Vandenberg-draftSection_M_-__11_Dec_12.doc

SECTION M (Vandenberg PBR) Evaluation Factors for Award

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) FAR site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Approach, Past Performance, and Price. 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. 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/or overall business approach and/or 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. Award Without Discussions

The Government intends to make award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines discussions to be necessary. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any subfactor will be deemed unawardable.

c. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Vandenberg Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) Program.

d. 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.

e. Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is at 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.

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 1.1: Technical Approach Subfactor 1.2: Risk Mitigation Approach Subfactor 1.3: Management Approach Subfactor 1.4: Corporate Experience (same projects as Past Performance)

Subfactor 1.5: Extent of Participation of Small Business Concerns

Factor 2: Past Performance (same projects as Corporate Experience) 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. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1.1 (Technical Approach) is most important. Next are Subfactors 1.2 & 1.4 (Risk Mitigation Approach & Corporate Experience) which are equally important.

(3) Subfactor 1.3 (Management Approach) and Subfactor 1.5 (Extent of Small Business Concerns) will be evaluated using Acceptable or Un-acceptable ratings and will not be included in the trade-off process.

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

b. Technical Factor (FACTOR 1) The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical Subfactor.

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4, will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2.1 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactors 1.3 and 1.5 will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. The adjectival ratings for Acceptable and Unacceptable are outlined in Table 2.2. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/adjectival rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2.1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS (SUBFACTORS 1.1, 1.2, and 1.4)

TABLE 2.2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS (SUBFACTORS 1.3 and 1.5)

Subfactor 1.1 - Technical Approach:

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal includes a realistic approach that is technically appropriate based on current site conditions, is consistent with the Government’s objectives, and provides an explanation in sufficient detail to support Government evaluation of how all of the objectives and requirements in the SOO and other applicable agreements will be met or exceeded while ensuring protection of human and ecological health, maintaining regulatory compliance, and minimizing Air Force life-cycle costs.

(a) At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall:

· Include a Summary Table for all sites that reflects the Offeror’s proposed approach.

· Adequately demonstrate why the selected performance objective for each site (including the minimum performance objective if that is what is proposed) is an optimal solution for the government.

· The Offeror shall submit an approach to achieve SC or move as close to SC as possible during the POP without expending large sums for contingencies, including 1) a defensible strategies for advancing the site status as far as reasonable per the preferred end states in Section 1.0 of the SOO, and 2) a business case analysis to support the selected end state (i.e., the rationale for why SC is either not technically feasible or not cost effective for those sites not proposed to achieve SC within the POP).

· For sites where the proposed performance objective includes an OES, the Offeror shall demonstrate sound Optimized Exit Strategies (OES) using objective metrics and transparent decision logic. The OES shall demonstrate the following: a logical and realistic technical approach indicating how concentrations and/or mass will be reduced over time from baseline conditions and how interim and final performance objectives will be met.

· Where the proposed performance objective for a site includes an OES, the offeror shall propose a performance model that demonstrates quantitative and measurable performance indicators (e.g., concentration decrease for specified contaminants, contaminant mass removal, or risk reduction) relevant to the proposed remedial approach, and suited to transparent evaluation of actual progress toward expected outcome or state at the end of the POP. Depending on site complexity, several indicators may be needed to adequately reflect performance of an OES. These criteria apply to both conceptual and fully-developed performance models.

· For the sites where the Air Force has provided a baseline evaluation, the Offeror’s proposed fully-developed performance model shall demonstrate a significant reduction in contaminant concentrations relative to baseline conditions, reduction of contaminant mass, and/or risk reduction throughout the POP. A significant reduction is defined as decreased contaminant concentration, mass and/or risk that exceeds that which would be expected under monitored natural attenuation or plume containment strategies.

· Costs and assumptions for landfills will be used for validation of the proposed approach for each landfill.

· The Offeror’s technical approach shall demonstrate reasonable and logical activities and assumptions for the remaining Air Force financial liability for achieving SC, if not reached during the POP. This includes anticipated activities (and their duration), and realistic assumptions. POP and Post-POP life cycle activities and assumptions will be evaluated to substantiate the Offeror’s understanding of the work. For the purpose of determining whether the offeror’s proposed technical approach will reduce life-cycle costs, the government may compare the Offeror’s life-cycle cost estimate (computed by the government) to the government’s independent life-cycle cost estimate. The government’s independent life-cycle cost estimate is $260,000,000.

· The offeror’s approach shall adequately demonstrate the ability to implement and refine proposed or existing remediation systems IAW California state regulations and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board.

