SECTION_M.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors to Award

ID05160010 RFP

Logistics Transformation and Execution Logistics Capability Initiatives (LCI) U.S. Air Force HAF/A4PT

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors to Award

M.1 Evaluation

(a) The Government intends to award a single contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation requirements (including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the solicitation) will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other non-price factors considered. This is a best-value source selection in accordance with FAR 15.3, where an award may be made to other than the low-price offeror as long as the decision is consistent with the source selection criteria described herein and the tradeoffs are determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to be advantageous to the Government. The source selection decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in this solicitation. The following significant evaluation factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

· Factor 1 – Management & Staffing Plan

· Factor 2 – Technical Merit

· Factor 3 – Past Performance

· Factor 4 - Price

(b) Contractor MUST have Security Level Clearances to be considered for this procurement as outlined in Section L.1.2 SECURITY LEVEL.

(c) Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all option quantities to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s). However, the Government intends to award exercised options at the time of award of the base quantities.

(d) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

M.1.1 Eligibility for Award Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions set out in Section L. For an offer to be eligible for award the offeror must agree to all terms and conditions of the solicitation, must be determined responsible, and must not receive a rating of Not Acceptable for any evaluation factor.

The determination of offeror responsibility will be made by the Contracting Officer and will be assessed on a pass/fail basis. The Government will make determinations of responsibility in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, using information provided in the proposal and information available from other sources. The Government also reserves the right to determine the responsibility of prospective major subcontractors.

M.1.2 Source Selection Process

The source selection will proceed in two sequential phases:

Initial Proposal Evaluation Final Revised Proposal Evaluation (if needed) Offerors are advised that the Government intends to award a contract without discussions.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions. The Government also reserves the right to make more than one competitive range determination and to conduct more than one round of discussions/negotiations during either the Initial or Final Proposal Evaluation phases.

M.1.3 Initial Proposal Evaluation

Initial proposal evaluation will proceed as follows:

Initial Evaluation. Technical and Price proposals will be reviewed and evaluated. Offerors may be given the opportunity to remedy irregularities or apparent mistakes in their proposals. Technical and Price proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the factors and criteria set out in Section M. Deficiencies will be identified, areas lacking sufficient detail or found to be ambiguous and needing clarification will be noted, and preliminary strengths and weaknesses will be identified.

Competitive Range Determination. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer will establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals. Less competitive offerors will be eliminated from further consideration. In the event only one offeror is in the competitive range, the Government reserves the right to award to that offeror without further discussions.

Discussions. In the event discussions are necessary, the Contracting Officer will conduct written and/or oral discussions with each offeror within the competitive range. The primary objective of these discussions is to maximize the Government's ability to obtain best value based on the requirements and the evaluation factors set forth in this solicitation. As part of discussions, deficiencies will be identified and communicated to the offeror, areas lacking sufficient detail or found to be ambiguous will be clarified, and preliminary strengths and weaknesses will be identified.

Call for Proposal Revisions. Following discussions (if they are held), offerors may be given the opportunity to submit proposal revisions (change pages). If the Contracting Officer calls for Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs), all offerors in the competitive range will be given the opportunity to submit FPRs. The revisions will be evaluated in accordance with Section M.

M.1.4 Solicitation Amendments The Government reserves the right to amend the terms and conditions of the RFP at any time prior to the conclusion of discussions and/or award of the contract (in the event discussions are not held). If the Government does amend the RFP, the Government will so advise all offerors, and will notify interested parties in accordance with statute and regulation.

M.1.5 Unrealistic Proposals Offerors are placed on notice that proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical and management commitment or unrealistically low in price will be deemed reflective of an inherent lack of management and technical competence or indicative of failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the contract requirements. This may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

M.1.6 The offeror shall indicate in their proposal if they have a Government Approved Purchasing System. Having a Government Approved Purchasing System shall be viewed favorably. If the offeror does not have a Government Approved Purchasing System, the offeror will describe how purchasing will be done using competitive pricing which will become part of the contract award file.

M.2 TECHNICAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.2.1 Management & Staffing

Factor 1 – Management & Staffing

The Government will review the offeror’s proposed management & staffing plan. The Government will determine the degree to which the proposed management & staffing plan:

Subfactor 1 - Demonstrates the offeror’s ability to administer the support services and provide the staffing necessary to perform the work outlined in the PWS.

Subfactor 2 – The offeror’s proposed staff has the education, experience, certification, and security clearances to perform the task requirements in the PWS. The Government will rely on the information presented in resumes that accompany the offeror’s proposal.

Subfactor 3 - The Government will evaluate proposed key personnel. All key personnel must be listed on the attached Key Personnel Worksheet. A separate sheet is required for each. The identification of the proposed labor category (LCAT) and PWS CLIN for all proposed positions.

