RFP N6852024R0044 Amendment 0002.pdf

N6852024R0044

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES)

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 and award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to enter into discussions if in the Government’s best interest to do so. In this case, a competitive range will be established with the most highly rated compliant proposals, which may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency. 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.

Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and price standpoint.

The Offeror’s proposal shall be in the form prescribed by this solicitation and shall contain a response to each of the areas identified in Section L. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L, Part B, Specific Instructions, may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and/or risk assessment. The failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet any given requirement of the solicitation may result in the entire proposal being found to be unacceptable and thus eliminated from the competition.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals shall be evaluated using the factors, which are listed below, where Technical is the most important factor followed by Past Performance and when combined are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

A. Technical

B. Past Performance

C. Cost/Price

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a program that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the cost/price proposal where applicable, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror's understanding of, approach to and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the

Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offerors approach. The evaluation will also include an assessment of the Offeror's proposed Key Personnel. To do so, the Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in their proposal to check education background and verify degrees.

For the Technical factor: This method reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the threshold performance or capability requirements. Evaluations shall be in accordance with the criteria established in the solicitation. The relative significant strengths, strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses of the proposal will be used to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. The benefit to the Government associated with assessed strengths along with technical risk will be considered in determining whether the

Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough. 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/Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

The Technical Risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Failure to address part or parts of the technical factor caused by a lack of information may be assessed as a significant weakness or multiple significant weaknesses. A combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level may be considered a deficiency.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Technical/Risk Rating of

“Unacceptable” is considered unawardable and may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

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 seven calendar 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. The Government will use the following aspects to determine relevancy for this evaluation:

Component Description

Scope (based on comparisons between current requirement and Statement of

Work from contracts submitted for Past

Performance)

RCM, CBM+, and IMC/P planning

RCM and CBM+ analysis

RCM and CBM+ integration and implementation

Advanced Technologies (CBM+)

RCM, CBM+, and IMC/P workforce training

RCM process and tool improvements

CBM+ and IMC/P process improvements

Administrative and project management support

Complexity

Application of basic RCM, CBM+, and

IMC/P principles and methods across multiple programs

RCM, CBM+, and IMC/P processes applied to distinct challenges similar to those of naval aviation

Magnitude

Orders Support for approximately 22, and up to

30 orders per year

Support for approximately for a range between 3,500 - 22,000 labor hours per order

Covering between 4-8 labor categories

Locations At least three (3) independently operated locations simultaneously

The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to evaluate the overall quality of the

Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror, principal subcontractors, and JV team members performance and focus its evaluation on the following areas:

1) meeting technical requirements, i.e., the quality of technical performance;

2) meeting schedule requirements, e.g., on time or late delivery;

3) controlling contract cost;

4) managing the contracted effort;

5) utilization of small business;

6) regulatory compliance, and

7) the demonstrated systemic improvement actions taken to resolve past problems.

A separate quality rating will not be assigned, rather 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.

3.0 COST/PRICE

Cost Realism

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 total level of effort mix and the ceiling of the contract. 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 each year of the ordering period. 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 price. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. Contract awarded value, however, will be based upon the successful Offeror’s proposed price (total cost and fee).

Price Reasonableness

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 $420,000 annually per employee.

This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of any prime contractor pass-through burden. A fully burdened labor cost that exceeds $420,000 annually per employee may ultimately be determined unreasonable, absent sufficient justification.

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.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between the excel version of

Section B (Volume 3.3.3.1) and the Cost Summary Worksheet (Volume 3.3.3.4) Section B prevails.

Total Evaluated Price

Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, is incorporated in the solicitation to allow for up to six months of continued performance upon expiration of the ordering period. The total evaluated price will 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 price of this six-month period will be calculated by dividing the price of the entire five-year ordering period by sixty (60) months to establish an estimated monthly amount. The monthly amount will then be multiplied by six to establish the estimated price for the potential six-month option to extend services.

The total evaluated price will be the sum of the entire ordering period CLINs Most Probable Cost

(MPC) plus the estimated price of Clause 52.217-8 covering the potential six-month extension.

4.0 SMALL BUSINESS

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance in meeting or exceeding the overall small business participation goal of no less than 20% of the total proposed contract dollars

(excluding 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services if included in the solicitation); providing goal dollar values and percentages (calculated to the second decimal place) for each small business category listed in the SBPCD; and listing the small business participants who are proposed as parties to the execution of the contract and whose data/information has been used in the preparation of the Prime’s proposal. A Small Business rating of “acceptable” is required for a proposal to be eligible for award and is not part of the tradeoff process.

5.0 CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed contractual compliances based on the information required by this solicitation to be eligible for contract award.

The contractor’s compliance with the small business subcontracting requirement and DFARS

252.242-7006 “Accounting System Administration” will be assessed as an element of compliance responsibility. An Offeror’s proposal that does not demonstrate adherence may not be eligible for award.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

1.0 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. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor and subfactor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings: The combined technical/risk assignments are provided in the table below.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

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 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 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings: 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.

Rating Definition

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.

4.0 SMALL BUSINESS

Acceptable The SB Participation Goal meets or exceeds 20% of the total proposed price

(including options but excluding the price of FAR 52.217-8 Option to

Extend Services clause); and small business participants are listed in the

SBPCD.

Unacceptable The SB Participation goal does not meet 20% of the total proposed price

(including options but excluding the price of FAR 52.217-8 Option to

Extend Services clause) or the Offeror failed to list small business participants in the SBPCD.

If a competitive range is established and the Offeror is within that competitive range, an unacceptable rating will result in the issuance of an Evaluation Notice (EN).

Offerors that list any SB participants who do not have an active registration in SAM or fail to include the written certification of a participant’s small business status (as applicable under the size standard associated with the NAICS assigned by the Prime) is considered an administrative discrepancy. Such discrepancies shall be addressed as clarifications.

5.0 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

The Government will employ the Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable 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. In the context of acceptable/unacceptable, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

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.

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.

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.

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance records, 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 reasonable assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited

Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance records, 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.

6.0 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.

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of 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)

Uncertainty: Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake)

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.

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.

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.

(End of Summary of Changes)