Attachment_10_-_Section_M.pdf

TOS

FA9101-13-R-0100

Attachment 10

SECTION M

AEDC-M001, Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1.0. Evaluation Criteria

M-1.1. 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, Past Performance, and Cost / Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, 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.

M-1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Test Operations and Sustainment (TOS)Program.

M-1.3. Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP) The Government will evaluate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) and make adjustment to Most Probable Cost in accordance with FAR 45.2 other than the list provided at Attachment 11.

M-1.4. Discussions

As recommended by para 3.4.1. of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, discussions will be conducted in order to maximize the Government’s ability to obtain best value. 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M-2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M-2.1.1. 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 Operations Subfactor 2: Management Approach Subfactor 3: Qualified Personnel Subfactor 4: Innovations and Efficiencies

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost / Price

M-2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance taken together are significantly more important than Cost / Price; however, Cost / Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. Within the Technical Factor, all of the subfactors are of equal 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.

M-2.2. Technical Factor

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.

M-2.2.1. Technical Rating. 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 2 –

Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. 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 threshold requirements. 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.

M-2.2.2. 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. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

M-2.2.3. Subfactor 1: Technical Operations

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to fulfil the requirements of Attachment 8, Performance Work Statement (PWS), as described in the proposed Contractor Performance Work Statement (CPWS) in accordance with the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.2.3.1. Operation of Test and Test Support Assets

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror describes an approach to safely, efficiently, and effectively conduct operations of test and test support assets and ensure delivery of test and system operational data IAW PWS paragraph 3.3.

M-2.2.3.2. Integrated Scheduling

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror describes an approach to develop and execute a deconflicted integrated scheduling process IAW PWS paragraph 3.4.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

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.

M-2.2.3.3. Lifecycle Sustainment

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror describes a safe, effective, and efficient lifecycle sustainment program for test and test support assets which balances performance, cost, and risk IAW PWS paragraph 3.5, 3.6, and 3.13. The Offeror must also demonstrate a clear understanding of software lifecycle management, including configuration management and development principles required during development, test, and production.

M-2.2.3.4. Capital Improvements

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of the system engineering processes for delivering capital improvement projects IAW PWS paragraph 3.8.

M-2.2.4. Subfactor 2: Management Approach

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to implement an effective and efficient management approach that incorporates risk management into all aspects of the approach.

M-2.2.4.1. Performance Measurement a clear understanding of the use of objective metrics in performance measurement IAW PWS paragraph 3.25.

M-2.2.4.2. Interface Management

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror identifies relevant interfaces and describes an effective approach to managing interfaces and collaborating with multiple contractor and Government entities to ensure AEDC operates as a single, cohesive entity IAW PWS paragraph 3.18.

M-2.2.4.3. Workload Management a viable approach for accommodating significant workload increases or decreases IAW PWS paragraph 3.19.2.

M-2.2.4.4. Transition / Phase-In Management an effective and efficient approach to transition / phase-in to ensure full continuity of test and mission support by performance start date of this contract.

M-2.2.4.5. Subcontracting Management

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when an acceptable subcontracting plan is provided which demonstrates the extent to which the Offeror identifies and commits to the participation of small businesses and historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions in performance of the contract whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

M-2.2.4.6. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) a thorough understanding of the OCI issues and risks outlined in FAR Part 9.5 and Special Contract Requirement Clause H-115, Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

M-2.2.5. Subfactor 3: Qualified Personnel

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to provide key personnel with the experience and capabilities to understand, lead, manage, and execute the Government’s requirements identified in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and PWS.

M-2.2.5.1. Key Personnel

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror identifies key positions, qualifications, and rationale necessary to understand, lead, manage, and execute the effort. In addition, identified qualifications for each key position will be evaluated for effectiveness. The approach to utilize key positions, proposed usage, and contingency plans for replacement of key personnel will be evaluated for effectiveness and risk management. Resumes and letters of commitment provided for the top two critical key personnel will be reviewed to consider in the assessment of proposal risk in this area.