Subfactor 4 – Demonstrates the offeror’s understanding and technical approach for managing resources to meet schedule and performance

M 2.2 Technical Merit

Factor 2 - Technical Merit

The Government will review the information provided by the offeror related to their technical approach and based on that information, assess the degree to which the offeror understands and can perform the tasks outlined in the PWS. The Government will focus on the following:

Subfactor 1 - Understanding and Methodology - The technical proposal shall include an overview of the methodology that will be utilized to guide the management and performance of the technical requirements identified in the PWS. The proposal shall include sufficient documentation to demonstrate both a detailed understanding of the stated requirements and the potential management challenges associated with the broad range of task areas involved. The technical proposal shall include a description of how the technical approach (i.e. description of the tasks to be performed) and analytical techniques will be applied to accomplish each of the requirements identified in the PWS.

Subfactor 2 – Implementation - The technical approach shall include a phase-in plan to address the overall transition to the new contract, to include the recruitment and hiring of both new and incumbent contractor employees, and include sufficient documentation to demonstrate that the HAF/A4PT will not experience a negative impact or disruption in service as a result from contractor personnel changes. The proposal shall identify all Government coordination that is anticipated to be required for the implementation. Detailed requirements for the phase-in plan are identified in PWS paragraph 6. If applicable, the phase-in plan shall clearly describe the contractor’s proposed transition period, as defined in PWS paragraph 6, to include the following: specific duration of the transition period; detailed description of the proposed tasks to be completed during the transition period; and the identification of the resources proposed to complete such tasks during the transition period.

Subfactor 3: Functional Guides and Playbooks Description: This subfactor evaluates ability to provide support in evaluation of SAF MG/B Logistics BPR guidance to maintain the current B Logistics BPR Guide that can be scaled and applied to any Logistics B Logistics BPR effort. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal at the discretion of source selection team has provided adequate documentation that vendor has adequately demonstrated methodology to providing Functional Guides and Playbooks.

Subfactor 4: Integration - Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability to perform a complete integration analysis of ongoing Logistics BPR activities across LCIs, this includes, but is not limited to, comparing and contrasting scope/problem statements to identify gaps and/or redundancies, overlaying the diverse models to generate heat maps, analyzing the Log IT strategic roadmap, and reviewing “To Be” process models to ensure a single view of transformation is being pursued. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal at the discretion of source selection team has provided adequate documentation that vendor has adequately demonstrated methodology to providing Integration support as described in section 7 of PWS.

M 2.3 Performing the Evaluation

The Technical Merit factors of the proposals will be evaluated on the degree to which the proposal meets the government’s requirements. The evaluation rating criteria is listed in the table below.

Table M.1a Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

M.3 PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

BACKGROUND

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

Performing the Evaluation

3.1.1 The offeror is to send out Past Performance Survey to at least one customer who can certify ability in providing Logistics BPR Support.

3.1.2 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Past Performance Confidence Ratings

3.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing Logistics BPR support services that meet the contract’s requirements. 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.

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

3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the provided services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to Logistics BPR support that focused on the first three steps. 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 the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. 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 relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3):

M.3.1.1 Past Performance Relevance Factor 2 – Past Performance Relevance The offeror’s Past Performance is rated on the relevancy of past projects/experience to this requirement.

M.3.1.2 Performing the Evaluation

Past Performance Relevance will be evaluated utilizing the table below.

Past Performance Relevancy Rating

scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The relative significance of the evaluation factors are listed according to importance as follows. For the Technical Factors: Management and Staffing Plan, Technical Merit, and Past Performance. The combined weight, or importance of the Technical factors combined are significantly more important than cost or Price.

M.4 Cost M.4.1 The Government will evaluate price reasonableness of all proposals, and then rank by total evaluated price. The price proposal will be evaluated separately from Technical Approach. Proposals shall reflect the complete costs to perform the stated requirements for base and options years.

M.4.1.1 Proposed prices will be compared with the following benchmarks where available:

M.4.1.1.1 Prices of other offerors in the competitive range.

M.4.1.1.2 Other similar Government and commercial contract prices. M.4.1.1.3 Independent Government cost estimates(s).

M.5 Technical – Price Trade-off

M.5.1 The level of confidence score is the combined rating of the non-price factors. To arrive at the best value, the level of confidence score for each company will be combined with the total price using a trade-off approach to arrive at the proposal offering the best value to the Government. When making these comparisons, the non-price factors level of confidence will be considered significantly more important than price. The trade-off approach is explained as follows:

The offer (A) with the lowest price will be considered first when making the best value determination. If the offer (A) with the lowest price does not also have the best level of confidence score, the Government will compare it with the second lowest price offer (B), provided it (B) has a higher level of confidence score than offer (A). The Government will determine if the increase in the level of confidence score between these two offers is worth the increased price offered by (B). If not, the Government will proceed to compare offer A with the third lowest price offer (C) and perform the same analysis [comparing A to C]. This process will be repeated [A to D, A to E, etc.] with each offer until one is found whose level of confidence score outweighs the increase in price. If none are found, the vendor offering the lowest price will receive the contract award. If at any time an offer is found to have a level of confidence score worth more than the increase in price, the Government will continue the analysis in the same manner using the better valued offer in the equation (in place of A) to make the comparisons [e.g., B to C, B to D, etc.].