GEARSS_Section_M_(V3)_-_20150319.docx

19 March 2015

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 This acquisition is being conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (FAR) 15.101-2, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection methodology, 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.

1.2 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, under the LPTA methodology.

1.3 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). The Government will award to the Offeror who is determined to have the lowest evaluated price among Offerors who were determined to meet the acceptability standards in the Technical evaluation factors. While the Government source selection evaluation board 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. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

1.4 The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the PCO will review this determination and if, in the PCO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2 will not be required. However, if at any time during this competition the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists; Offerors may be required to submit price data to the extent necessary for the PCO to determine the reasonableness of the price.

1.5 Discussions. The Government is reserving the right to award without discussions. 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.

1.6 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one contract for sustainment of the GEARSS.

1.7 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 price 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.

1.8 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 will be eliminated.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 Evaluation factors and subfactors.

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

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Phase-In Subfactor 2: Critical Staffing Subfactor 3: Technical Process Approach Factor 2: Price

2.2 Technical Factor. The technical evaluation provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive a single rating of acceptable or unacceptable as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1, Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, excerpted below. These ratings depict whether or not the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. The acceptable or unacceptable rating focuses on the deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factor; however, an unacceptable rating in any subfactor will render the overall proposal unacceptable. The evaluation shall address the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable), and document why that mitigation approach is or is not acceptable.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Phase-In. 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 in place 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 in place 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 process maturity to include configuration management, software development, and responding to system outages. The criteria are met when the Offeror:

2.2.3.1 The overall proposed approach shall demonstrate 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.

2.3 Price Factor

2.3.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The Offeror’s price will be evaluated, based upon the total evaluated price which will be calculated as the sum of the proposed prices for basic requirements (basic award) and all options as follows:

FFP CLINs: At the total price proposed.

2.3.2 Price Evaluation Criteria. The pricing criteria used for evaluation will include reasonableness, and unbalanced pricing (FAR 52.215-1) based on the assessment criteria below. For all CLIN types, the evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

2.3.2.1. Price Reasonableness. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). 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 analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M003 REVIEWS and VISITS

3.1 REVIEWS AND VISITS. The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) does not intend to conduct site visits during the evaluation phase at this time.

M004 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

4.1 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.

Page 1 of 4 Section M: FA8823-15-R-0001