SEAM_Sec_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.docx

NNJ16567749R Specialized Engineering, Aeronautics, and Manufacturing Section M

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (FAR 52.252-1) (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 these addresses:

https://www.acquisition.gov/?q=browsefar http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm The following contract clauses pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

I. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1)

CLAUSE

CLAUSE

NUMBER DATE TITLE

NONE INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

(End of Clause)

An initial review of proposals will be conducted to determine acceptability of the proposals in accordance with NFS 1815.305-70, Identification of Unacceptable Proposals. All unacceptable proposals will be eliminated from further evaluation.

Only one proposal per Offeror will be accepted. If more than one proposal is received from a single Offeror, the Government will accept the last proposal received before the submission deadline. All other versions will be regarded as unacceptable. It should be noted that this solicitation does not include Alternate II for FAR Clause 52.215-1; therefore, alternate proposals will not be accepted.

If an Offeror proposes on more than one Task Category, the proposal shall include past performance and pricing for each Task Category. Any proposal that is made contingent upon receiving an award of one or more other Task Categories is an alternate proposal and will be considered non-responsive to the SEAM solicitation. Such proposals will not be evaluated.

At the completion of the evaluation against the Past Performance, and Price Factors, the Government may elect to award a contract without discussions to the Offeror(s) who represents the best value as described below.

The Government may elect to establish a competitive range and conduct discussions. Discussions, if held, will only be held with the most highly rated Offerors.

Following discussions (if held), an Offeror’s Final Proposal Revision will only be further evaluated against the Past Performance, and Price Factors.

The Stream-Lined Procurement Team (SLPT) will carry out the evaluation activities and report to the Source Selection Authority (SSA), who is responsible for making the source selection decision for each Task Category. Each Task Category proposed will be independently evaluated and awarded. A tradeoff will be made between Past Performance and Price for each Task Category. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

For each Task Category, the Government will award to the Offeror(s) whose proposal offers the best overall value to the Government that meets all solicitation requirements and is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, Standards. The Government reserves the right to award one, some, none, or all of the proposed task categories based on the Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

M.2.1 PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR - VOLUME I

Past Performance indicates how well an Offeror performed on earlier work and can be a significant indicator of how well it can be expected to perform the work at hand. The Offeror and major subcontractor’s past performance will be evaluated by the SLPT. Any past performance data provided on a minor subcontractor will not be considered.

The Government will use past performance information from proposal data required by provisions of Section L, information obtained by the SLPT based on communications with listed references, as well as data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and similar systems of other governmental departments and agencies, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with client program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. In accordance with FAR 15.305, an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, a rating of neutral will be assigned.

Three aspects are taken into consideration by the evaluation team when determining the Offerors past performance confidence rating. These aspects are recency, relevance, and performance. A description of each aspect is provided below.

Recency: Only contract period of performances within five years from the date of this SEAM solicitation will be considered in the past performance evaluation. The Government will not consider performance on any contract that has no documented performance history within the five year period.

Relevance: If the contract is deemed recent, the Government will then determine the degree of relevance - i.e., level of pertinence - of the task based on size, content, and complexity. The term “content” considers the task’s scope of services, work, requirements, or supplies, in comparison to the requirements of this solicitation. For “Complexity”, tasks that exhibit a broad spectrum of skills, especially the critical capabilities required under the solicitation Statement of Work will be considered more relevant than tasks limited to fewer specific skills. For Task Categories A, B, and C, tasks performed for similar aircraft as the FOD fleet listed in Section C, Statement of Work, will be considered more relevant than tasks on dissimilar aircraft. For Categories D and E, tasks of similar scope and standards as existing aerospace training and qualification hardware as described in the sample task orders and Mockup Development Requirements Reference Documents (CX12-SLP0014 and CX14-POL0043) in the SEAM Technical Library (http://procurement.jsc.nasa.gov/seam/tl/authorize.asp) will be considered more relevant than tasks performed for unrelated applications.

