal is not realistic, reasonable or affordable will result in the offer being considered unacceptable for award. The burden of proof for price reasonableness rests with the offeror. Price reasonableness and affordability will be evaluated with the following information:

1. To determine price realism, reasonableness, the contracting officer will use techniques described in FAR §15.404-1(b) as necessary.

2. To determine affordability, proposed prices for each period of performance will be compared to the Government budget.

3.1.1. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government may eliminate from the competitive range any proposal that is evaluated unrealistically high or low in price when compared to the Government budget, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of understanding/competence. Unbalanced proposals may be considered unrealistic.

3.1.2. Reasonableness: 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price competition. For additional information see FAR §31.201 -3.

3.1.3. Affordability: The affordability assessment will consider the total estimated contract price (to include the cost of the Cost Reimbursable Government inserted amounts as compared to the projected budget for this program. If proposals are determined to be unaffordable, the Government reserves the right to cancel the procurement.

3.1.4. Total Evaluated Price. The total evaluated price will be evaluated as the sum of the proposed prices for CLINs 0000, 0001, 1001, 2001 and 3001. The price evaluated CLINs span phase-in transition, base year, two option years and six months option to extend services. The Estimates for ODCs are to be included in the overall proposed price but will not be evaluated.