Draft RFP M67854-13-R-7802_Draft SECTION_M_10-29-2012.pdf

DRAFT RFP M67854-13-R-7802

DRAFT SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 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 address: http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

Number Title Date

52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS – COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN 2004)

M.2 GENERAL

1) This section contains the specific evaluation factors for award. Pursuant to FAR 52.215-1, the Government intends to award a contract to that responsible offeror whose proposal represents the BEST VALUE to the Government, price and other factors considered. “Other factors” shall include all those evaluation factors and sub-factors set forth in Section M.3 below. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e) the evaluation areas other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Accordingly, award may be made to other than the lowest priced offeror. As factors become closer, price becomes more important.

2) The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, management, schedule, and price standpoint. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions, if necessary. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number which will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

3) Offerors must propose prices for all items and quantities under each item listed in Section B, Supplies or Services and Prices/Costs, of this solicitation. The Government may reject any offer that does not fully comply with all requirements set forth in the RFP.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following evaluation criteria shall apply to the proposals submitted in response to this solicitation.

There are three areas of evaluation: (I) Technical/Management, (II) Price Proposal/Administrative, and (III) Performance Risk.

Area I. Technical/Management Factor 1 – Technical Understanding Factor 2 – Safety Factor 3 – Program Management

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Area II. Price Proposal/Administrative

Area III. Performance Risk

Areas I through III are listed below in the following order of importance:

Area I – Technical/Management is more important than Area II – Price Proposal/Administrative.

Area II – Price Proposal/Administrative is more important than Area III – Performance Risk.

Within the Area I., Factor 1, Technical Understanding is of equal importance as Factor 3, Program Management.

Factor 2, Safety is of least importance of the three factors however must be rated satisfactory in order for the entire area to be rated satisfactory.

A. Award will be made to the offeror that has a technically acceptable proposal and offers the best value to the government.

B. Proposals will be evaluated for the presence or absence of descriptive material which demonstrates an understanding of all requirements, the adequacy of the proposed approach, and compliance with requirements of the RFP. Failure to address the proposal requirements of Section L may be grounds to determine the proposal as “unacceptable.”

C. A performance risk assessment will be made to determine the offeror’s ability to perform to the solicitation’s requirements as indicated by the offeror’s record of past performance on related or similar efforts, on-going or present efforts, all coupled with systemic improvements the offeror has implemented.

M.3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Area I – Technical Management Approach

(a) Technical/Management Proposals will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the prospective contract. The proposal will be evaluated against three Factors: Factor 1, Technical Understanding, Factor 2, Safety, and Factor 3, Program Management. To be eligible for award, a proposal must be found acceptable for each Factor. All information provided will be considered in determining the offeror's ability to perform.

(1) Factor 1, Technical Understanding: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's technical knowledge and ability to perform technical requirements under Statement of Work paragraphs 3.2 and 3.5 through 3.11.1. The Government’s evaluation will include:

a. Describe your approach, methodology, and ability to accomplish the requested design from receipt of requirements to presenting the final design as stipulated in the solicitation.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

(2) Factor 2, Safety: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's technical knowledge and ability to perform Safety requirements under Statement of Work paragraphs 3.12 through 3.13. The Government’s evaluation will include:

a. Draft Safety Assessment Report

(3) Factor 3, Program Management: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror's operational plan and competence in meeting requirements under Statement of Work paragraphs 3.3 through 3.5 and 3.13 through 3.22.2.

a. Provide a management plan outlining your ability to meet the technical requirements. The management plan should provide an overview of daily operations and procedures/policies to be implemented.

b. Discuss your Quality Assurance Program and methods for continuous quality improvement. Describe your Quality Assurance (QA) program/plan that incorporates inspections as part of the overall QA plan.

c. Provide a preliminary schedule that details milestones, tasks, and prerequisite events.

d. Identify all subcontractors to be utilized and describe their role under the contract.

Area II – Price /Administrative Proposal

The price proposal/administrative proposal will be evaluated for total price and reasonableness in the following format:

(i) Total Price. The price of all Firm Fixed Price (FFP) and COST Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINS) (basic and options).

Total Evaluated Price will be derived as follows: Each CLIN unit price of Section B will be multiplied by the CLIN quantity. (Unit Price)(Quantity)=Total Evaluated CLIN Price.

The Total Evaluated CLIN Prices will then be summed.

(ii) Reasonableness. Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. Offeror's are encouraged to provide any applicable pricing support referred to in section L. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist for the firm, fixed-price efforts and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the offeror shall be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with

FAR 15.403-4.

(iii) The offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis only. Offerors that include a small disadvantaged business goal of at least 5% will “pass” this area of evaluation.

Area III –Performance Risk Assessment

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Performance Risk is associated with an offeror's ability to perform the solicitation's requirements as indicated by that offeror's record of past and current relevant performance. Each offeror will be evaluated on its past performance on contracts or subcontracts currently ongoing or completed within the last three years for similar products or services. A past performance risk will be associated with an offeror's ability to accomplish the requested effort based on the offeror’s relevant demonstrated past performance. The evaluation will assess such factors as relevancy (in complexity, size and scope) to the requirement; quality of product or service; schedule and cost control; and business and customer relationships.

Past performance information will be obtained through the past performance information requested in Section L, Contractor Performance Assessment Rating Systems (CPARS), similar systems of other government departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and/or other sources known to the government, including commercial sources. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources than requested in Section L, the burden of proving acceptability rests with the offerors.

Performance Risk will be evaluated on the basis of the following:

a. Technical – History of successful execution and integration in programs similar to the effort required in the solicitation.

b. Cost – Ability to stay within contracted costs on previous programs, to perform systemic improvement in control of costs, and to control cost growth of subcontractors.

c. Schedule – Ability to meet delivery schedules and correct program slippage when it occurred.

d. Customer Satisfaction – Satisfaction with the contractor during contract performance, the final product, and any required post-delivery support.

The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully adopted and applied the principles and techniques of continuous systemic improvement in resolving past performance problems will be assessed. The Government will consider trends in the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken, and the overall work record.

Information utilized will be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, other customers known to the Government, consumer protection organizations, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) reports (if available), the Contractor Performance and Reporting System (CPARS) and others who may have useful and relevant information. Information will also be considered regarding any major subcontractor (one who furnishes a critical expertise or function under the scope of the contract, or is anticipated to perform 30% or more of the contract) and key personnel records.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror, or proposed employees of the Offeror, that do not have past contract performance information or with respect to which information on past contract performance is not available, the Government will not evaluate the Offeror favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

NOTICE TO OFFERORS: It is the responsibility of the Offeror to solicit in a timely manner the past performance information on the contracts listed by the Offeror in accordance with the specified format.

M.4 RATINGS AND RISK DEFINITIONS

Merit Adjectival Ratings. The Government will use the following adjectival Proposal Ratings for the Technical Factors. The proposal rating evaluation measures the merits of the offerors proposed approach against the RFP requirements.

Color Rating Definition

Blue

Outstanding (O)

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance in no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal (M)

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies.

Proposal is unawardable.

Performance Risk Confidence Assessment Definitions

The Government will use the following Performance Confidence ratings for Area III, Performance. Performance risk assessments evaluate the likelihood that the offeror will successfully complete the solicitation requirements based on previous demonstrated relevant performance.

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonable assigned.

Performance Risk Relevancy Assessment Definitions

The Government will use the following Performance Relevancy ratings for Area III, Performance. Performance risk assessments evaluate the likelihood that the offeror will successfully complete the solicitation requirements based on previous demonstrated relevant performance.

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Somewhat Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Not Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of the effort and complexities this solicitation requires