For purposes of this procurement, relevance will be assessed using the following definitions:

This evaluation will consider the work areas the parent or affiliated company are responsible for and/or proposing to do on the SEAM effort and the specific resources (workforce, management, facilities, or other resources) to be employed and relied upon, such that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance, in determining relevance. Offerors’ with past performance as part of a joint venture will be evaluated on the entirety of the work performed by the joint venture.

Performance: The Government will assess the performance quality, schedule adherence, responsiveness, cost control, use of resident capabilities, and safe performance of the contracts which are considered to be recent and relevant (how well the Contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. The Government will consider the number and severity of problems, the effectiveness of corrective actions taken that have resulted in sustained improvements, and the overall record of past performance. This assessment will lead the Government to determine the quality of performance as either Excellent, Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor.

The past performance of a subcontractor will be compared to the work proposed to be performed by that subcontractor, and weighted accordingly in assigning the overall past performance adjectival rating to the Offeror. The past performance of the prime Contractor will be weighted more heavily than any subcontractors or combination of subcontractors in the overall past performance evaluation.

Past Performance Confidence Rating. More recent and more relevant past performance will receive greater consideration in the performance confidence assessment than less recent or less relevant past performance. A performance confidence rating will be assessed at the overall factor level for Past Performance after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance. Offerors will be evaluated separately for each Task Category proposed.

Each of the adjective ratings below has a "performance" component and a "relevance" component as discussed above. As used in the ratings below, the term “pertinent” is equivalent to the term “relevant.” Offeror Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings will be assigned to each Task Category proposed as follows:

Very High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is of exceptional merit and is very highly pertinent to this acquisition, indicates exemplary performance in a timely, efficient, and economical manner and very minor (if any) problems with no adverse effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

High Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is highly pertinent to this acquisition; demonstrating very effective performance that would be fully responsive to contract requirements. Offeror’s past performance indicates that contract requirements were accomplished in a timely, efficient, and economical manner for the most part, with only minor problems that had little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a high level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Moderate Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is pertinent to this acquisition, and it demonstrates effective performance. Performance was fully responsive to contract requirements; there may have been reportable problems, but with little identifiable effect on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a moderate level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance is at least somewhat pertinent to this acquisition, and it meets or slightly exceeds minimum acceptable standards. Offeror achieved adequate results; there may have been reportable problems with identifiable, but not substantial, effects on overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the Offeror’s existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

Very Low Level of Confidence: The Offeror’s relevant past performance does not meet minimum acceptable standards in one or more areas; remedial action was required in one or more areas. Performance problems occurred in one or more areas which, adversely affected overall performance. Based on the Offeror’s performance record, there is a very low level of confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR 15.305(a) (2) (ii) and (iv)].

M.2.2 PRICE FACTOR - VOLUME II

To ensure that the proposed price is fair and reasonable, the Government will perform price analysis of all proposals received in response to this solicitation. Each Task Category (A-E) will be evaluated separately. Offeror’s proposed price reductions based on selection in multiple categories will not be considered for evaluation or award. In the event the FBRs proposed in Section B.9 and/or B.10 of the Model Contract differ from the FBRs shown in the Pricing Template, the FBRs in Section B for each Task Category being proposed will take precedence for evaluation purposes. In addition, the Government will review all proposed Fully Burdened Rates (FBRs) and prices for all contract years per Task Category to determine if they are realistic.

The Government will also assess price realism. If the Government cannot determine the price for a Task Category to be realistic, the Government will ask clarification questions or request for more data to support the price proposal. The Government will perform cost realism analysis where appropriate, in accordance with FAR 15.305-Proposal Evaluation, and FAR 15.404-Proposal Analysis Techniques. A cost analysis will be performed if the SLPT cannot make a determination based solely on its price analysis per Task Category. If the SLPT determines that a cost analysis is necessary, it will request more data to support the price proposal. Unrealistically low prices demonstrate a lack of understanding of the Government’s requirements, thus representing a high-risk approach to contract performance, and the Government will determine the Offeror to be non-responsible for any one of the Task Categories (A-E) in accordance with FAR 9.104-1.

