N6134021R0032_Amend0001_Final_SecM-Track_Changes.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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 FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the following factors:

Factor 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

Factor 2: PRICE

Factor 3: SMALL BUSINESS

The Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price factor. The Small Business Factor will be evaluated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis. The Small Business Factor must be acceptable to be eligible for award but is not a component of the trade off.

Because the Past Performance Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) is permitted to select an offeror that has proposed a higher price if the Past Performance proposal of the offeror is worth the price premium. Thus, for offerors with an acceptable Small Business Factor Rating, the SSA will perform a tradeoff between offerors’ evaluated price and their evaluated assessments under the Past Performance Factor.

Because a successful offeror’s evaluated past performance is generally exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 — but so that unsuccessful offerors might have some idea of where they stood in the evaluation compared to the successful offeror — the government will assign one of the Past Performance Factor ratings located in Part C-3, below. The SSA, however, will not base his or her decision on the ratings because ratings are merely guides to intelligent decision making.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

a) Under the Past Performance Factor, the Government will evaluate recent performance to determine how well an offeror has performed work similar to the work required by the solicitation. After evaluating the offeror’s past performance information, a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. The Performance Confidence Assessment Rating reflects 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. 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.

b) The Government will evaluate a maximum of six (6) most relevant government or commercial past performance contract references of the prime and principal subcontractors’ recent and relevant past performance.

c) There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: Relevancy and Demonstrated Past Performance. An initial consideration in determining the relevancy of a past performance record involves Recency.

d) If an offeror proposes the resources of a principal subcontractor – which is defined as a subcontractor, joint venture owner (joint venturer), partnership owner (partner), corporate parent, division, subsidiary, affiliate or vendor that is demonstrably proposed to provide at least 15% of the total contract price — the offeror will not receive past performance credit of the proposed principal subcontractor unless the offeror’s proposal demonstrates how the resources of the principal subcontractor – its workforce, management, facilities or other resources – will in fact be provided to perform at least 15% of the proposed total contract price. Merely stating that the offeror has access to the resources of a principal subcontractor is insufficient.

1.1 Relevancy

The first aspect of the past performance is to evaluate how relevant the Past Performance being evaluated is to the requirements of this solicitation. The government will evaluate each past performance contract reference to determine how recent and relevant it is to this solicitation’s effort. Any past performance contract reference deemed to be Not Relevant will receive no further consideration, with no opportunity to submit a replacement, even if the government requests revised proposals. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

a) Recency is expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information. A recency determination will be made for each offeror’s past performance submission. A determination of Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which contain performance within five (5) years of the initial RFP issuance date. For single -award indefinite delivery past performance contract references, only the task or delivery orders submitted for consideration will be evaluated for recency and not the base contract. The entire contract period of performance will be considered, even if only a portion of performance falls within the five year period, with the understanding that more recent performance is generally more relevant than less recent performance. It is possible that an older past performance contract reference with performance that barely crosses into the five-year period (see above) could be determined Not Relevant, depending upon the work that was actually delivered or provided during that time period. For example, for a trainer delivery solicitation, a past performance contract that performed trainer deliveries could be determined Not Relevant if the only thing being provided or delivered during the period of time that crosses the five-year mark is maintenance services.

A determination of Not Recent will be assigned to offerors’ submissions which do not contain performance within five (5) years of the RFP issuance date, or for which the Past Performance record’s award date cannot be determined, and the submission will not be evaluated or rated. Submitted past performance contract references without performance within this specified period will not be considered relevant by the Government.

b) The government will evaluate the offeror’s “Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-4, to determine the information is in accordance with Section L.B.1.3. The government will consider the highlighted portions of the paragraphs the offeror cited from its Past Performance Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Statement of Objectives, or Specifications and Contracts in the “Relevancy Information of the Past Performance Contract Reference Worksheet,” Attachment L-4. The government has no duty to search for missing pieces of supporting documentation or to search parts of the supporting documentation that is not highlighted and cited by the Offeror to cure the problems it finds in the information provided by the Offeror. The Offeror has the burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information. Moreover, the government will not consider any statements or descriptions of the requirements of the past performance contract references that are not included within the past performance contract references themselves. For example, the government will not consider document deliverables under the contract or offeror self-descriptions of work performed.