(b) The Offeror's proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity based Integrated Master Schedule and Milestone Payment Schedule (without price information). At a minimum, the offeror’s IMS shall:

· Outline key activities and milestones defined at the appropriate level and logically sequenced to support and manage achievement of the proposed performance objectives, consistent with the narrative discussion of the approach in the proposal.

· Demonstrate achievement of proposed performance objectives within the time designated.

· Effectively identify the required OES deliverables. Proposals shall demonstrate that the activities and milestones defined are reasonable metrics associated with the OES strategy (i.e., interim and final performance goals).

· Demonstrate logical incorporation of Government and Regulatory review periods for deliverables.

(c) The Offeror's proposal shall include a sound and realistic activity Milestone Payment Schedule (without price information) that demonstrates correlation with the IMS and Technical Approach and include milestones defined at the appropriate level and logically sequenced, considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the performance objective.

Subfactor 1.2 - Risk Mitigation Approach:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates logical and reasonable elimination or mitigation strategies and/or contingencies for addressing the identified risks associated with the project and proposed technical approach, inclusive of potential system failures, (e.g., Plan B).

(a) At a minimum, the Offeror’s proposal shall:

· Effective identification of the significant risk factors associated with obtaining the performance objectives using the proposed technical approach.

· Demonstrate an appropriate risk mitigation approach.

· Demonstrate logical and reasonable contingency plans (alternate technical approach/i.e. Plan B) to ensure achievement of the proposed performance objectives. The proposal shall include the decision logic and timing for implementation of the contingency plan if the proposed approach proves incapable of meeting the proposed performance objectives within the required timeframes.

Subfactor 1.3 - Management Approach:

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes a comprehensive Management Plan and Key Personnel Qualifications. The Management Plan shall include a qualified field and management team, including key personnel with relevant experience to efficiently and effectively achieve the proposed site-specific performance objectives and milestones as scheduled, manage the requirements, and ensure quality services and deliverables.

(a) The Offeror’s Management Plan shall include:

· Clear identification of roles and responsibilities for key personnel, subcontractors; and other relevant team members and provide an organizational chart. Key personnel shall include: Program Manager, Program Chemist; Program QA/QC, Program Health and Safety Manager.

· A demonstration of efficient management of the work in order to meet the requirements of the SOO (for example, Natural/Cultural Resources, UXO Support, Remediation Systems, etc.).

· A demonstration of an efficient approach for managing multiple and concurrent events.

· A demonstration of procedures/processes to ensure high-quality services and submission of deliverables. The procedures/processes shall include change management, team integration/coordination, minimize data errors, review process (project reviewing, editing for content); high-level review process to vet decisions on projects (schedule, cost, technical aspects).

· A demonstration of effective communication between stakeholders (Air Force, Contractor, Regulators and Community).

· A demonstration of efficient and effective management of team members and subcontractors.

(b) At a minimum, the Offeror’s Key Personnel Qualifications shall include:

· Provision of key personnel demonstrating applicable qualifications required in Attachment 4 to include:

· A Program Manager - meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective and efficient management and implementation of the PBR efforts as outlined in the SOO.

· A Program Chemist, meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability to provide effective interpretation of data and data reviews and quality checks as outlined in the SOO.

· Program QA/QC, meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of an environmental restoration program

· Program Health and Safety Manager meeting the required Key Personnel Qualifications (Attachment 4) that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of the health and safety systems for the contractor, including oversight, review, reporting, training, and control of employee health and safety processes.

Subfactor 1.4 - Corporate Experience (same projects as Past Performance):

This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates recent and relevant team experience in accordance with the scope presented in the SOO as represented by the submitted projects. Projects are deemed recent if a project has not concluded more than five (5) years prior to the date of the solicitation. Relevant projects are environmental restoration efforts that have a minimum awarded value of $5M, an initial period of performance of at least two years, and involve more than 10 sites containing various types of contaminants and media.

Positive consideration will be given to projects that include the following:

· Award value equal to or greater than $25M;

· An initial period of performance equal to or greater than five years;

· 50 or more sites;

· PBR efforts focused on progressing sites beyond the current state;

· Achievement of multiple SCs;

· Experience in the regulatory environment prevalent to the State of California and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board; and/or

· Innovative treatments of dissolved solvent plumes.