Time and Material (T&M) and Firm-Fixed Price IDIQ For purposes of proposal evaluation and source selection, the proposed price for each Task Category shall reflect:

a) The application of the Offeror’s FBRs to the Government provided labor resources (hours) per Standard Labor Category (SLC) for all contract years;

b) The application of the Offeror’s indirect rate(s), if applicable, to the Government provided NLR costs for all contract years; and

c) The application of the Offeror’s profit rate to the NLR costs (excluding travel) for all contract years.

Price for Selection Purposes The price of all proposals within a Task Category will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the source selection for that Task Category.

(End of Provision)

M.2.3 RESPONSIBILITY CONSIDERATIONS - VOLUME III

An Offeror must be considered to be responsible for award in accordance with FAR 9.104. The items listed below are important Responsibility Considerations; however, these items may not constitute all Responsibility Considerations that will be addressed by the CO pursuant to FAR 9.104. The Contracting Officer may choose to evaluate this information for the Offerors in the Competitive Range or the apparent Successful Offerors only.

A. Small Business Utilization The evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting applies to all Offerors, except that Small Businesses are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Small Business Subcontracting The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated in terms of reasonableness and soundness of the Offeror’s independent assessment to achieve the proposed overall subcontracting goals, in comparison to the Contracting Officer’s assessment of the appropriate subcontracting goals for this procurement. The Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan will also be evaluated in terms of meeting the requirements of FAR 19.704.

Subcontracting Arrangement Information The Subcontracting Arrangement Information will be assessed to determine if a formal size determination needs to be made by the Small Business Administration (SBA) and to confirm that the prime contractor making the offer will be performing the primary and vital requirements for the contract. The proposal evaluation may proceed until a final determination is made by the SBA. Offerors are advised that the formal size determination made by SBA may result in the Offeror not being eligible for award.

For any 8(a) joint venture, SBA must approve the joint venture agreement prior to the award of a contract on behalf of the joint venture. All Joint Ventures (regardless of size status) should have a new DUNS number and Cage Code number for the Joint Venture and must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM). Joint Ventures cannot use the DUNS number or Cage Code for any of the entities in the Joint Venture.

A. Facilities and Test Equipment The Government will consider the Offeror’s access to facilities and equipment to determine responsibility to complete performance under SEAM.

C. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Information The Government will perform an analysis to ensure an Organizational Conflict of Interest issue that cannot be mitigated does not exist. The OCI information will be assessed to verify the Offeror is considered to be responsible for award. If it appears an OCI issue does exist that the Offeror’s plan failed to mitigate, the government must notify the Contractor, provide the reasons therefore, and allow the Contractor a reasonable opportunity to respond. The contracting officer will make the final determination if the OCI issue exists and can be mitigated.

D. Property Management Plan The Contracting Officer will request a Property Management Plan DRD 6 from all Offerors in the competitive range or only from the apparent successful Offeror or from Offerors deemed as necessary to support an efficient responsibility decision. Offeror(s) will be notified by the Contracting Officer of this requirement, with an anticipated 10 days allowed for submittal.

(End of Provision)

M.2.4 MODEL CONTRACT - VOLUME IV

The model contract will not be evaluated for selection purposes. It will, however, be reviewed to ensure that it was signed by a person authorized to commit the Offeror, that there is completion of all fill-ins, and that it accurately captures the content as set forth in the Offeror’s proposal. Errors or inconsistencies in the Model Contract may result in an Offeror being removed from consideration for award.

The Government reserves the right to unilaterally modify the contract to remove any unsuccessful proposed task categories in Section B and Section C.

(End of Provision)

[END OF SECTION]

M-9