AVMI_Section_M_v1.9.docx__3.20.18.pdf

Version 1.5

Sept 2017

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (19 March 2018)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the

Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The

Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government.

However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the

Government, all factors considered. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and cost/price standpoint. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. When a competitive range is established, the Government 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. The Government may use information other than that provided by the offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information and the results of questionnaires or site surveys.

All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, as well as for the risk associated with the offeror’s approach. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g. Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc.) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

For the Technical factor, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned.

The Technical Rating reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. For proposals containing no deficiencies, the benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional.

The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the requirement and is evaluated by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses.

Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an

“Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an

Offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. When proposals are received from joint ventures, specifically formed by the Offeror to propose on a particular acquisition, the past performance evaluation will consider each individual JV team member’s relevant past performance. After evaluating the Offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than past performance of lesser relevance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance, the Offeror will receive a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” which is considered a

“Neutral” rating.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below.

Past Performance

Technical

Cost/Price

The Evaluation Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

Past Performance is more important thanTechnical.

All evaluation factors other than cost/price, when combined, are significantly more important than price/cost.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The evaluation will include an assessment of the following elements:

1.1 MANAGEMENT APPROACH

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed management approach based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The management approach will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s understanding and ability to manage the contract.

1.2 PERSONNEL SUPPORT

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed personnel approach based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The personnel approach will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s understanding and ability to provide, retain, and remove personnel as appropriate in an efficient and timely manner in support of the contract.

1.3 MANAGEMENT QUALITY

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed quality approach based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The quality approach will be evaluated to assess the

Offeror’s ability to understand performance levels throughout the contract and to execute the contract in a manner that ensures quality support. The proposed processes and procedures will be evaluated to ensure successful quality levels of accomplishing tasks described in the SOW.

1.4 GENERIC GOP TEMPLATE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed GOP Template based on the information required by Section L of this solicitation. The GOP Template will be evaluated to assess the

Offeror’s ability to understand the requirements as stated by this solicitation and to apply those requirements to a Generic GOP Template which will be the basis for getting GOPs written and approved during the transition period, prior to Period of Performance start.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance being evaluated. Past performance will be considered recent if the contract/order has been performed within five years of the solicitation release date. Past Performance that is not recent will not be considered in the evaluation.

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. See below to review how relevancy will be defined:

a) Relevant (R) – A present/past performance contract reference involving similar scope, magnitude of effort (annualized dollar value germane to the instant requirement), and complexity this solicitation requires. Specifically:

In order for a submitted present/past performance contract reference to merit a relevancy rating of Relevant, the effort must demonstrate all of the following:

Similar Scope from at least 7 of the following Scope areas:

1. Overall Engineering Support (SOW 3.3.1 and subsections), to include

Instrumentation Technical Support (SOW 3.3.2) and Instrumentation

Design (SOW 3.3.3.)

2. Fabrication, testing, troubleshooting and repair of Wiring Harnesses, Circuit Boards and Fiber Optics (SOW 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.3.9, 3.3.10)

3. Supporting Flight Test, before, during and after flight operations (SOW

3.3.11, 3.3.11.1, 3.3.11.3)

4. Supporting day to day operations to include shipping./receiving, warehouse management and hangar support (SOW 3.3.16 and subsections)

5. Mechanical Engineering Support (SOW 3.3.17 and subsections)

6. Drafting Support (SOW 3.3.18 and subsections)

7. Mechanical Modifications (Sheet Metal Support) (SOW 3.3.19 and subsections)

8. Information Technology Support (SOW 3.3.21 and subsections)

9. Project Documentation, Configuration Management and Technical

Writing Support (SOW 3.3.22 and subsections)

Similar Complexity from at least 4 of the following Complexity areas:

1. Providing contract support services at multiple places of performance

(on a single contract) such as NAWCAD and NAWCWD (SOW 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3)

2. Providing contract support services in accordance with the Service

Contract Act and Executive Order 13495, “Nondisplacement of

Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts (Section I (52.222-17))

3. Being flexible with the support provided to not only be able to react to last minute test and training events but also to be able to meet surge requirements in a timely manner, for example short term surge staffing requirements or overtime/weekend work with short notice (SOW

3.1.7.2)

4. Experience executing/performing contracts with the Ground and Flight

Risk clause (DFARS 252.228-7001) (SOW 3.1.8)

5. Experience with the majority of personnel supporting the contract are required to have at least a Secret Security Clearance (SOW 3.1.9.4, 3.2.2, 3.4.1.5)

Magnitude dollar value: $50,000,000 or greater ($10,000,000 annualized or greater)

b) Somewhat Relevant (SR) – A present/past performance contract reference involving some of the scope, magnitude of effort (annualized dollar value germane to the instant requirement), and complexity this solicitation requires. Specifically, if a present/past performance contract is not evaluated to merit a relevancy rating of Relevant as discussed above, then the Government evaluators may assign it a relevancy rating of Somewhat

Relevant. Specifically:

In order for a submitted present/past performance contract reference to merit a relevancy rating of Somewhat Relevant, the effort must demonstrate all of the following:

Some Scope from at least 5 of the following Scope areas:

1. Overall Engineering Support (SOW 3.3.1 and subsections), to include

Instrumentation Technical Support (SOW 3.3.2) and Instrumentation

Design (SOW 3.3.3.)

2. Fabrication, testing, troubleshooting and repair of Wiring Harnesses, Circuit Boards and Fiber Optics (SOW 3.3.7, 3.3.8, 3.3.9, 3.3.10)

3. Supporting Flight Test, before, during and after flight operations (SOW

3.3.11, 3.3.11.1, 3.3.11.3)

4. Supporting day to day operations to include shipping./receiving, warehouse management and Hangar 101 Support (SOW 3.3.16 and subsections)

5. Mechanical Engineering Support (SOW 3.3.17 and subsections)

6. Drafting Support (SOW 3.3.18 and subsections)

7. Mechanical Modifications (Sheet Metal Support) (SOW 3.3.19 and subsections)

8. Information Technology Support (SOW 3.3.21 and subsections)

9. Project Documentation, Configuration Management and Technical

Writing Support (SOW 3.3.22 and subsections)

Some Complexity from at least 3 of the following Complexity areas:

1. Providing contract support services at multiple places of performance

(on a single contract) such as NAWCAD and NAWCWD (SOW 1.4.1, 1.4.2, 3.1.2.1, 3.1.2.2, 3.1.2.3)

2. Providing contract support services in accordance with the Service

Contract Act and Executive Order 13495, “Nondisplacement of

Qualified Workers Under Service Contracts (Section I (52.222-17))

3. Being flexible with the support provided to not only be able to react to last minute test and training events but also to be able to meet surge requirements in a timely manner, for example short term surge staffing requirements or overtime/weekend work with short notice (SOW

3.1.7.2)

4. Experience executing/performing contracts with the Ground and Flight

Risk clause (DFARS 252.228-7001) (SOW 3.1.8)

5. Experience with the majority of personnel supporting the contract are required to have at least a Secret Security Clearance (SOW 3.1.9.4, 3.2.2, 3.4.1.5)

Magnitude dollar value: $20,000,000 or greater ($4,000,000 annualized or greater)

c) Not Relevant (NR) – A present/past performance contract reference involving little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (i.e., does not meet the above definitions of Relevant and Somewhat Relevant); or contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that meet any of the conditions below:

Contracts from an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Attachments P1 (Past Performance Information Form) and P4 (Past

Performance Contract Data).

Contracts, or those portions of contracts, whose performance is older than 5 years from the solicitation release date. (If only a portion of a contract is older than 5 years, then only that portion is not relevant for reasons of recency.)

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s recent relevant, past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offerorand JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas:

1) Technical Performance: meeting technical requirements (meeting technical requirements (i.e., the quality of your technical performance, e.g., performing analysis, design, testing, etc.);

2) Schedule Performance: meeting schedule requirements (i.e., schedule performance, e.g., on time or late delivery, modification of original schedules and reasons for any changes, etc.);

3) Cost Performance: controlling contract cost (i.e., cost performance e.g., within the budget, actual

vs. contract cost, and cost metrics);

4) Management Performance: managing the contracted effort (i.e., program management, e.g., cooperation with customer, subcontract management); and

5) Demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems.

The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of past performance taking into account the recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. The degree of relevancy assessed at the contract level may indicate the likelihood that relevant negative or positive findings associated with that contract may be found. However, it is the applicability of the finding, as well as its associated likelihood of occurrence and consequence, that will be used in determining the

Performance Confidence Level Rating. Problems not addressed by the offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the offeror’s Prime’s and JV team members’ (if applicable) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. In the case of an offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the offeror will receive a rating of “Unknown” which is considered a “Neutral” rating. As such, the term “performance record” in the

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to the records that indicate how well the offeror has performed on relevant work (e.g. CPARs, and questionnaires). When proposals are received from contractor entities specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition (e.g. joint ventures), the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member. No subcontractor past performance will be evaluated.

3.0 COST/PRICE

Cost Reimbursement CLINs:

Except for otherwise unacceptable proposals when awarding on initial proposals, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable offeror’s proposal. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed cost is realistic for the work to be performed and is consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the

Offeror’s technical proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor categories and compare the proposed rate to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed.

Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this contract. The MPC is an Offeror’s total cost, including fee, and any additional adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic for all periods. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The

MPC will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. The Government MPC in addition to the calculated total of the six month extension associated with the Option to Extend Services clause (see below) will result in the total evaluated cost/price which will be used to establish the

Govenrment’s best value determination. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed costs.

Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and may be assessed as weaknesses under the technical factor. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.

Total Professional Employee Compensation Plan:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Total Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds $300K annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. An exceeded tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

Overall Summary Level for all CLINs

Normally, adequate price competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

If this is a set-aside competition, the contractor’s compliance with FAR Clauses 52.219-14 “Limitation on Subcontracting”, will be assessed as an element of responsibility. An Offeror’s proposal that fails to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance shall not be considered for award.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment (P5), and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

4 .0 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation. Total evaluated cost/price will also include the six month performance period permitted under the clause, to account for a situation where invoking of the clause, in whole or part, becomes necessary. Specifically, the evaluated cost/price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the final option period (CLINS 4001 - 4009) by twelve to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated cost for the six-month option to extend services.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiples strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.0 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method described in the table below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown or neutral past performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment Rating: Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance record.

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.

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

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.

4.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

Recency: as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. As it pertains to past performance, the time period for this solicitation is performance that is within 5 years from the solicitation release date; and within that 5 year time period the more recent past performance references are more relevant.

Relevancy: as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. See Part B, paragraph 2.0 above for specific relevancy definitions related to this solicitation.

Risk: as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.