Atch_10-WS3_SLEP_Section_M-24Mar16.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a 100% small business set-aside best value source selection conducted in accordance with

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air

Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A contract shall be awarded to the responsible offeror who meets all solicitation requirements including compliance with Schedule B not to exceed (NTE) values, whose proposal is affordable and provides the best value based upon the results of the evaluation described below. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions and technical requirements. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

1.3 Best Value Assessment

The Government will evaluate all proposals for affordability. All proposals deemed affordable will be evaluated against the technical, past performance, and cost/price factors to determine which proposal provides the best value. The Government will perform a Trade-off evaluation for those proposals evaluated for technical, past performance, and cost/price. Technical is more important than past performance, which is more important than cost/price; however, cost/price will contribute substantially to the award decision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source

Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The

SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation.

1.4 Affordability Assessment

For each offeror, the Government shall calculate the total of the offeror’s proposed costs/prices as stated in Schedule B. This shall include the proposed costs/prices for all Firm Fixed Price

(FFP) and NTE values for Cost Reimbursement (CR) No Fee Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINS), inclusive of all options. To be evaluated as affordable, the offeror’s total must fall within the range from $33.0M through $38.0M, which is the Air Force budgetary estimate for this project. All proposals deemed affordable will be evaluated against the technical, past performance, and cost factors.

file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23s153 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract for the design and installation of the

Weapons Storage and Security System (WS3) Service Life Extension (SLEP).

M002 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

2.1 Offeror Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. 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.

2.2 Award Without Discussions

The Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offerors’ initial proposal should contain the offerors’ best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

2.3 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. 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 introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.4 Competitive Range

If the Government cannot award without discussions, the Contracting Officer intends to limit the number of offers in the competitive range to a maximum of the three most highly rated proposals for purposes of efficiency. However, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to include more than three proposals in the competitive range.

M003 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

3.1.1 Proposals deemed affordable will be evaluated under the following factors and technical subfactors which are listed in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Systems Engineering (Design)

Subfactor 1.2: Installation Plan

Subfactor 1.3: Life Cycle System Management

Subfactor 1.4: Management Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. However, cost is a substantial factor and must be affordable (no more than the Government’s range of $33M to $38M) in order for the offeror’s proposal to be considered responsive and awardable.

3.2 Technical Factor

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical

Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor. Proposals shall be rated at the technical subfactor level only; no roll-up rating will be assigned at the technical factor level.

3.2.1 Technical Rating

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical

Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

The technical rating reflects the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the

Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the technical subfactor requirements. Assessments that determine the technical rating will focus on the strengths and deficiencies of an offeror’s proposal.

The Government will assign strengths for aspects of an offeror’s proposal that have merit or exceed specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. Strengths identified by the Government will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

The Government will assign a deficiency for a material failure of a proposal to meet a

Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Note, throughout the technical subfactors evaluation, the Government reserves the right to assess strengths for aspects of an offeror’s technical design and systems approach that could enhance or improve schedule, system performance, reliability, maintainability, supportability, and overall reduce long-term system sustainment cost.

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304

3.2.1.1 Subfactor 1.1: Systems Engineering (Design)

The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach describing the design strategy that details a sound plan to ensure that WS3 SLEP meets SRD requirements in accordance with the SOW; and a description of the approach to satisfy the COMSEC requirements described SOW 3.2.1.1

3.2.1.1.1 Hardware Design Methodology

The requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to designing an interface to the existing system using a data translation function that will enable the WS3 system to communicate over a stand-alone Internet Protocol (IP) network and the thoroughness of their description to tradeoffs considerations when using legacy or new components in accordance with

SOW paragraphs 1.2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, and 2.3.

3.2.1.1.2 Software Design Methodology

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to integrating/designing AC&D software that uses a well-established process and metric; utilizing, and documenting non-proprietary, open architecture software; designing and modeling software architecture prior to development or modification; integrating the video management system with the software; and replacing the functionality within the existing Graphical User Interface

(GUI) MPADS v3.3.1 for the software in accordance with SOW paragraphs 1.2.1 and 2.1.1.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

3.2.1.1.3 Network Implementation Approach

The requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to designing a redundant cable infrastructure at the six WS3 sites that incorporates redundant and diverse paths to prevent any single act/event/failure from degrading operational capability including their understanding of the need to design and configure an effective and secure network architecture that also enables the rerouting of alarm, video and voice data should one of the diverse and redundant paths fail in accordance with SOW paragraphs 2.1.1.2, 2.1.1.4, and 2.1.2.

