Final Section M DRAFT 15 Apr 10.pdf

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M FA9201-10-R-0001

PAGE M - 1

1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value Performance-Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection conducted in which competing offeror‟s past performance will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation‟s requirements (to include all stated terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluations factors and subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

1.1.1. The Government reserves the right to award contracts 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. The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision with a possible trade-off between performance confidence and cost/price.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a minimum of three contracts for the Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence (C4I) and Munitions Test Improvement Contract III (CIMTIC III) but reserves the right to award more than three, less than three, or make no award at all.

1.3. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence, failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program, or failure to respond to Section L direction and guidance. Additionally, a proposal may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance in prices poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.4. Correction Potential of Proposals

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror‟s 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.

PAGE M - 2

Communication 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.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiency or proposal inadequacy. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror‟s proposal not meeting Government requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, if applicable.

- The Government may reject any or all proposals if such action is in the Government‟s interest after making the evaluation of correction potential.

- The Government may evaluate proposals and award a contract without entering into discussions. Therefore, the offeror‟s initial proposal should contain the offeror‟s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint.

1.5. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

2.0. EVALUATION PROCESS FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability Factor Subfactor TA -1: Staffing/Qualifications/Experience Subfactor TA -2: SOW Capabilities Subfactor TA -3: Delivery Order Process Subfactor TA -4: Sample Delivery Order Subfactor TA –5: OCI Mitigation Plan

Factor 2 – Performance Confidence Assessment

Factor 3 - Cost/Price Factor

3.0. FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY FACTOR

3.1. Technical Acceptability, Initially, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

3.2. Subfactor TA-1: Staffing/Qualifications/Experience

PAGE M - 3

The Government will evaluate proposed key technical and management personnel, qualifications, experience, staffing, and team members, per the following criteria:

1. The contractor's proposal shall identify the qualifications and experience of the program manager and key technical and management personnel, to include teaming contractors and critical subcontractors.

2. The proposal shall demonstrate the offeror‟s ability to plan, design and engineer across a broad spectrum of T&E related disciplines within the scope of the SOW.

3. Proposals shall demonstrate the offeror has the familiarity and understanding to apply sound engineering principles and standard T&E practices as appropriate to support the AAC mission.

4. The proposal shall demonstrate sufficient engineering level expertise to perform or provide a detailed engineering analysis as well as the ability to design and develop any hardware and software required to integrate into existing T&E systems.

5. Proposals shall demonstrate ability to provide relevant T&E support and a comprehensive approach to provide the expertise indicated in the general T&E related engineering technical areas identified in the SOW.

6. The offeror shall address his proposed management organization, how the program would fit into the organizational structure of the offeror's profit center, and the reporting chain of the program manager and delivery order manager within the structure (e.g., to whom the program manager reports and the level of that official within the structure).

7. The proposal shall describe any formal agreements between team members that define specific responsibility areas. The proposal shall describe the functional relationships among internal engineering, development, and production/manufacturing entities as well as associated elements needed to successfully accomplish delivery orders.

8. The proposal shall address whether or not the CIMTIC III program manager will be assigned to other projects during the course of contract performance and if so how potential conflict with CIMTIC III performance will be mitigated.

3.3. Subfactor TA-2: SOW Capabilities

The proposal will be evaluated to determine if it demonstrates a clear understanding of C4I and munitions T&E systems hardware engineering design and fabrication, and a comprehensive approach to meet the SOW hardware and software development requirements, per the following criteria:

1. The proposals shall demonstrate the ability to develop „state of the art‟ designs across the spectrum that meet new or special purpose USAF weapon/C4I test capabilities and that integrate with existing USAF test range GFP equipment.

PAGE M - 4

2. The proposal shall demonstrate a clear understanding and capability for design and development of various Eglin Range complexes (desired) and other T&E range equipment and facilities.

3. The offeror shall demonstrate a clear understanding of how to integrate/implement the system engineering process throughout the project lifecycle.

4. The proposal shall describe the prime contractor's process for subcontractor management, including program reporting, management and technical reviews, design approval process, configuration management, technical documentation, performance monitoring, and requirements flow down.

5. The proposal shall describe the contractors approach for obtaining additional capabilities, including unique or specialized capabilities, if current resources are not sufficient, and how potential subcontractors are evaluated prior to selecting them for a specific requirement.

3.4. Subfactor TA-3: Delivery Order Process

The Government will evaluate the offeror‟s proposed delivery order management, process and staffing per the following criteria:

1. The offeror shall describe his proposed delivery order management approach including his proposed delivery order process from RFP receipt, to proposal within 10-calendar days (required), followed by the delivery order execution process, and finally the process for delivery order close-out and processing of the final DD 250.

2. The offeror shall describe his proposed subcontractor management process and the proposed team's ability to manage multiple Delivery Orders, including how the offeror will receive, plan, coordinate, and control 5-25 delivery orders concurrently.

3. The proposal shall describe the structure, organization, and process for staffing to meet delivery order requirements, to include an explanation of the delivery order execution structure, i.e. matrixed versus dedicated IPT support, including rationale for the structure, organization, etc.

4. The requirement identification, verification, and validation process including traceability from initial requirements to government acceptance shall be described.

5. The risk management process/approach to be used to proactively identify and manage areas of system performance risks for delivery orders shall be described, as well as risk abatement measures to be applied and how they will be accomplished.

6. The offeror shall describe his corporate commitment and methodology to manage immediate tasking, and respond to changing delivery order requirements, including availability of resources to meet changing capacity requirements. Availability/capacity of facilities proposed to satisfy requirements of the SOW shall be described.

PAGE M - 5

7. The offeror's proposal shall also demonstrate a detailed reporting process for ensuring all contractually required documentation are high-quality deliverables and can be provided in a timely manner.

3.5. Subfactor TA-4: Sample Delivery Order

In evaluation of Sample Delivery Order proposals, the Government will evaluate the offeror's understanding of the requirement, technical approach, schedule/labor realism, past performance and overall cost/price reasonableness per the following criteria:

1. The offeror's proposal shall provide a technically and fiscally sound response to the actual delivery order requests for Proposal within 10 calendar days (required), describing his technical approach and solution.

2. The proposal shall describe perceived technical risk, teaming arrangements/subcontractor involvement, and data delivery process. The proposal shall describe the labor mix, labor hours, materials, and travel required to complete the delivery order.

3. Actual delivery order responses shall interpret task objectives, identify key technical issues, adhere to sound engineering practices, and provide an effective solution to the problems described in each actual delivery order.

4. The proposal shall describe a reasonable approach to provide facilities for fabricating and assembling hardware, including description of capability to accomplish fabrication requirements for simultaneous multiple delivery orders.

3.6. Subfactor TA-5: Organizational Conflict of Interest Plan In evaluation of the Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan, the Government will evaluate how your OCI plan intends to resolve any organizational conflict of interest issues that might occur during the life of the contract. Your OCI Mitigation Plan must address all paragraphs of clause AFMC FAR SUP 5352.209-9002, Organizational Conflict of Interest.”

The following Government perspective should be considered in your assessment of, and approach to, potential OCI:

(a) This acquisition is predominantly for delivery of hardware and software to the Government.

(b) It is a significant objective of this acquisition to promote industry confidence that Government test results are untainted by potential OCI in the development and delivery of test hardware and software.

(c) In evaluating proposals, the Government will consider the degree of which each proposal avoids potential conflicts, which could reasonably undermine the confidence described in b. above.

PAGE M - 6

(d) Further, the Government intends to ensure that the performance of the

CIMTIC III requirements is not assessed with the support of CIMTIC III contractor related organizations.

4.0. FACTOR 2 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT FACTOR

4.1. Performance Confidence Assessment

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror‟s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror‟s demonstrated present and past performance. The Government will assess confidence in the offeror‟s ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors‟ or teaming partners‟ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror‟s demonstrated present and past work record.