Subfactor 1.5 - Small Business Participation:

This Subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates the following:

Applicability for Large Businesses:

If a subcontracting plan is required by FAR 19.7, this subfactor is met when the subcontracting plan and narrative demonstrate a valid corporate commitment between all parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for all small business, small disadvantaged business (SDB), women-owned small business, HUBZone small business, veteran-owned small business concerns, and service disabled veteran-owned small businesses.

(a) At a minimum, provide a narrative demonstrating, as a minimum, the prime's corporate commitment the following subcontracting goals:

Small Business - 21% of total obligated dollars Small Disadvantaged Business - 5% of total subcontracted dollars

(b) The plan and narrative must provide a clear description of how the Offeror intends to provide maximum practicable opportunity with the following Small Disadvantaged Business sub-sets:

HUBZone Small Business Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business Veteran Owned Small Business

(1) The Offeror must demonstrate adherence to target expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total anticipated obligated dollars for Small Business.

(2) The Offeror must demonstrate maximum practicable targets expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total proposed subcontracting dollars for all other categories above.

(3) The Offeror must demonstrate adherence to target for the SDB Participation Program expressed in dollars and percentages of anticipated total contract value for the authorized NAICS Industry Subsectors with respect to SDB participation in accordance with FAR 19.12.

(4) Percentages will be based on the total contract dollar amount as proposed by the offeror.

(c) Provide a subcontracting plan with the required goals in accordance with FAR Part 19.704.

(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 Subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted 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 RATINGS

c. Past Performance Factor (FACTOR 2) 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 in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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 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 and Price Factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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 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 five (5) 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 services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and /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 subfactors and /Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Positive consideration will be given to projects that include the following:

· Awarded value equal to or greater than $25M;

· An initial period of performance equal to or greater than five (5) years;

· 50 or more sites;

· PBR efforts focused on progressing sites beyond the current state;

· Demonstration of achievement of multiple SCs;

· Demonstration of experience in the regulatory environment prevalent to the State of California and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board; and/or

· Demonstration of innovative treatments of dissolved solvent plumes.

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 questionnaires (PPQs) 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 recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. 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 FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. Included in this assessment will be a determination of how well large business offerors met their small business goals as evidenced by prior SF294s, Subcontracting Reports for Individual Contracts. This is not required for Small Business Offerors.

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:

Do not rate on a plus (+) or minus (-) scale. Please use only the ratings provided above, without variation

(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 and /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.

e. Price Factor (Factor 3)

(1) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP) for completeness and reasonableness. The TEP consists of all of the offeror's proposed Sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised. A proposal is complete when all price data, as outlined in the RFP has been submitted in the proper format (Attachment L-2). A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may also reject any proposal evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably 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.

(2) Performance milestones shall be achievable, measurable, and demonstrate progress towards achieving the proposed site-specific objectives. Performance milestone payments shall be appropriate and align with the Technical Approach and the IMS. The Government will evaluate milestones to ensure that they are NOT front loaded without supporting rationale and to ensure sufficient incentive remains to complete milestones and achieve objectives at the end of task order performance.

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

(4) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Examples of such techniques include, but are not limited to the following:

(a) Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (see 15.403-1(c)(1)).

(b) Comparison of proposed prices to historical prices paid, whether by the Government or other than the Government, for the same or similar items. This method may be used for commercial items including those “of a type” or requiring minor modifications.

(i) The prior price must be a valid basis for comparison. If there has been a significant time lapse between the last acquisition and the present one, if the terms and conditions of the acquisition are significantly different, or if the reasonableness of the prior price is uncertain, then the prior price may not be a valid basis for comparison.

(ii) The prior price must be adjusted to account for materially differing terms and conditions, quantities and market and economic factors. For similar items, the contracting officer must also adjust the prior price to account for material differences between the similar item and the item being procured.

(iii) Expert technical advice should be obtained when analyzing similar items, or commercial items that are “of a type” or requiring minor modifications, to ascertain the magnitude of changes required and to assist in pricing the required changes.

(c) Use of parametric estimating methods/application of rough yardsticks (such as dollars per pound or per horsepower, or other units) to highlight significant inconsistencies that warrant additional pricing inquiry.

(d) Comparison with competitive published price lists, published market prices of commodities, similar indexes, and discount or rebate arrangements.

(e) Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

(f) Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar items.

(g) Analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the offeror.

The first two techniques at 15.404-1(b)(2) are the preferred techniques. However, if the contracting officer determines that information on competitive proposed prices or previous contract prices is not available or is insufficient to determine that the price is fair and reasonable, the contracting officer may use any of the remaining techniques as appropriate to the circumstances applicable to the acquisition.

f. 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.

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.