M-2.2.5.2. Staffing Plan

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror presents an effective plan for ensuring the workforce is provided to meet the PWS requirements over the life of the contract. The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposed staffing, recruitment, retention, and training plan. Consideration will be given to the adequacy, efficiency, and completeness of the information provided.

M-2.2.6. Subfactor 4: Innovations and Efficiencies

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed innovations and efficiencies.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes sound innovations and efficiencies with measurable savings over the FY16 workload and Government estimate (Attachment L-8, Workload Resource Guide) and / or qualitative improvements over the Government-provided PWS (Attachment 8). NOTE: The Government will not consider Offeror's proposals that incorporate any cross-utilization of resources from any of the other AEDC contracts in the evaluation of this subfactor.

M-2.3. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment that establishes the Government's confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M-2.3.1. 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.

M-2.3.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services that meet the

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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 Cost / Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M-2.1.2. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals. 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, Fee Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

M-2.3.2.1. 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 four years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-2.3.2.2. 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 Cost / Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference M-2.1.2). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost / Price factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to efforts which are considered to be of the type and similar in contract scope, magnitude, and complexity when compared to the services described in this solicitation.

The following past performance relevancy criteria will be used during the evaluation:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope includes those technical subfactors identified in M-2.2 and those tasks / functions referenced in the TOS PWS, such as, but not limited to, the capability to perform research and development test operations support; operations and maintenance, design, evaluation, construction, reconfiguring and modification of test and evaluation facilities and systems; the capability to maintain special test equipment / facilities and support infrastructure;

and the capability to perform comparable contract / program management.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the TOS PWS. Efforts of less than $20M annually or $100M total contract scope will not be considered relevant.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the tasks / functions referenced in the TOS PWS in terms of the unique and highly technical nature of operations and maintenance, geographic locations supported, service similarity, aging infrastructure, contract type, and performance period.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major subcontractor(s).

For purposes of proposal only, a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor, other than the Offeror itself, that will perform 10 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost. 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 Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The relevancy matrix and data obtained from other sources (see Attachment L-6) will be used to establish the relevance of present and past efforts. 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 degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 below):

TABLE 4. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M-2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost / 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 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 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 may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E) / BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG) / PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S) / GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) / YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U) /

RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) /

WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

M-2.3.3. 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 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 more 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.

M-2.4. Cost or Price Factor

M-2.4.1. The Offeror’s Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated by the Most Probable Cost (MPC) computed by the Government for the basic requirements (basic award), option periods, and award terms. The Offeror’s proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. MPC shall be the Government’s estimate of anticipated performance costs plus any fee anticipated to be awarded.

M-2.4.2. Evaluation of options and award terms shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options or award terms.

M-2.4.3. Reasonableness: The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M-2.4.4. Realism: This evaluation will include the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements and reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Most Probable Cost will be computed by the Government as described in M-2.4.1 during realism assessment.

M-2.4.5. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-2.4.6. FAR 52.222-46 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993).

(a) Recompetition of service contracts may in some cases result in lowering the compensation (salaries and fringe benefits) paid or furnished professional employees. This lowering can be detrimental in obtaining the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance. It is therefore in the Government’s best interest that professional employees, as defined in 29 CFR 541, be properly and fairly compensated. As part of their proposals, offerors will submit a total compensation plan setting forth salaries and fringe benefits proposed for the professional employees who will work under the contract. The Government will evaluate the plan to assure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Supporting information will include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure.

(b) The compensation levels proposed should reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. The salary rates or ranges must take into account differences in skills, the complexity of various disciplines, and professional job difficulty. Additionally, proposals envisioning compensation levels lower than those of predecessor contractors for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

(c) The Government is concerned with the quality and stability of the work force to be employed on this contract. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements.

(d) Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

M-3.0. REVIEWS AND VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices / processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors / subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror's written proposal.

M-4.0. 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.