4.2. Definitions

A critical subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose capabilities are utilized by the prime contractor for the purposes of completing the SOW. For purposes of this RFP, the definition of critical subcontractor also includes subordinate organizations of the common parent corporation, subsidiaries and affiliates as that term is defined at

FAR 9.403.

4.3. Recency

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 three (3)years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.4. Relevancy

In determining relevancy, consideration will be given to the type of effort (e.g.,delivery ordering contracts, manpower support, advisory and assistance services), the level of complexity (e.g., weapon system, information system, engineering services, test support and range/air base support systems), and the scope (e.g., acquisition project specialist, finance, information technology, and logistics management). Consideration will also be given to the level or amount of effort. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts/delivery orders that are most similar to the current acquisition requirements and will have a greater impact on the offeror‟s overall performance confidence assessment rating. The Government is not bound by the offeror‟s opinion of relevancy.

PAGE M - 7

4.4.1. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing relevant contracts:

TABLE 1 – RELEVANCY FACTORS

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities than this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.4.2. Using questionnaires, the contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources.

4.5. PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

4.5.1. Assigning Ratings

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 MP5315.3, Table 2. Past Performance regarding predecessor companies, that have relevant experience, or sub-contractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated using the same process as past performance information for the principal offeror. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror‟s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Unknown Confidence,” meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

PAGE M - 8

TABLE 2 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror‟s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror‟s performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the offeror‟s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror‟s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.5.2. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this RFP.

4.5.3. Offerors without a record of relavant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” assessment for the Past Performance factor. Absence of relevant past performance is not, however, assured equal value to relevant past performance.

4.5.4. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence assessment and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

PAGE M - 9

4.5.5. Where relevant performance records indicate performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

4.5.6. The Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) will consider the offeror‟s past performance is aggregate, including subcontractors, joint ventures, and teaming partners.

5.0. Factor III - Cost/Price Factor

The Government shall rank all Technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by cost/price. Cost/price, while contributing substantially to the selection decision, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation. The offeror‟s cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored; but will be evaluated for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing of the proposed contract cost. The cost/price will be reviewed and evaluated for the entire five-year ordering period. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and any other resources available to the Government. As stated in Section L, para 7.5, Firm Fixed Price labor rates will be evaluated for the entire five year ordering period. In the event the Government requires continued performance beyond the last ordering period, the rates proposed and evaluated in the last ordering period will apply to any extended performance.

5.1. Evaluation

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 and balanced. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated as described in paragraph 5.4 below. Offerors shall not deviate from the pricing arrangement (e.g. contract type, duration, etc.)

specified in the RFP.

file:///C:/Users/hendrix/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15404

PAGE M - 10

5.2. Reasonableness

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.

5.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government shall analyze all proposals to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced labor rates. Labor rates submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists within each offeror‟s proposal. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will develop and utilize an overall TEP. The offeror‟s TEP will consist of totaling the firm-fixed labor price from the basic and each ordering period. The offeror‟s total labor price will be determined by multiplying the government-estimated hours for every labor category and skill level by the proposed Firm-Fixed-Price Labor Rate for the entire five year ordering period. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed TEP.

5.5. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) Rates

All firm-fixed priced labor rates (Section J, Attachment #6) provided for the entire ordering period will be evaluated for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. Offerors must provide and complete a pricing spreadsheet in the format provided entitled Firm- Fixed-Price Labor Rates for the basic and all subsequent years, Attachment 6. A rate must be proposed for all labor categories and skill levels, a “no bid” or omitted rate may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

5.6. Financial Capability

The Financial Capability review will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis, based on data received from DCAA/DCMA. Offeror‟s must have the financial resources to perform as specified in the contract.

6.0. Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

file:///C:/Users/hendrix/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15404 file:///C:/Users/hendrix/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/far/FAR31.doc%23b312013

PAGE M - 11

7.0. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offeror's 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, subfactors (and elements, if used), to be eligible for award.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being removed from consideration for award. Any exceptions to the solicitation's terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified.