J-6 SECTION M - EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award:

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source

Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable past performance, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting

Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the

Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Professional Employee Compensation Plan: The professional employee compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this professional employee compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

2. Voluntary Protection Plan: The submitted TCIR/DART rates or other comparable rates for the past three (3) calendar years (i.e., calendar years 2017, 2018 and 2019) immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, shall be compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the specific SIC or NAICS code identified on the face page of this solicitation

(https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_alpha.htm). Failure by the applicable offeror/joint venture partner(s)/subcontractors to submit TCIR/DART or other comparable rates will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: 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 Performance Work

Statement (PWS), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Subfactor 1 - Experience Performing Similar Services: Does the offeror’s technical proposal clearly demonstrate that the offeror has prior experience performing similar types of requirements (Prior daily https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_alpha.htm flying Air Combat Maneuvering Instrumentation (ACMI) support and deployment ACMI support, staffing qualified candidates at multiple geographically separated locations with at least one location SOFA)?

Subfactor 2 - Manning and Vehicles: Does the offeror’s technical proposal clearly show manning levels/personnel mix and vehicles for all workload requirements identified in 1.3 of the PWS, Deployments identified in 1.4 of the PWS, Security Requirements as identified in 1.7 of the PWS and Contractor

Personnel identified in 4.5 of the PWS.

Does the offeror’s technical proposal provide an individual manning analysis and vehicle charts for each place of performance? Are all manning positions must be fully supported by the contractors Workload

Analysis? Does the Workload Analysis provide the methodology and sufficient detail of how manning is determined for phase-in and full performance, to include all direct, non-direct and ancillary workload hours?

Subfactor 3 - Recruitment and Retention: Does the offeror’s technical proposal provide a realistic approach for recruiting, maintaining, training, and retaining qualified personnel to meet all tasks in support of the PWS requirements, with emphasis on aircrew debriefing equipment operations, merge of dissimilar ACMI data files and live monitor operations?

Subfactor 4 - Management: Does the offeror’s technical proposal provide an approach for providing

Program Management function (IAW PWS 1.2.2) with descriptions, responsibilities, qualifications, Information Assurance certification, skills, abilities, and security clearance level?

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. 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 technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement (PWS 1.3.1 Operations; 1.3.4 Pod Handling and Flight Line Operations; 1.3.5

Pre-Mission Preparation; 1.3.6 Post Mission Preparation; 1.3.7 Aircrew Mission Debriefings and 1.3.8 Live

Monitor). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. 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. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), 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.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and

Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The

Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar 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. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency and relevancy of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR

15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

E. Volume III, Price Factor

1. General: The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal, as required by Section L, to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable IAW one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

If the CO determines that adequate price competition IAW FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i) no longer exists, the CO may request certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404 to make a determination of price reasonableness and price realism.

2. Price Evaluation: The Government will rank all technically acceptable offers by TEP, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. In addition, each offeror’s separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).The Government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis. If the

Government elects to perform a price realism analysis, the Government reserves discretion over the method within which it performs its price realism analysis. If the Government elects to perform a price realism analysis and finds a proposal unrealistic, the Government may withhold award to that offeror. The Government will not accept any price proposal submitted in a different format other than the provided CLIN structure in Section B.

3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): In order to meet the requirements of FAR Part 6 and 17, the price of 6 months extension of services authorized by 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services will be factored as part of the total evaluated price for award and will be added to the proposed price for each potential contract performance period.

The TEP is a two-part computation. First, the offeror’s total proposed price will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the unit price, rounded up to two decimal places, for each Firm Fixed Price

(FFP) Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) to confirm the extended total amount for each FFP CLIN. The sum of the extended total amounts for FFP CLINs 0001-0004, 1001-1004, 2001-2004, 3001-3004, and 4001-4004 will be the offeror’s total proposed price. CLINS 0005, 1005, 2005, 3005, 4005 will not be included in the TEP and, therefore, will not be evaluated for award decision purposes. Second, the total proposed plus the sum of Option to Extend

Services clause 52.217-8 formula (shown below) will constitute the TEP.

The formula for the Option to Extend Services is as follows:

Base year total= (CLIN Unit Price x 6)

Option Year 1 Total =(CLIN Unit Price x 6)

Option Year 2 Total=(CLIN Unit Price x 6)

Option Year 3 Total=(CLIN Unit Price x 6)

Option Year 4 Total=(CLIN Unit Price x 6)

Evaluating the Option CLIN does not obligate the Government to exercise the Options.