Attachment_9,_Section_M_FRFP.pdf

FSS II

FA9101-18-R-1000

Attachment 9

SECTION M

AEDC-M001, Evaluation Factors for Award (NOVEMBER 2018)

M-1.0. Evaluation Criteria

M-1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition is a tradeoff between Past Performance and

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 1 Apr 16, and Air Force Mandatory

Procedures 5315.3 dtd 3 Oct 17. 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) II 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 5, 6, and 7.

M-1.6 Discussions

The Government may award a contract without discussions. However, in accordance with

DFARS 215.306, Exchanges with Offerors after Receipt of Proposals, discussions should be conducted for all acquisitions with an estimated value of $100 million or more. Award without discussions on complex, large procurements is discouraged and seldom in the Government’s best interest. 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.

When discussions are held during the evaluation period, 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 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: Technical

Subfactor 1: Management Approach

Subfactor 2: Transition Management

Subfactor 3: Technical Operations and Compliance

Subfactor 4: Mission-Essential Contractor Services

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost / Price

M-2.2. Evaluation Approach

M-2.2.1. Initially, offers shall be ranked according to total proposed price, which is the sum of the base year, excluding the phase-in; all option periods, including the six-month extension; and phase-out. ONLY the five lowest proposed priced offerors will be considered for technical evaluation. 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 a total proposed price. The Contracting Officer will notify unsuccessful Offerors that they were not one of the five lowest proposed priced proposals. Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing. Offerors desiring a debriefing must make their request in accordance with the requirements of FAR 15.505 or

15.506, as applicable.

M-2.3. Technical Acceptability. Next, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the five lowest proposed 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, joint venture partners, and applicable subcontractors possess a Top Secret Facility Clearance (TS FCL) prior to submission of proposal.

M-2.3.1.1.2. This subfactor is met when the Offeror describes an effective approach to successfully manage and perform in a multi-contractor environment to ensure AEDC operates as a single, cohesive entity.

M-2.3.1.1.3. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes an effective resource management approach to perform the PWS requirements throughout the life of the contract.

M-2.3.1.1.4. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a viable approach to manage workload fluctuations to minimize operational impacts.

M-2.3.1.1.5. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an effective quality management system plan to ensure quality services are provided with the focus on meeting contract requirements throughout the life of the contract.

M-2.3.1.1.6. This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a comprehensive risk management plan that demonstrates an effective approach to the entire risk management process during the life of the contract.

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 interrupting or degrading performance of the AEDC mission in accordance with the Measure of Merit below.

This subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to seamlessly transition during phase-in and phase-out activities to ensure full continuity of support services.

M-2.3.1.3. Subfactor 3: Technical Operations and Compliance

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s approach to fulfill the requirements described in the PWS while complying with applicable laws, regulations, policy, and guidance 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 and approach to meet each of the functional areas of PWS section 3.0.

M-2.3.1.3.2. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s property management system plan overview demonstrates a sound approach that will conform with FAR 52.245-1(f).

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

Description: 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 3.12.8, Continuation of Essential DoD Contractor Services During Crisis.

M-2.3.1.4.2. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed plan ensures the Arnold AFB missions or responsibilities identified in the PWS 3.12.8 are operational, functional, and capable to support Arnold AFB necessities during crisis situations.

M-2.4. Past Performance Factor

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. Each Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence

Assessment at the Past Performance Factor Level. 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 five). 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 PWS section 3, Performance Requirements, that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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-2.3.1 and those tasks / functions referenced in the FSS II PWS, such as, but not limited to, Industrial

Security; Security Services; Command, Control, and Communications; Fire and Emergency

Services; Environmental; Safety; Occupational and Environmental Health; Base Supply; Cargo

Movement; and Vehicle Maintenance.

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 FSS II PWS. Efforts of less than

$1M annually or $3M 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 FSS II PWS in terms of the technical nature of the required support services, contract type, and performance period.

A relevancy rating will be assigned to the reference by evaluating Relevancy against the

Technical subfactors and Price Factor of the solicitation. 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

3.1-3.10). 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. The Government will not consider experience of subordinate or affiliated offices of the Offeror, unless the Offeror clearly details the proposed meaningful involvement of the Offeror’s subordinate or affiliated offices in this requirement. 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 and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed as it relates to the

Technical subfactors and Cost / 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 failed) 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. Ratings.

The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of

Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or

No 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 "Neutral

Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

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 a "Neutral 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-2.4.5. 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

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.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

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. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

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 five 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.

M- 2.5 Cost / Price Factor

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices. Cost / Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness,

(2) reasonableness, (3) price realism, (4) balanced pricing, and (5) total evaluated price. Offerors whose cost / price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.1.1. Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.5.1.2. Reasonableness: The offeror’s Cost / 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. 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.

2.5.1.3. Price realism: Firm-fixed price (FFP) contract line item numbers (CLINs) will be evaluated at the proposed price. A Price Realism analysis will be performed on the FFP proposed price using one or more of the techniques set forth in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2); however, the price will not be adjusted as a result of this analysis. This analysis will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101).

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 rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M-2.5.1.4. 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-2.5.1.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed base year, excluding phase-in; all option periods, including the six-month extension period; and phase-out. The six-month extension of services prices will be based on the proposed

Option Period VII unit pricing. Fixed-price CLINS will be included in the TEP at the price proposed. Phase-in and cost CLINS will not be included in the TEP.

M-2.5.1.6. 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 Period VII and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.