RFP FA9453-09-R-0002, Attachment 6, Evaluation Criteria, Section M.doc

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a 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), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), the Air Force Materiel Command Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFMCFARS), when appropriate and the Air Force Source Selection Mandatory Procedures (MP5315.3) dated January 2008. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Mission Capability, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior 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 (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be awarded One or more Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contracts will be awarded. The Government reserves the right to make no award based on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

d. Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. However, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

M002 EVALUATION CRITERIA

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub factors described below.

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Subfactor 1: Personnel Qualifications of All Key Personnel

Subfactor 2: Management Approach /Program Management

Subfactor 3: Organization Conflict of Interest Mitigation Factor 2: Performance Confidence / Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors Mission capability is of primary importance, past performance is of secondary importance, and cost/price is considered tertiary in importance. Within the mission capability factor, subfactor 1, Qualifications of Key Personnel, is of primary importance and subfactors 2, Management Approach/Program Management, and 3, Organization Conflict of Interest Mitigation, are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined are significantly more important than cost/price; however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

b. Mission Capability Factor The Mission Capability Factor evaluates the technical proposals submitted by the offeror in response to ALL requirements outlined in the PWS to include all 9 tasks identified in Appendix A-3 through A-11 and phase-in (not applicable for the incumbent). Proposals will be analyzed/evaluated in accordance with all terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation to include ITO (Section J, Attachment # 5) to ascertain who the contract awardee(s) will be. Hence, it is imperative that all contractors submit proposals for all tasks which are complete and accurate. Offerors subsequently awarded a contract under this solicitation will then comprise the pool from which future tasks will be offered competitively.

The Mission Capability evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Mission Capability Technical Rating and the Mission Capability Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Mission Capability subfactor.

(1) Mission Capability Technical Rating

The mission capability technical rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.1.1, Table 1 – Mission Capability Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Mission Capability subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor.

TABLE 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL RATINGS

capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

Subfactor 1: Personnel Qualifications of all key personnel:

Personnel qualifications will be evaluated to determine how suited the offeror is to execute all tasks identified in PWS, Appendix A-3 through A-11. Specifically, the demonstrated experience, expertise, and qualifications of the proposed key personnel relevant to the requirements and criteria that is outlined in the PWS; the demonstrated strategic planning and experience with space and directed energy technologies; and the demonstrated strategic planning and experience with space and directed energy systems. Failure to include a statement that all key personnel will be available in the event of a contract award or to include data showing that the offeror has obtained a commitment, letters of intent, or has a recruitment plan, may result in an unacceptable rating.

Subfactor 2: Management Approach/Program Management Management will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror demonstrates the capability to effectively and efficiently manage the same or similar contract requirements. The following specific areas will be evaluated: (1) initial staffing; (2) security issues; (3) personnel end strength to include plans for maintaining adequate staffing for the life of the contract; (4) staffing vacancy-filling to include staffing for temporary surge capability; (5) effective and efficient management of the contract requirements to include communicating internally within the offeror’s company or team and externally to other potential awardee(s) of this solicitation; and (6) contract phase-in/transition.

Subfactor 3: Organization Conflict of Interest Mitigation Organization Conflict of Interest Mitigation will be evaluated to determine the degree to which the offeror and his/her team or subcontractors (if applicable) demonstrates the capability to provide risk mitigation for all Organization Conflict of Interests associated or potentially associated with this effort.

(2) Mission Capability Risk Rating The Mission Capability Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed 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.

The Mission Capability subfactors will receive one of the Risk ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.1.2, Table 2 – Mission Capability Risk Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the risks, i.e., weaknesses and significant weaknesses, of the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the Mission Capability subfactors. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

TABLE 2 – MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS

* A plus “+” rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries of a Mission Capability Risk Rating, but is not high enough to merit the next inferior rating. For example, where in the judgment of the evaluator, an offeror has risk that approaches or is nearly rated as a Moderate risk, a Mission Capability Risk Rating of “Low+” may be assigned.

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

(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 M002c(3).

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

(2) Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and/or 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 the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. 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.

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

(ii) Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those contracts relate to the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference M002a). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to work and technology similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks, type of effort, contract scope and type and performance period. 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). 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:

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors and Cost/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 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. 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 Rating/Color

Description

(3) Assigning Ratings Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the mission capability 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 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.

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

d. Cost or Price Factor

(1) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based upon the total price for each individual task proposed for the base year plus four (4) one year options.

(2) The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated by the Most Probable Cost (MPC) computed by the Government for each individual task proposed for the base year plus four (4) one year options. The offeror's proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. MPC shall be measured as - Government estimate of anticipated performance costs and proposed fee.

(3) Evaluation of any option(s) shall not obligate the Government to exercise such option(s).

(4) 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 realistic. 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) The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed costs. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal/Mission Capability (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). A Cost/Price Realism Analysis (CPRA) will consider technical/management risks (weaknesses) identified during the evaluation of the proposal. The CPRA will quantify (dollarize) the impact of any weakness identified that may disrupt schedule, increase cost, or degrade performance, and where applicable, adjust the cost/price (most probable cost). In addition, cost information supporting a cost judged to be unrealistically low will be quantified by the Government evaluators and included in the CPRA for each offeror.

When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the proposal risk rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Mission Capability subfactor.

e. 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 the source selection decision. However, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

Again, offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.