3.2.1.1.4 Key Management System Approach

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: approach to integrating a cryptographic key management system, including key management software, to a stand-alone network with the capability to remotely rekey HAIPEs, while maintaining a single software configuration across the WS3 installation sites and the First Article, including their understanding of the need to design and document the integration of the existing AF key receiving/distribution system for use in the SLEP system in accordance with SRD 3.2.1 and

Appendix C.

3.2.1.1.5 Test Methodology

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to their internal qualification and developmental testing approach to verify functionality of the integrated hardware and software SLEP system, to include production units of components designed specifically for WS3 (non-COTS) including an understanding of the need to verify the installed system at the First PAS, First Article site, all WS3 Sites and WS3 Schoolhouse and a validation that their testing approach satisfies the requirements in the SRD and SOW. Offers will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s approach to design and document a Software/System

Integration Lab (SIL) for use as a test bed to verify the system capabilities and their understanding of the level of documentation needed to support government sustainment of the

SIL. The offers will be assessed to confirm that the approach to design and documentation of a

Monitoring Facility Operator (MFO) Trainer for training and certifying new MFOs is sound and feasible, including options to provide remote updating of software in accordance with SOW

1.2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, and 2.2.1.

3.2.1.1.6 Design and First Article Installation/Test Schedule requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach and schedule to design the SLEP system, including the First Article Installation/Test schedule to achieve WS3

SLEP milestones and objectives and an understanding of the installation and testing of SLEP at the First PAS and the First Article at Ramstein AB, Germany in accordance with SOW 2.1.3.3 and 9.1.5.3.1.

3.2.1.1.7 Information Assurance (IA) Certification Plan

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to achieve Air

Force Information Assurance and approval from AFLCMC/HBU IBDSS Program Office, Cybersecurity Group, for the SLEP key management system in accordance with SOW 2.1.2.9.

3.2.1.2 Subfactor 1.2: Installation Plan

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to installing the SLEP at Ramstein AB, Germany and the WS3 Sites to meet the Government’s

SLEP schedule requirement, including their approach to achieve digging permits at each location and to keep the existing AC&D system fully or partially operational as long as possible at each of the six installation sites, while installing WS3 SLEP. Offers shall be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s installation approach fully describes an installation approach and schedule

(cable and AC&D) at each site, and provides a detailed discussion supporting their approach to minimizing the time between terminating operations of the legacy WS3 AC&D system and reaching full operational capability of the SLEP system in accordance with SOW 2.1.5.5, 2.2.1.5, 3.1.4.4, and 4.1.5.

The subfactor requirements are met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements for installing the SLEP system at Ramstein AB, Germany, first Article test site, and the six WS3 Sites, meeting Government’s SLEP installation requirements, by thoroughly describing the following:

a. Installation approach and schedule for installing cabling and AC&Ds at each site.

b. Strategy for obtaining digging permits at each location.

c. Strategy for minimizing WS3 AC&D system downtime between terminating operations of the legacy WS3 AC&D system and reaching full operational capability of the SLEP system IAW SOW 2.1.3 and 2.2.

3.2.1.3 Subfactor 1.3: Life Cycle System Management

of the requirements by substantiating the following essential components in accordance with

SOW paragraphs 2.1.4.5, 2.2.1.7, 4.1.1, 8.1, and 8.2:

Describing their approach to life cycle system management for improving maintainability and documenting the WS3 SLEP configuration baseline;

Describing their approach to enhance long-term maintainability and sustainability, tradeoffs between system design and maintainability;

Describing their approach to ensure complete and accurate system documentation (e.g.

maintenance and operator TO’s source data and engineering drawings);

Describing their approach for developing and validating the TO’s source data and engineering drawings (prime vs subcontract);

Describing their approach for mitigating Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM), the overall risk management process to ensure that the delivered system, equipment, components, software, maintenance equipment, and supplies do not incorporate counterfeit parts, malicious code, or any other elements that would allow adversaries to gain unauthorized access to data and critical program information, alter data, interrupt communications, or otherwise disrupt operations;

Describing their approach for maximizing system reliability and minimizing the

Government’s long-term maintenance costs through the selection of high quality/industrial grade components; and how component reliability will continue to be verified throughout SLEP design, test, and installation.

3.2.1.4 Subfactor 1.4: Management Approach

of the requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to documenting internal procedures (including critical subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners) supporting their proposed systems engineering process and how the process addresses a sound approach for controlling cost, maintaining quality and schedule, while designing and installing SLEP that meets the mission capability needs described in the SOW, SRD, and Systems Engineering Plan (SEP). The evaluation will also include an assessment of the offeror’s software development processes and whether the offeror or critical subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners has ISO 9001 certification in accordance with

SOW 3.1.1.

3.2.1.4.1 Program Planning and Control

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: A SE approach that identifies their proposed program organization, planning and monitoring activities, and the soundness of approach to the offeror’s product-oriented program structure and management approach to SLEP design and installation in accordance with SOW 3.1.1.

3.2.1.4.2 Program Organization

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to supporting the product architecture with integrated multi-disciplined teams allocated to key product elements (e.g., an Integrated Product Team (IPT)-type structure). All offers will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror has discussed the planned organization, lines of authority, roles and responsibilities of Integrated Product Teams (IPTs) and team members (as applicable) to provide timely insight to the Government on cost, schedule, and performance issues. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the offeror’s presentation of the roles and responsibilities of the IPTs and team members, planned interactions between the offeror, Government System Program Office (SPO), the Defense Contract Management Agency

(DCMA) and major system subcontractors in accordance with SOW 3.1.1 and 3.1.2.

3.2.1.4.3 Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach that contains an event-driven IMP which identifies key activities, program milestones, resources for accomplishing the SOW, SRD, and SEP requirements, and critical program events for contracted activities. Evaluation will ensure that the plan identifies accomplishments and entry and exit criteria that will be tracked to assess the offeror’s ability to meet the key events identified in the

IMP and an understanding that the IMP will establish the program’s baseline. Evaluation will include feasibility of the offeror’s critical systems engineering functions including quality assurance, configuration management, component acquisition approach, material and process control, safety, design, and testing in accordance with SOW 3.1.1 and 3.1.4.4.

In addition, all offers will be evaluated to confirm that offerors have submitted an event-based

IMS which includes technical tasks, reviews, audits and activities necessary to complete both the development and installation work effort described in the SOW and SRD. Evaluation will ensure that the program critical path items are clearly identified in the IMS, activities within the

IMS are coded so that if the activity is subcontracted, the responsible subcontractor is identified, the need dates for Government and subcontractor inputs, and that the structure supports monitoring of all critical program activities and key supporting activities. The soundness of the offeror’s proposed approach to the IMS monitoring and controlling the program schedule and their understanding of how the document might be used by all IPTs to develop supporting schedules to implement program tasks will be part of the evaluation in accordance with SOW

3.1.4.4.

All offers will be evaluated to determine the soundness of the offeror’s proposed approach to the

IMP and IMS, assessing the support monitoring of all critical program activities and key subsidiary activities, ensuring that the IMP and IMS are created to go to at least a WBS level 4

(WS3 SLEP will be WBS level 1) in accordance with SOW 3.1.1 and 3.1.4.4.

3.2.1.4.4 IMP Considerations

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to Specialty

Engineering Disciplines, (e.g. – Reliability & Maintainability, System Safety, Human

Engineering, etc.), Integrated Logistics Support, such as training, tech order publications, and

Non-Developmental Item/Commercial-off-the-Shelf utilization and support, Configuration

Management Planning and Transition Configuration Management Planning, and Software

Development/Integration Plan that identifies the following and confirms that the supporting narratives properly demonstrates understanding of the IMP considerations in accordance with

SOW 3.1.1:

Integration between systems engineering processes and software development/integration processes;

Assurance of software quality;

Developmental Test (DT) and Operational Test (OT) planning, including completion of the Verification Cross Reference Matrix and participation in DT /OT;

Internal and external interface implementation, control planning and support;

Development change control planning;

A plan for phase-in from predecessor to SLEP (if required);

Planning for reduction of life cycle costs.

All offers will be evaluated to determine the soundness of the offeror’s approach in the development of the IMP and whether or not failure and deficiency reporting, analysis, and corrective action, government-furnished property utilization, system security engineering management planning, system safety/health risk engineering, environmental and hazardous materials management, and hazard status reporting, quality program planning, planning for handling deviations and waivers, planning for information data exchange with Government, planning for subcontractor and associate contractor relationships have been factored into the development of their methodology in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.1.1.

All offers will be evaluated to confirm that offerors have submitted a resource-loaded Gantt chart for all high risk areas in the program, including separate charts for critical subcontract efforts, including resource-loaded schedules for other risk areas that are unique to their proposal based on offeror’s analysis in accordance with SOW 3.1.1.

3.2.1.4.5 Staffing Approach

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to adhering to the requisite staffing requirements (including recruitment and personnel retention for the contract’s duration), identification of key positions, demonstration of personnel qualifications and experience, and compliance with DD254 security requirements. All offers will be assessed to ensure offers contain staff with the requisite skill mix required to successfully complete both the design and installation aspects contained within the SOW and SRD in accordance with SOW

3.1.1.

All offers will be evaluated to determine the soundness of the offeror’s proposed staffing approach, compliance with key personnel expertise requirements, which includes the Program

Manager (PM), Deputy PM, Information Assurance (IA) Lead, Lead Network Design/Integration

Engineer, Lead Installation Manager, Lead Systems Engineer, Lead Test Manager Lead, and

Lead Life Cycle System Manager, and submission of a letter of intent to accept employment signed by each individual if not currently employed by the offeror. The soundness of the offeror’s capacity to have available at contract award the functions of the proposed personnel that have critical skills and experiences in the areas of design engineering, installation capability, management, maintenance, and technical writing as well as efforts that will result in retention of this expertise will be assessed in accordance with SOW 3.1.1.

All offers will be assessed to confirm that the offeror currently meets the security clearance requirements in accordance with SOW 3.2 and DD 254, or if not, has provided an approach to meeting these requirements prior to contract award.

3.2.1.4.6 Technical Risk

requirements by substantiating the following essential components: An approach to identify technical risk the offeror considers to have a high or moderate potential for disruption of schedule, increases to price or costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance and a description of the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful accomplishment of other contract requirements (for example: SOW or specification requirements), whether or not those requirements are identified as subfactors. Propose a realistic

"work-around" or risk mitigators for identified risks that will eliminate or reduce risk. Offerors shall detail the final risk assessment, including any new risks introduced by their risk mitigation solution.

3.2.2 Technical Risk Rating

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Assessments of Technical Risk will focus on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed technical approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

See FAR 15.001.

TheEach Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

3.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

3.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

3.3.2 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in paragraph 3.1.1. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Past Performance

Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other similar databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. The Government will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract (i.e. awarded within six months of the date of issuance of this solicitation).

Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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

3.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference 3.1.1). The relevancy assessment will consider information relating to systems engineering, management approach, interface design, network design, software modification/development, AC&D and cable installation, Key Management System integration, and life cycle systems management (to include technical order generation and use of COTS). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s) and will be used as a measure of the likelihood that the submitted past performance references are an indicator of future performance.

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) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

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.

3.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant references (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment will consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor

Performance Assessment Reports (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. 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. The

Government will afford offerors the opportunity to address adverse past performance to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to comment. 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.

3.3.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and

Cost/Price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an

"Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

3.4 Cost or Price Factor

The total evaluated cost/price to the Government will be evaluated on all priced CLINs for the basic effort plus all options.

3.4.1 The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated based on contract type.

3.4.1.1 Evaluation of Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs, for award purposes, will be based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) and all options.

3.4.1.2 Evaluation of Cost Reimbursement (CR) Not-To-Exceed (NTE) Travel CLINs will be based on compliance with Schedule B.

3.4.2 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.4.3 Reasonableness (All Priced CLINs): The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. 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. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

3.4.4 Unbalanced Pricing (All Priced CLINs): The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/31.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm