SECTION_M_4 May 10.pdf

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-I - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

I. NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SOLICITATION PROVISIONS

52.217-05 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

Applies to Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN(s) only.

M-II – SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

II. NOTICE: The following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated in full text:

OTHER SOLICITATION PROVISIONS IN FULL TEXT

M001 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.0 This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history 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 requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. All such offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. The long term work required of the ROSS II contractor is not fully known, as the site is open to outside customers that will be testing developmental systems and the circumstances and conditions of performance are not reliably foreseeable; requirements and priorities are likely to change during performance. As a result, it is difficult to provide specific details of the required services at the time of contract award and without further definition of requirements by the Government, a realistic cost estimate by offerors cannot be developed. Therefore, in order to provide a fair and level playing field for all offerors, the government is providing the estimated Full Time Equivalent (FTE) requirements and labor categories for the ROSS II program. The ONLY allowable deviations from the Government estimated man-years and provided skill mix are those necessary for compliance with the offeror’s disclosure statement/estimating system for charging direct and indirect labor. Offerors who deviate from the prescribed estimated man-years and provided skill mix must substantiate those deviations with sufficient detail to enable the evaluation team and DCAA auditors to corroborate the deviations with the offeror’s disclosure statement/estimating system. Any other proposed deviations from the Government’s estimated man-years and provided skill mix may render the offeror ineligible for award.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1.1 Initially offers shall be ranked according to their total evaluated price (TEP), including the option price. Offerors will be provided the labor categories, FTEs and a cost model. The cost evaluation will include cost realism, which is the consistency of the cost proposal with their cost accounting practices.

The offeror’s policies and procedures with regard to uncompensated overtime, compensation for professional employees and compensation plans will also be evaluated. The price evaluation will document (for the offers evaluated under paragraph 1.2 below) the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

SECTION M FA9300-09-R-0001

PAGE M - 1 of 6

1.2 If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award will be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers, subject to SSA approval.

1.3 If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the next lowest priced offeror will be evaluated and the process will continue (in order of price) until an offeror is judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment or until all offerors are evaluated. The Source Selection Authority shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

2.0 COST/PRICE

2.1 The proposed cost/price must be fair, reasonable and realistic. The total evaluated price will include the firm fixed-price (FFP) CLINs (transition and Visitor Information Center/Site Operations Control Center price), all cost CLINs, and all cost-plus-award-fee (CPAF) CLINs for the basic and option performance periods, including the FAR 52.217-08 Option to Extend Services clause. This evaluation will include:

proposed labor rates; direct and indirect rates; uncompensated overtime; evaluation of compensation for professional employees; compensation plans; and DCAA audit information.

2.2 Reasonableness

2.2.1 The proposal analysis techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) and 15.404- 1(c), as determined appropriate, will be performed to determine whether the proposal is fair and reasonable including, but not limited to, a comparison of the proposed cost/price with that of the Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE).

2.2.2 For source selection purposes, all FFP CLINs will be evaluated for price reasonableness as part of the overall evaluated price; however, they will not be adjusted since they are not subject to a price realism analysis.

2.3 Realism

2.3.1 For the CPAF services, the costs proposed will be evaluated through a cost realism analysis by calculating a probable cost (PC) (FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)) for the basic and option performance periods, in order to determine they are realistic. This evaluation will include an analysis for unbalanced pricing (FAR 15.404-1(g)), use of uncompensated overtime (FAR 37.115-2) and compensation for professional employees, i.e. total compensation plans (FAR 22.1103). The PC will be used for the purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The PC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of the contract that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. It will be determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed costs, including fee, to reflect any additions or reductions in labor rates and indirect cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements.

2.3.2 Unrealistically low prices or estimated labor rates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.3.3 The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed labor rates be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more labor rates is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

2.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

PAGE M - 2 of 6

2.4.1 The TEP will be calculated as the sum of offeror’s proposed prices for the base period and the option. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; the evaluation of an option shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option.

3.0 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply services in support of research and development that meet users’ needs based upon a demonstrated record of performance, including cost and schedule.

3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below. Performance confidence assessment ratings are assigned pursuant to paragraph 3.6.

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL 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 be able to 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.

3.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing services in support of research and development that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s current or recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment of the ROSS II requirement. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.3 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. Recent / current contracts are: (1) contracts which have been completed within the last 5 years from the date of

PAGE M - 3 of 6 issuance of this solicitation or (2) contracts that are currently being performed (with a performance record of at least one year from the date of issuance of this solicitation). Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all current or recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services in support of research and development performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment of the ROSS II requirement. The relevancy considerations in descending order of importance are as follows:

1. Scope 2. Magnitude/Complexity 3. Contract Type and 4. Contract Environment. For each current or recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment aspects (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 scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment when compared to the services described in this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major/critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) submitted by the offeror and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

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

3.4.1 Scope: Tasks/functions referenced in the ROSS II PWS (such as the capability to design, evaluate, construct, reconfigure and modify experimental research test facilities and systems; the capability to maintain special test equipment/facilities and support infrastructure; the capability to perform research and development test operations and test operations support; and the capability to perform comparable contract/program management).

3.4.2 Magnitude/Complexity: Size/scale of testing and build-up complexities (such as levels of thrust in both solid and liquid propellant test facility configurations and the quantity and type/speed of the data channels generated by such testing).

3.4.3 Contract Type: Category of contract type (such as a Cost Plus Award Fee, Cost Plus Incentive Fee, Time & Materials/Labor Hour or Cost Plus Fixed Fee).

3.4.4 Contract Environment: Location of contract performance (such as an Air Force installation, a DoD or NASA installation, or another Government or industry site).

3.4.5 The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing current or recent, and relevant contracts:

Degree Description HIGHLY RELEVANT (HR) Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment as the efforts that this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT (R) Past/present performance effort involved much of the same or very similar scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment as the efforts that this solicitation requires.

PAGE M - 4 of 6

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) Past/present performance effort involved some of the same or similar scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment as the efforts that this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the same or similar scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type, and contract environment as the efforts that this solicitation requires.

3.5 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of current or recent, relevant efforts. For each current or recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. 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. Pursuant to the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) requirements, the assessment will consider the Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted or Transferred (DART) rates when compared to the industry averages as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (according to the applicable contract NAICS code) with regard to the safety performance of previous contracts. 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.

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

Quality Assessment Rating Description EXCEPTIONAL (E) 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) 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) During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M) 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.

PAGE M - 5 of 6

PAGE M - 6 of 6

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

3.6 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the current or 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 scope, magnitude/complexity, contract type and contract environment of the ROSS II requirement, 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 relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no 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.

3.6.1 More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less 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.

3.0 Past Performance Factor