NM-Az-DraftSectionM(10_Jan_13).doc

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

IMPORTANT NOTE: The various contract preparation software applications used in the Air Force (ConWrite, ACPS, or SPS) produce contract instruments (including Section M) which differ somewhat in appearance. This template follows the ConWrite program. If you are using a contract preparation application, the software will organize and format your Section M (Subsections M-I and M-II in this template). The bulk of your effort will be in tailoring and completing provisions M001, Source Selection, and M002, Evaluation Factors. These two Administrative and One-Time Use Provisions in Full Text under Subsection M-II of this template tell your offerors how you plan to evaluate their offers and make a source selection.

M-I - Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

(See your Acquisition Center of Excellence or Contract Policy/Clearance office for current guidance on required/recommended provisions.)

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

M-II – Solicitation Provisions in Full Text

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

(See your Acquisition Center of Excellence or Contract Policy/Clearance office for current guidance on required/recommended provisions.)A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

(add applicable provisions in full text)C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

(add applicable provisions in full text)D. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

(add applicable provisions in full text)

(Includes the key provision(s) telling the offerors how the overall source selection decision will be made.)

(If you need to add further description concerning "Evaluation Factors for Award" not covered in this template, see your Acquisition Center of Excellence or Contract Policy/Clearance office specialist for assistance in drafting provisions to suit your specific situation.)

Clearly state in this part of Section M all factors and subfactors and their relative importance as well as the general approach for evaluating these factors and subfactors.

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 Cost/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/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

(If, after conducting a rigorous acquisition strategy with the program office & industry, there still may be a concern with executing an award, you may want to consider adding this statement at the end of the sentence: “…however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.” Use this additional statement “sparingly”.)The Government intends to award one (1) (insert number) contract for the New Mexico Arizona Performance-Based Remediation (PBR) (insert program name) 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 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 may be eliminated from the competitive range.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

(List factors and subfactors and state their order of importance. Tailor the evaluation factors and subfactors and their order of importance to your acquisition. The important thing to do is specify order of importance down to the last level of indenture. The relative order of importance of the factors should also address whether Technical and Past Performance are individually more important than Cost/Price as well as how they relate to Cost/Price when combined, as required by FAR 15.304(d) and (e).)

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: Technical Approach

Subfactor 2: Plan B/Contingency Approach Subfactor 3: Management Approach

Subfactor 4: Corporate Experience (same projects as Past Performance)

Factor 2: Past Performance (same projects as Corporate Experience)

Factor 3: Price

(The subfactors listed above and in the next section, as well as the relative importance of the factors and subfactors, are for illustrative purposes only.)

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, subfactors 1 & 2 (Technical Approach and Plan B/Contingency Approach) are the most important and are of equal importance and subfactors 3 & 4 (Management Approach and Corporate Experience) will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

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

(The following paragraphs (b. Technical Factor) describe each of the evaluation factors. Tailor these to meet the requirements of your solicitation, including reordering the paragraphs to reflect the relative order of importance of the factors.)

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 for subfactors 1 and 2. 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 in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1A – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. (modify if any Technical subfactor will be evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable”basis.) 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 subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 1A - TECHNICAL RATINGS (Subfactors 1 and 2 only)

2) Technical Rating for subfactors 3 and 4. Subfactors 3 and 4 will receive one of the ratings described below. The following technical acceptability rating definitions will be used in the assessment of Technical Acceptability:

TABLE 1B - TECHNICAL RATINGS (Subfactors 3 and 4 only)

Subfactor 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.

· For SOO Table 1 sites, effectively demonstrate an optimal approach to achieve SC or move as close to SC as possible during the POP, 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).

· Demonstrate sound Optimized Exit Strategies (OES) and include anticipated structure and elements of the OES (i.e., technologies expected to be implemented) as outlined in Section 1.0 of the SOO. The success of the OES shall be measurable using objective metrics and transparent decision logic. The OES shall demonstrate a logical and realistic performance model for all sites that have an approved decision document prior to, or during, the POP, indicating how concentrations and/or mass will be reduced over time. Positive consideration will be given to offerors that provide an explanation with their performance model of what estimated data results will look like (quantitatively) through the PoP, by year.

· 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.

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

· 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 $113,171,853.00.

(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 performance model.

