Draft_RFP_Section_J_Atch_6_JTO_PTSS_Section_M_Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

FA8621-18-R-0002

Section J, Attachment 6, Evaluation Criteria

23 March 2018

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. GENERAL GUIDANCE

1.1 This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The source selection will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, 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 (01 April 2016) and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 (03 October 2017). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2 Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements 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. 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 priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

1.3 As the selected offeror must ultimately meet all performance requirements, the Government must be assured that the offeror has the ability to perform and will perform the requirements of the Performance Work Statement (PWS, Section J, Attachment 1). By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements.

1.4 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and PWS requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

1.5 In the case that a discrepancy exists between Section L - Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M- Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

2. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS

2.1 SSA Decision: The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described herein.) While the Government source selection evaluation 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.

2.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition; however, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted and the availability of funds.

2.3 Rejections of Offers: The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract / program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

2.4 Evaluation Methodology/Factors: Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below:

Factor 1: Capability (Technical) Subfactor 1: Human Resource Management Subfactor 2: Technical and Management Approach Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

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

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. The offeror is reminded that, in accordance with Section L Paragraph 3.1, the Government intends to award based on the initial proposals, as received, without discussions.

2.5 Relative Important of Factors and Subfactors: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is the most important followed by past performance and then cost/price. Subfactors listed under the Technical Factor (Factor 1) are listed in descending order of importance.

2.6 Competitive Range Determination: During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.503. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 – Technical, Factor 2 - Past Performance, Factor 3 - Price, or a combination of these factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

3. CAPABILITY (TECHNICAL) EVALUATION

3.1 COMBINED TECHNICAL / TECHNICAL RISK RATING

3.1.1 This Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the proposals utilizing a combined technical/risk rating. The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why the approach is or is not manageable.

Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table 3.1.1. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and the risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

3.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

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. NOTE: At the Government’s discretion, aspects of the proposal identified as strengths will be incorporated into the resulting contract.

SUBFACTOR 1: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to staff and retain appropriate qualified personnel and consulting agreements required to meet the Government’s Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror provides a staffing plan and evidence which clearly demonstrate all of the following measures of merit:

1. Personnel, including resumes, that individually meet both the education and experience qualifications specified in PWS paragraph 2.6.

2. Agreements with consultants experienced in the Directed Energy (DE) and High Energy Laser (HEL) community and the ability to maintain consulting agreements throughout the contract period of performance.

3. A sound and comprehensive plan to ensure the personnel proposed will be available to support the DE-JTO by completion of the phase-in transition period including signed letters of intent from both the Key Personnel and consultants noted in the PWS contingent upon award of the PTSS contract.

4. A sound and comprehensive plan to retain qualified personnel, identify and hire new personnel and ensure staffing is sufficient to perform surge requirements and fill

SUBFACTOR 1: HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

vacancies within 30 days.

5. A Compensation Plan for Professional Employees as described in FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, reflecting a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements to attract and retain competent professional service employees and thereby provide uninterrupted, high-quality work.

SUBFACTOR 2: TECHNICAL AND MANAGEMENT APPROACH

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed approach to provide technical and management support to the DE-JTO program office.

Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror provides a technical and management plan which clearly demonstrate all of the following measures of merit:

1. Knowledge of the past and current Laser Weapon and Directed Energy (DE) environment and how this knowledge will allow the offeror to conduct assessments on topic areas such as Laser Sources; Beam Control; Atmospheric Propagation; Lethality; Modeling and Simulation and Advanced HEL Concepts.

2. A sound and comprehensive plan to develop technical reports, presentations and recommendations that are clear, concise and contain analytically defendable results and conclusions.

3. A sound understanding and plan to conduct a variety of assessments such as proposal reviews, developmental tests, operational tests, capability demonstrations, technology demonstrations, risk management assessments, independent test reviews and special studies.

SUBFACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to achieve small business participation.

Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror provides a sound and comprehensive plan to demonstrate the following:

1. Commit identified work (to be performed under this contract) to one or more identified companies that are categorized as small business concerns, veteran owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and/or woman owned small business concerns, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or (critical or non-critical) subcontractor. A prime offeror that is a small business may identify in its Small Business Participation Plan work that the prime offeror itself is committed to perform.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

4.1 PAST PERFORMANCE GENERAL INFORMATION

4.1.1 The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply the services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance. A critical subcontractor is defined as a business entity that performs equal to or higher than 33% of the total proposed value. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

4.1.2 For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation with a minimum of six months performance. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

4.2 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

4.2.1 As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Table 4.2.1 Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Adjectival 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.

4.3 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS

4.3.1 Past Performance Consideration: The past performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet 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 Factor 1, Technical, and Factor 3, Cost/Price. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant effort.

More recent performance may have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance. 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. The government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

4.3.2 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation with a minimum of six months of performance. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.3.3 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Factor, and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and 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 Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. The past performance information forms contained in Section L 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 described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 4.3.3 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

4.3.4 Performance Quality Assessment: The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical subfactors and price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.) The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

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. 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 SB Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, SB Subcontracting Plan, when one or both of these clauses were contained in the submitted 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Definition

Satisfactory (S) During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) 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.

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.

Unknown (UK) Unknown performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

4.3.5 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 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 or relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of recent or relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more recent or relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less recent, less relevant or sparse and meaningless record of performance.

5. PRICE / COST EVALUATION

5.1 PRICE EVALUATION FACTOR

5.1.1 Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) unbalanced pricing, (2) reasonableness and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), calculated as stated in paragraph 5.1.5 below.

5.1.2 The Government may determine a proposal to be un-awardable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.1.3 For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For further information, see FAR 31.201-3. If there is no finding that the price of the otherwise successful offeror is unreasonable and adequate price competition exists IAW FAR 15.403-1(c)(1), reasonableness will be documented for the otherwise successful offeror. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

5.1.4 The contract will include FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services with the potential to extend the contract an additional 6 months beyond the awarded contract performance period. The pricing for the 6-month extension will be evaluated at time of award and is included in the TEP calculation. In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of proposed prices will be considered fair and reasonable as applied to an extension of services.

5.1.5 Using the proposed prices in the Section J, Attachment 7, the Government will calculate the offeror’s TEP. Travel will be excluded from the total evaluated price and will be incorporated at award as a non-fee bearing cost reimbursement CLIN. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Since the Government reserves the right to award without discussions, failure to populate Section J, Attachment 7 as requested or exceptions to the solicitation may result in exclusion of the offeror’s proposal from the evaluation.

6. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

6.1 Clarification: Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal.

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.

6.2 Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms. 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 FPR, will be used in making the source selection decision. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions. The SSA reserves the right to award a contract without discussion as well as without the opportunity for proposal revision.

6.3 Pre-Award Survey: The Government may conduct a Pre-award Survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

6.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Offerors are cautioned that failure to meet solicitation requirements may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award. The Government may reject without discussions any proposal that includes exceptions to the solicitation requirements or does not fully comply with the terms and conditions.

6.5 Potential for Correction of Proposal: Should the Government elect to conduct discussions, the Government will consider the “potential for correction” of any proposal when establishing the competitive ranges. The judgment of such "potential for correction" is within the sole discretion of the Government CO. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered to have “potential for correction,” the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.