Attachment_9 _Section_M _Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

FSS

FA9101-14-R-0200

Attachment 9

SECTION M

AEDC-M001, Evaluation Factors for Award (NOVEMBER 2014)

M-1.0. Evaluation Criteria

M-1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a tradeoff of Past Performance versus Cost / Price source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

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 Acceptability, Past Performance, and Cost / Price. Tradeoffs will be made only between Past Performance and Cost / Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable. Past Performance is more important than Cost / Price.

M-1.2. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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 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 superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the cost / price 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 team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one contract for the Facility Support Services (FSS) effort.

M-1.4 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.

M-1.5 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP).

The Government will evaluate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP in accordance with FAR 52.245-9, Use and Charges, other than the list provided at Attachments 6 and 7.

M-1.6 Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in initial proposals and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Clarifications conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be necessary to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

M-1.7 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

M-2.0. Evaluation Factors

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals.

Factor 1: Cost / Price

Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor 1: Management Approach Subfactor 2: Transition Management Subfactor 3: Technical Operations and Compliance Subfactor 4: Mission-Essential Contractor Services

Factor 3: Past Performance

M-2.2. Evaluation Approach

M-2.2.1. Price Evaluation. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to total evaluated price, including any phase-in and option prices if applicable. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices, by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price.

M-2.2.1.1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices. Offerors whose TEP is unreasonable (in accordance with FAR

15.404 and FAR 31.201-3) or unbalanced (in accordance with FAR 15.404-1) may not be considered for award. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed Transition Period, base year, all option years, and the six-month extension period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend the Term of the Contract. The six-month extension of services prices will be based on the proposed Option Year III unit pricing. Fixed-price CLINS will be included in the TEP at the price proposed. Cost CLINS will be included in the TEP and will be assessed at the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ). The BEQ is the best estimated quantity of service hours per year and is utilized for evaluation purposes only.

M-2.2.1.2. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The six-month extension period is not to be considered part of Option Year III and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

M-2.2.1.3. 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-2.2.1.4. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-2.3. Technical Acceptability. Next, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the six lowest evaluated priced offerors on a pass / fail basis, assigning a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable as shown in Table 2 below. A rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the technical evaluation.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating

Description

Acceptable

Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of all technical subfactors.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not clearly meet one or more of the minimum requirements of all technical subfactors.

M-2.3.1. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

M-2.3.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management Approach

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed integrated approach to managing all the requirements identified in the FSS PWS in accordance with the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.3.1.1.1. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly describes an appropriate performance management approach to include the identification of key performance measures and objectives and the processes for taking those measurements and making organizational, operational and / or personnel changes necessary to maintain compliance of regulations.

M-2.3.1.1.2. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an effective plan for early identification and analysis, prevention / mitigation, and monitoring for potential performance deficiencies.

M-2.3.1.1.3. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal adequately describes planning, controlling, directing, and integrating their efforts in a manner sufficient for accomplishing the requirements identified in the PWS.

M-2.3.1.1.4. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound program management approach that thoroughly demonstrates how they will provide for personnel recruiting, training, certifying, and qualifying to ensure each employee has an appropriate security clearance and is appropriately experienced, trained, licensed, certified, and / or degreed before performing services on this contract and throughout the life of the contract, including the Operations Center and Command and Control (C2) Element functions.

M-2.3.1.1.5. This subfactor is met when the Offeror identifies relevant interfaces and describes an effective approach to managing those interfaces and collaborating with multiple contractor and Government entities to ensure AEDC operates as a single, cohesive entity.

M-2.3.1.1.6. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides a viable approach for teaming arrangements with subcontractors and / or joint venture partners to ensure all the requirements in the PWS are met without degradation of the AEDC mission.

M-2.3.1.1.7. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a comprehensive risk management plan that identifies and mitigates risks which may have the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M-2.3.1.1.8. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a total compensation plan that reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements as outlined the following clause, FAR 52.222.46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

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 to 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-2.3.1.2. Subfactor 2: Transition Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s transition plan and ability to be prepared to achieve full performance on the first day of contract operations without degrading performance of the AEDC mission in accordance with the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.3.1.2.1. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly describes an effective approach to actively managing the transition from the existing contract structure, workforce, and requirements to a multiple contract structure, the Offeror’s proposed workforce, and requirements in the FSS PWS.

M-2.3.1.2.2. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides an effective time-line schedule with sound rationale, which addresses the start and completion of each event (e.g., interviewing, hiring, human resource actions, training, and start work dates).

M-2.3.1.2.3. This subfactor is met the Offeror provides a viable plan on how the company will meet the eligibility requirements for a final Top Secret Facility Clearance Level (FCL) prior to 1 October 2015.

M-2.3.1.3. Subfactor 3: Technical Operations and Compliance

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to fulfil all the requirements described in the PWS, as described in the proposed Contractor Performance Work Statement (CPWS), while complying with all applicable regulatory guidance in each functional area in accordance with the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.3.1.3.1. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates an adequate understanding of all sections of the PWS.

M-2.3.1.3.2. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly describes how each of the requirements in the PWS will be accomplished as described in the proposed CPWS.

M-2.3.1.3.3. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal clearly describes how it will maintain compliance with all applicable regulatory guidance in each area as it completes the work described in the PWS.

M-2.3.1.3.4. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides a realistic process for determining position sensitivity requirements and procedures relating to suitability and fitness for employment, physical access to controlled facilities, and logical access to information.

M-2.3.1.4. Subfactor 4: Mission-Essential Contractor Services

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to performance of mission-essential contractor services in accordance with the Measures of Merit below.

M-2.3.1.4.1. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides an adequate understanding of the requirements with convincing rationale that their approach has little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance in accordance with PWS 3.15.13, Continuation of Essential DoD Contractor Services During Crisis.

M-2.3.1.4.2. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach ensures the Arnold AFB missions or responsibilities identified in the PWS 3.15.13 are operational, functional, and capable to support Arnold AFB necessities during crisis situations.

M-2.4. Performance Confidence Assessment. The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant past performance information based on (1) the past efforts provided by the Offeror and

(2) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. Past performance information will be obtained on the lowest priced Offerors (limited to no more than six). The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced Offerors if none of the lower priced Offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment (PCA).

M-2.4.1. 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 for at least one year or must have been completed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-2.4.2. Relevant Assessment. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving Facility Support Services as described in Section 3, Performance Requirements, of the PWS that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. 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 evaluation only, a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor, other than the Offeror itself, which will be responsible for one or more of the major Performance Requirement areas (PWS 3.1-3.15). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will only 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.

Performance of parent or sister companies that are not explicitly a prime, joint venture partner, or major sub for the FSS effort will not be considered. Past performance examples from Offerors submitted from previous joint ventures may not be considered as relevant as those where the Offeror was wholly responsible for the cited work. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

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-2.4.3. 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 as it relates to the Technical subfactors and Price Factor of this RFP (all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered) (see M-1.1, Basis for Contract Award). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

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-2.4.4. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence as defined in Table 5 below, (excerpted from DoD Source Selection Procedures). Past performance regarding predecessor companies, joint venture partners, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no recent / relevant performance history or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

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.

M-2.4.5. If the offer with the lowest total evaluated price is technically acceptable and is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance confidence assessment, that offer will represent the best value for the Government and the evaluation process will stop at that point. Award will be made to that Offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

M-2.4.6. The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced Offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. If the six lowest-priced offers are judged to have no better than "Satisfactory Confidence, then the SSA MAY continue evaluating the next lowest offers for Technical Acceptability and higher performance confidence assessment. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

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.