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

The offeror's proposal shall also include a sound and realistic activity Milestone Payment Schedule (without price information):

· The MPS shall Demonstrate correlation with the IMS and Technical Approach and include definable and measurable milestones at the appropriate level and logically sequenced, considered integral and necessary to the achievement of the performance objective.

Subfactor 2: Plan B/Contingency 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 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: Senior Project Manager, Program Chemist, Program QA/QC Manager, Program Health and Safety Manager, and UXO Specialist.

· A demonstration of effective and efficient management of the work in order to meet the requirements of the SOO (for example, Remediation Systems, etc.).

· A demonstration of an efficient and effective 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 demonstrate 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) The offeror’s Key Personnel Qualifications shall include:

· Provision of key personnel demonstrating applicable qualifications required in Section L, attachment L-1 to include,

· Senior Project Manager - meeting the required labor category qualifications in Section L, attachment L-1 with relevant experience and ability to provide effective and efficient management and implementation of the PBR efforts as outlined in the SOO.

· Program Chemist, meeting the required labor category qualifications in Section L, attachment L-1 with relevant experience and ability to provide effective interpretation of data, data reviews and quality checks as outlined in the SOO.

· Program QA/QC Manager, meeting the required labor category qualifications in Section L, attachment L-1 that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of an environmental restoration program.

· Program Health and Safety Manager meeting the required labor category qualifications in Section L, attachment L-1 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.

· UXO Specialist, meeting the required labor category qualifications in Section L, attachment L-1 that has relevant experience and ability in development, maintenance, and implementation of an environmental restoration program.

· Provide percent % availability of Senior Project Manager and demonstrate at least 50% availability throughout the entirety of the performance period.

Subfactor 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 means of a nature similar to the efforts addressed under this solicitation in terms of scope and technical and regulatory complexity in accordance with the requirements outlined in the SOO.

(a) The team shall demonstrate the following:

· Evidence that members of the team have experience with performance based remediation efforts (prime and subcontractors).

· Evidence of technical knowledge and methods, combined with effective negotiation approaches with regulatory agencies, which resulted in SC under an environmental performance based remediation project.

· Evidence of successfully incorporating mitigation and contingency plans under an environmental performance based remediation project.

3. 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 (generally, tailor as applicable) taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. (Consider whether this next sentence is appropriate for your acquisition.) 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.

(a) 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) (insert appropriate number) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(b) 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). Consideration will be given to projects that include large-scale PBR efforts focused on progressing sites beyond the current state; achievement of SC; experience in the regulatory environment prevalent to the States of New Mexico & Arizona; and innovative demonstration of treatments of large-scale dissolved solvent plumes. (insert appropriate criteria, (For example, relevancy criteria might include the technologies, functions, domain expertise, software development and integration experience, contract/subcontract management, and scope of effort. These criteria should relate to the Technical subfactors.) 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 recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

(c) 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. 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:

(Include the quality ratings your team decides to use. An example of quality ratings is shown below.)

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.

D. Price Factor (Factor 3)

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. The bottom line price consists of all of the offeror's proposed sub-CLINs, regardless of year in which they may be exercised.

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. In order to determine price reasonableness, offerors' price proposals may be compared to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), the average total evaluated price amongst offerors, or the Government may compare the offeror’s price proposal to a validation estimate prepared by the Government based on the offeror’s technical approach.

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

3) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

4) The Government may perform a price realism analysis. 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.

When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical risk rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor.

5) 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. In order to determine price reasonableness, offerors' price proposals may be compared to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE), the average total evaluated price amongst offerors, or the Government may compare the offeror’s price proposal to a validation estimate prepared by the Government based on the offeror’s technical approach.

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness, but will not be rated or scored as part of the technical evaluation. Price will be used as a trade-off for the other factors.

E. Discussions (This subparagraph explains to offerors that the Government will evaluate all their information if discussions are held.)

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.

(Note: For information on how to request a PAS, the forms, and how the survey is made and reported, refer to FAR Part 9 and its supplements.)

(Members from the technical and contracting teams may conduct reviews (e.g., on-site Software Capability Evaluation) and/or plant visits to assist in determining the contractor’s capability to perform the proposed effort. If you plan to conduct a review or plant visit(s), use language such as the following provision.)

(The following language places the offeror on notice that the awardee will be bound to meet all terms and conditions of the resulting contract (not just the evaluation factors).)

M003 (specify provision number) 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.