c) In determining relevancy, the government will compare the contract types, total dollar amounts, relevant dollar amounts of the effort, the location and divisions of the company that performed the effort, the period of performance, and the scope and magnitude of the past performance contract reference effort to the effort proposed to be performed under this solicitation, set forth below. For a principal subcontractor, the government will compare the scope and magnitude of the principal subcontractor’s past performance contract reference to the effort the principal subcontractor is proposed to perform for the instant effort.

Each of the up to six (6) Past Performance Contract References submitted by the offeror will be evaluated independently.

Scope – The government will compare the scope of the instant solicitation to the scope of the work required in the offeror’s past performance contract reference. The government will use the past performance contract references’ Statement of Work, Performance Work Statement, Statement of Objectives, and Specification, Contract Document, and supporting documentation as defined in Section L.B.1.3 to review and evaluate the relevancy of the scope of the past performance contract reference requirements to the instant solicitation SOW requirements. The following instant solicitation’s SOW supporting paragraphs will be considered for evaluating purposes: Instructional Media Design Package (SOW 3.5.1), IMI Media Types (SOW 3.5.2), Performance Support and Structured On-the-Job Training Media Types (SOW 3.5.3), Complex Media Types (SOW 3.5.4), Train the Trainer (SOW 3.5.7) and Course Pilot (SOW 3.5.8). Past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting in a service contract.

Magnitude – The government will compare the prime or principal subcontractor’s total relevant dollar amount of the past performance contract reference to the amount it is proposing to complete for the instant solicitation requirement.

d) The government will assign each past performance contract reference one of the following relevancy ratings:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Adjectival Rating Description Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

1.2 Demonstrated Past Performance of the Past Performance Contract References

The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the demonstrated past performance of the offeror’s recent, relevant past performance in the following areas:

a) Quality of Product or Service. The government will evaluate the prime or proposed principal subcontractor’s past performance in the delivery of quality supplies and services, which includes meeting technical requirements, and will also incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, if they exist.

b) Schedule. The government will evaluate the prime or proposed principal subcontractor’s past performance in meeting schedule requirements, which will incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, if they exist.

c) Program Management and Subcontract Management. The government will evaluate the prime or proposed principal subcontractor’s past performance in program management, subcontract management, and cooperation with the customer, which will incorporate pertinent assessments from CPARS and Past Performance Questionnaires, if they exist.

For those cases where the contractor may have had past performance problems likely to occur again, the government will assess whether the prime or proposed principal subcontractor’s successfully applied improvements to resolve those recurring problems. Problems not addressed by the prime or proposed principal subcontractors are considered to still exist.

Sources of past performance evaluation information may include information provided by the offeror in response to the solicitation, information obtained from questionnaires, and any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems, Electronic Subcontract Reporting System, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials. While the Government may have access to these sources, the government has no duty to search for additional data to cure problems the government finds in the information provided by the offeror.

Additionally, the government will not evaluate an offeror’s submitted CPAQs that are not eligible to be submitted under the instructions in Section L.

1.3 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

a) The Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings are set forth in Section M Part C 3.0. As part of the assessment, the government may also take into account any show cause notices, cure notices and terminations for default.

b) In assigning a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating and/or in the selection official’s tradeoff decision:

More relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Past Performance Confidence Assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

past performance of an entity performing as a prime contractor is more significant than a past performance effort of the entity performing as a subcontractor;

past performance of principal subcontractors who are proposing to perform more of the scope requirements (SOW sections 3.5.1; 3.5.2; 3.5.3; 3.5.4; 3.5.7; and 3.5.8) is more significant than principal subcontractor’s proposed to perform less scope requirements;

past performance contract references of an entity performing as part of an interorganizational transfer will be considered similarly to past performance effort of an entity performing as a subcontractor;

performance under United States government contracts is generally considered more relevant than performance under commercial contracts, all other things being equal;

past performance contract references where IMI and/or complex media is delivered under a supply contract will be given more weight than past performance contract references where the contractor is supporting under a service contract.

