Att(5)EvaluationCriteria.pdf

U.S. Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Office of CBP Air and Marine

Section M – Evaluation Criteria for

National Aircraft Maintenance and Logistics Support (Follow-on Support Contract)

In Connection With Acquisition Plan #HSBP-07-02

March 9, 2007

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

This acquisition will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process.

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors and their Relative Order of Importance

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 subfactors described below. Proposal Risk and Past Performance are of equal importance and are more important than Cost/Price. Within the Proposal Risk factor, the subfactors are listed in descending order of importance. Evaluation factors and subfactors are as follows:

Factor 1: Proposal Risk

Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Transition

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Small Business Utilization

Factor 4: Cost/Price

Importance of Cost/Price

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

Factor and Subfactor Rating

A Proposal Risk Rating (Table 1) will be assigned to each subfactor under the Proposal Risk Factor, i.e., Program Management and Transition. The rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements. A Performance Confidence Assessment (Table 2) will be assigned to the Past Performance Factor. Performance confidence represents the Government's assessment of the probability of an offeror successfully performing as proposed based upon an evaluation of the offeror’s present and past work record. Cost/Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and for realism of proposed costs and assigned a Cost/Price Confidence Assessment (Table 3).

Proposal Risk Factor

Each of the subfactors described below will receive a Proposal Risk rating. An overall proposal risk rating is not assigned. The Proposal Risk rating focuses on the risks, deficiencies, and significant weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for degradation of law enforcement mission, deterioration or loss of aircraft, or increased financial risk, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each identified risk, the assessment also addresses the offeror's proposal for mitigating the risk and why that approach is or is not manageable.

Sub-factor 1: Program Management

A. The degree to which the management and organizational structure proposed can efficiently and effectively perform the contract.

B. Demonstration of a clear understanding of the overall contractual requirements through the proposal of the appropriate labor/skill categories to fulfill CBP requirements.

C. The degree to which the proposed approach provides an effective process to manage cost/schedule/performance of the contract.

1. Soundness of the Offeror’s proposed processes for planning, monitoring, and controlling work effort and communicating the information to the Government.

2. Understanding and ability of Offerors to support CBP potential surge requirements and other changes and the proposed plan to accomplish the requirement when changes in requirement occur.

D. The extent to which the Offeror proposed a sound and realistic approach for obtaining/training/retaining qualified personnel to fulfill proposed positions, and meeting all contractual requirements.

Sub-factor 2: Transition

Under the Transition sub-factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to transition with emphasis placed on the following areas:

A. The degree to which the offeror has proposed a comprehensive, detailed, effective plan to provide all transition services to ensure CBP mission requirements are met and continuity of services are maintained.

B. The degree to which the offeror identifies resources needed to efficiently and effectively provide appropriate resources to sustain required support during the transition phase.

Past Performance Factor

General.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment (Table 2) represents the evaluation of an offeror's present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror's probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet user's needs, including cost and schedule.

The team will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offeror’s in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available, from other sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PIPRS).

The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's recent and relevant present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to Proposal Risk subfactors and the Cost/Price factor. All aspects of present and past performance that relates to this acquisition may be considered.

As a result of an analysis of those efforts identified as relevant and recent, each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. Although the past

TABLE 1 – PROPOSAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Exceptional (90-100)

Based upon the proposal, the Government has no doubt that the approach proposed can successfully meet the requirements in the solicitation with little potential to cause significant degradation of law enforcement mission, deterioration or loss of aircraft, or increased financial risk. Normal contractor effort and normal government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. All significant performance risks are recognized in the proposal and effective strategies identified to mitigate their impact on mission achievement.

Acceptable (80-89)

Based upon the proposal, the Government has confidence that the approach proposed can successfully meet the requirements in the solicitation; however there is some potential to cause a degradation of law enforcement mission, deterioration or loss of aircraft, or increased financial risk. Extra contractor effort and extra government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Most significant performance risks are recognized in the proposal and effective strategies identified to mitigate their impact on mission achievement.

Marginal (70-79)

Based upon the proposal, the Government is concerned that the proposed approach may not successfully achieve the requirements in the solicitation and that potentially there may be a significant degradation of law enforcement mission, deterioration or loss of aircraft, or increased financial risk. Special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. Some significant performance risks are recognized in the proposal and effective strategies identified to mitigate their impact on mission achievement.

Unacceptable (0)

Based upon the proposal, the Government is confident that the proposed approach will not successfully meet the requirements in the solicitation. Approach is likely to cause significant degradation of law enforcement mission, deterioration or loss of aircraft, or increased financial risk. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close government monitoring. Significant performance risks are not recognized in the proposal and/or stated strategies to mitigate risk impact are unacceptable.

performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Proposal Risk sub-factors and the Cost/Price factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Recency

For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as work completed or ongoing during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. More recent work has a greater impact on the Confidence Assessment than a less recent work.

Relevancy Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort in this contract. A more relevant present and past performance record may have a greater impact on the Confidence Assessment than a less relevant record. When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

Adverse Information.

All Offeror’s will be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse present and past performance information they have not had the opportunity to respond to. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Past Performance Unavailable.

Offeror’s without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant present and past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Unknown Confidence" rating.

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

HIGH CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort and essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

UNKNOWN

No performance record is identifiable and the offeror is rated neither favorably nor unfavorably.

LITTLE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Small Business Utilization

The Offeror must demonstrate that they can adequately manage and abide by plan for subcontracting to small and small disadvantaged businesses.

The subcontract plan will be evaluated for completeness and the strategy for meeting and/or exceeding the Department’s goals in each socio-economic category. This evaluation factor considers the extent to which the offeror meets the requirements specified in FAR 52.219-9 Alt II.

The evaluation shall include an assessment of the offerors individual subcontracting reports, SF 294, for three (3) contracts of comparable size, scope and complexity of this procurement and the most recently submitted summary subcontracting report, SF 295.

A Performance Confidence Assessment (Table 2) will be assigned to the Subcontracting Factor.

Cost/Price Factor

Cost/Price Evaluation.

The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate and clearly describe an effective and efficient cost approach for accomplishing the stated requirements. The Offeror’s Cost Proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15, in order to determine if it is reasonable and realistic. The Base Period of Performance and all Options will be evaluated.

Cost/Price Reasonableness

Offeror’s Cost Volume will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.4, in order to determine if it is reasonable. A cost is reasonable when it provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to the current market prices, technical and functional capabilities of the offeror, and risk.

Unbalanced Pricing

Price analysis will be used to determine if the proposed prices are unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total solicitation effort price, the price (rates) of one or more labor categories is significantly over or under-stated as demonstrated by the application of price analysis techniques.

Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and result in a higher proposal risk rating or the offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

Cost Realism

The Cost realism analysis will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d). Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s Non-Cost Information for Source Selection. A Government calculated Probable Cost (PC) analysis will be used in the realism evaluation. The Cost Realism Assessment (Table 3) will consider Proposal Risks identified during the evaluation of the proposal.

Burden of Proof.

The burden of proof for cost/price realism and reasonableness rests with the Offeror.

[End of Provision]

[END OF SECTION M]

TABLE 3- COST/PRICE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Rating Description

HIGH CONFIDENCE Based on the Cost/price analysis, the government has high confidence the offeror will successfully perform with the proposed Cost/price.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Cost/price analysis, the government has confidence the offeror will successfully perform with the proposed Cost/price. Normal contractor emphasis should preclude any problems.

LITTLE

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Cost/price analysis, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform with the proposed Cost/price.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Cost/price analysis, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform with the proposed Cost/price.