Section_M_15_AUG_2017_(Final).docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

52.252-1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FEB 1998)

This solicitation incorporates one or more solicitation provisions by reference, with the same force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the Contracting Officer will make their full text available. The offeror is cautioned that the listed provisions may include blocks that must be completed by the offeror and submitted with its quotation or offer. In lieu of submitting the full text of those provisions, the offeror may identify the provision by paragraph identifier and provide the appropriate information with its quotation or offer. Also, the full text of a solicitation provision may be accessed electronically at this/these address(es):

http://farsite.hill.af.mil

PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990 Applies to individual task orders

M-1 AWARD BASED ON BEST VALUE TO THE GOVERNMENT

The Government will award to the Offeror whose proposal offers the best value in terms of Management, Ability to Succeed and Cost/Price as prescribed in Section M.4 of this solicitation. Within the best value continuum, the Government will employ a tradeoff analysis of cost or price and non-cost factors (FAR 15.101-1) in evaluating the proposals submitted.

Proposals will be assessed for how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the solicitation requirements and the risks associated with the Offeror’s approach. Determining how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the solicitation requirements will be accomplished in two steps. First, a determination will be made if the Offeror’s proposal meets the solicitation requirements. Next, the discriminators will be identified for the proposals reflecting the unique strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of each offer. In addition, the Government will examine the impact of each discriminator and assess its relative value to the Government.

In order to make a sound selection decision, the Government needs to understand the ways in which a given proposal is considered technically strong, as well as the ways in which it is weak or deficient. Hence, a catalog of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies (in terms of the evaluation criteria) facilitates the process of determining which proposal presents the best overall value to the Government.

The Government intends to make an award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Unless all offers are rejected, award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, is determined to be the best overall value, price and other factors considered. In determining the best overall response, the combined non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than the cost/price factor; however, cost/price is a significant factor. The Government may select for award the offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost/price.

Offerors must satisfy the requirements described in the performance criteria, as well as other RFP requirements. Offers that take exception to any performance criteria are unacceptable.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATING METHODOLOGY

M-3.1 EVALUATION FACTORS

The evaluation will be based on a complete assessment of the Offeror’s proposal. Proposals shall be evaluated on the following four factors, listed in descending order of importance, where factor 1 is more important than factor 2; factor 2 is more important than factor 3; and factor 3 is more important than factor 4.

Factor 1 – Technical Mission Capability Factor 2 – Mission Capability (risk) Factor 3 – Relevant Past Performance Factor 4 – Cost/Price

The evaluation will not take any information contained in the Executive summary submitted from the responses received into consideration in the evaluation of Factors 1, 2, 3, or 4.

M-3.1.1 Technical Mission Capability Factor. The Technical Mission Capability will be evaluated as a measure of merit. The Technical Mission Capability Factor is subdivided into five sub-factors of equal importance:

Sub-factor 1 – Marketing Plan Sub-factor 2 – Panel Members Sub-factor 3 – Evaluation/Selection Process Sub-factor 4 – Program Management Sub-factor 5 – Small Business Participation Commitment Document

M-3.1.1.1 Marketing Plan IAW PWS Para 5.1.2, 5.1.2.1, 5.1.2.2.g

M-3.1.1.1.1 Marketing Plan:

(1) Plan details the outreach and promotion of the STFP program that logically results in locating and attracting highly qualified successful Ph.D. scientists and engineers to conduct relevant research of diversified significant interest and relevance to USAF laboratories.

(2) Displays established relationship with academic institutions (Tier I-III schools, HBCUs/MIs, etc.) and professional scientific societies/organizations.

M-3.1.1.2 Panel Members Sub-Factor. IAW PWS Para 1.3.b, 5.1.1.d, and 5.1.3

(1) Capability to control and ensure the quality of an independent review panel.

(2) Experience in establishing review panels (USAF research relevant areas) to review and rank proposed responses to USAF research areas. The panelists are from academia, government, & industry. The panel consists of a mixture of recognized experts in at least five scientific & engineering research disciplines. The panel is comprised of at least:

a. 85% fellows in professional societies and/or

b. 85% of panelists that hold a distinguished/endowed chair

M-3.1.1.3 Evaluation/Selection Process of Applicants, Government Research Advisors and Proposed Research Topics Sub-Factor IAW PWS Para 5.1.1.a and 5.1.3.a.

(1) Plan details capability to control objectivity of the proposed process to ensure the eligibility of applicants, Government research advisor candidates and respective proposed research topics.

(2) Plans details process to post-board review results in written reports to include research proposal, qualitative rating of proposal (positive and negative), & compensation package.

(3) Plan provides a list of managed and executed review board within last 5 years (01 January 2012 – Present).

M-3.1.1.4 Program Management Sub-Factor IAW PWS Para 5.1.4.

M-3.1.1.4.1 Quality of approach plan that demonstrates and logically results in the successful administration, management, and execution of all logistical processes necessary to obtain the effort of the government’s selectee research at all possible beneficiary locations.

(1) Established financial system for payments of stipends, benefits, and travel allowances

(2) Established financial tracking and reporting system of monthly disbursements for research associates stipends, benefits, travels, and other allowances (if applicable)

(3) Established electronic administrative reporting file system for research associates to include type of research, length of tenure, research locations, research presentations, pending or awarded patents, and other research awards

(4) Established compliance practices to align with Privacy Act of 1974 for maintaining, handling, and transmitting of data/reports/analysis

M-3.1.1.5 Small Business Participation Commitment Document Sub-Factor

M-3.1.1.5.1 Each offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document Sub-factor will be evaluated as a measure of merit using criteria outlined in Table 4b below. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

(1) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

(2) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

(3) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph (3) above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document will be evaluated against the FY16 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

M-3.1.2 Mission Capability (risk) Factor. The Mission Capability (risk) will be evaluated as a measure of merit using criteria outlined in Table 4c below. The Mission Capability (risk) Factor considers potential for the proposal approach to result in disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M-3.1.3 Recent and Relevant Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance will be evaluated as a measure of confidence.

M-3.1.4 Cost/Price Factor. Cost/Price, while being an important factor, is not in and of itself the determining factor in the selection of the successful Offeror for award of the contract contemplated by this solicitation. Cost/Price is not scored/weighted; rather, evaluated on the total price proposed for the basic requirement and other price-related issues. The ultimate importance of the Cost/Price factor will be determined after the Technical Mission Capability, Mission Capability (risk), and Past Performance merit and confidence in the Offeror's proposal have been established. Offerors whose price is determined to be unrealistic, unreasonable, and/or unbalanced may not be considered for award. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. The Government reserves the right to perform a price realism analysis. If the Government determines that price realism is necessary, the Government will review fixed prices to determine whether the prices are so low that they reflect a lack of technical understanding. A proposal can be rejected for offering unrealistically low prices.

M-4 RATING METHODS

M-4.1 Technical Mission Capability Factor. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. A merit rating will be assigned. The following color and adjectival ratings will be used to rate the merit portion of the sub-factors in the Technical Mission Capability factor:

Table 4a

Description

M-4.1.2 Small Business Participation Commitment Document Rating. The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation Commitment Document sub-factor. IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the extent of participation of small businesses will be evaluated on a best effort basis and rated as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”.

Table 4b

M-4.2 Mission Capability (risk) Factor. A risk rating will be assigned. In assessing risk in Mission Capability (risk), the Government will consider the risks associated with the approaches proposed by the Offeror. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(s), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The following ratings will be used to rate the risk portion of the Mission Capability (risk) factor:

M-4.3: Past Performance Factor.

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

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record and quality of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In addition, the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. Recent is defined as work that is ongoing or was completed in the last three years from, and for which the work began at least 6 months prior to, the date of this solicitation issuance. Relevancy includes, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming:

These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror:

Table 4d

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

M-4.4 Cost/Price Factor Evaluation Ratings

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using price analysis to determine whether the prices proposed are fair and reasonable in accordance FAR 15.404-1(b).

M-4.5 Subcontracting Plan (if applicable).

IAW FAR 19.705-2, large business prime Offerors shall provide a clear, detailed and realistic plan that complies with FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 and satisfies all of the requirements of FAR 19.704, DFARS 219.704, and AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1) in order to be determined acceptable by the PCO prior to contract award. If small business subcontract possibilities do not exist or are limited, the Offeror’s plan must state such and provide rationale supporting the assertion. An approved Subcontracting Plan is required for any contract awarded to a large business Offeror.

M-4.6 Notice

The Government will not consider information provided in the Executive Summary in its evaluation of Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4.