Contractor Performance Assessment Questionnaire (CPAQ) information provided by another member of the offeror’s proposed team or by a competing offeror is not given as much weight as CPAQ information from the Government or a disinterested third party; and past performance contract references for which the primary scope is courseware development will generally be considered of more significance than for those which the primary scope is not courseware development. Further, for past performance contract references for which the primary scope is not courseware development, the less that the Demonstrated Past Performance information addresses courseware development, the less significant these past performance contract references will be.

2.0 PRICE

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Price Volume for its proposed total evaluated price; price reasonableness; whether the offeror’s proposed CLIN prices are balanced; and whether the offeror completed the information requested in Section L. In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DoD contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, DCAA audit information, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government.

2.1 Price Reasonableness

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. It is expected that the award decision will include a determination that there is adequate price competition and that the proposed prices are reasonable. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the Procuring Contracting Officer 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 requested to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR § 15.403-4.

2.2 Balanced Pricing

As required by FAR § 15.404-1(g)(2), the government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze the unit prices of similar type CLINs (IMI levels) for purposes of assessing balanced pricing. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

This is not a price realism analysis.

2.3 Total Evaluated Price

The sum of the estimated prices provided by the Government for CLINs 1017, 1018, and 1019 along with the sum of the proposed prices for CLINs 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, and 1016 will be used in establishing the Total Evaluated Price of each offer.

2.4 Completeness

Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L.B.2.3, Administrative information submitted as part of the Price Volume, will be evaluated for completeness and compliance. In response to L.B.2.3(a)(viii), if an OCI Mitigation Plan is submitted, it will be reviewed to ensure it addresses provision ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST INSTRUCTIONS (NAVAIR) (APR 2021) and that as a result of the implementation of the OCI Mitigation Plan, there is no unfair competitive advantage identified . This evaluation is not part of the source selection authority’s “best value” tradeoff, but some of the information may be necessary for an offeror’s proposal to be acceptable for contract award. Unless otherwise noted, questions to offerors to resolve issues with the administrative information are not considered deficiencies that make an offeror unacceptable for award, even if the information is necessary for contract award, unless the offeror refuses to provide the requested information.

Exceptions and deviations are deficiencies. A proposal that contains an exception or deviation is unawardable.

An offeror’s proposal that fails to provide the evidence requested in Section L of an acceptable accounting system will be determined unawardable, will be removed from the competitive range if discussions are held, and will be ineligible for award.

3.0 SMALL BUSINESS

The Government will evaluate each offerors’ (Large and Small Businesses) Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) as provided on Attachment L-6. The SBPCD is separate from the offeror’s Subcontracting Plan submitted in Section L, Part B, 3.2 if required. The government will evaluate whether the SB

Goal meets or exceeds 25% of the total contract value, or the SBPCD provides detailed and adequate justification for a SB goal less than 25% of the total contract value. For large business offerors, the government will also evaluate whether the SBPCD is consistent with the offeror’s Subcontracting Plan and is compliant with NAVAIR Clause 5252.219-9501.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government.

1.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

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.

2.0 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION EVALUATION RATINGS

Small Business Rating Method

Rating Description

Acceptable The SB Goal meets or exceeds 25% of the total contract value; OR provides detailed & adequate justification for a SB goal <25% of total contract value. For LB offerors, the SBPCD must also be consistent with its Subcontracting Plan and be compliant with NAVAIR Clause 5252.219-9501.

Unacceptable The SB Goal is less than 25% of the total contract value and fails to provide detailed & adequate justification for the goal. For LB offerors, the SBPCD is inconsistent with its Subcontracting Plan or fails to be compliant with NAVAIR Clause 5252.219-9501.