section_M_evaluation_factors (DRAFT).pdf

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

AMAC will be acquired as a multiple-year, multiple-award contract. This acquisition will be awarded under a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-DFARS), These regulations are available electronically at Acq.gov and https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars_far_overhaul_class_deviations.html. Awards will be made to each and all qualifying offerors (see Paragraph 1.1 below).

In accordance with the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM), only U.S. companies will be considered for award as prime contractors. If a JV is formed to submit a proposal for AMAC, all members/partners of that JV must be U.S. companies. A foreign-owned or foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA) as a U.S. subsidiary will be considered as a U.S. company.

1.1 COST/PRICE EVALUATION

There will be no cost/price evaluation for AMAC IDIQ awards. RFO Part 15.104(b)(1)(ii)(A) states that for DoD, the contracting officer may choose not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for award when a solicitation—

1) Has an estimated value above the simplified acquisition threshold;

2) Will result in multiple-award contracts that are for the same or similar services; and

3) States that the Government intends to make an award to each and all qualifying offerors

RFO Part 2.101 defines “qualifying offeror” as an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 3206 (c)(4)).

To be considered for award under AMAC, a “qualifying offeror” is an offeror who:

1) Is determined to be a responsible source IAW RFO Part 9;

2) Conforms to the requirements of the solicitation (to include all stated terms, https://acquisition.gov/far-overhaul https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars_far_overhaul_class_deviations.html

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

Recommend citing two URLs:

https://acquisition.gov/far-overhaul And https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/dfars_far_overhaul_class_deviations.html

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

Wasn’t this renamed to Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency (DCSA)?

conditions, representations, certifications, small business Commitment and /or subcontracting plan, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation);

3) The contracting officer has no reason to believe it would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing at the task order level;

4) Is rated Acceptable for Factor 1; and

5) Is rated Acceptable for Factor 2.

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government will make an award to each and all qualifying offerors, which the Government anticipates will result in multiple IDIQ AMAC contracts under unrestricted competition [e.g., Unrestricted Pool] and under small business competition [e.g., Small Business Pool]. Offerors may only submit a single proposal.

1.3 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and representations and certifications. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale discussing the exception. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and representations and certifications unless such exceptions are identified and supported as required, and agreed to by the Government. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

1.4 COMPETITIVE RANGE DETERMINATION

The Government reserves the right to award without negotiations; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint IAW RFO 15.203. If it is determined it is in the Government’s best interest to hold negotiations, the Contracting Officer will establish a competitive range after evaluating competitive proposals IAW RFO 15.204-1. A competitive range is the group of evaluated proposals that the contracting officer determined are best suited for further negotiation. Written notice must be provided to unsuccessful offerors in accordance with RFO 15.206-1(a). If negotiations occur, they will be conducted

IAW RFO 15.204-2.

SARTIN, SHELBY A CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/PK

How many factors? What are we doing? (PM)

Don’t know if we’re still going this route (SB)

1.5 EXCLUSION OF GROSSLY DEFICIENT PROPOSALS

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

2.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION PROCESS

Proposals will be evaluated using the Factors listed below. Offerors must have a Technical rating of Acceptable in each Factor to be considered for contract award.

Factor 1: Technical Factor

Subfactor 1- S&T Maturation

Subfactor 2- Area of Interest Proficiency

Factor 2: Small Business Factor

Subfactor 1- Small Business Participation Commitment Document

Subfactor 2- Small Business Sub-Contracting Plan (as applicable)

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Evaluation: the Government may utilize artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) tools to assist in the administrative review and technical assessment of proposals and whitepaper submissions. Please be advised that the final evaluation and award decision remains with the Government's human evaluation team.

2.1 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL FACTOR

The Technical Factor will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for each technical sub factor (S&T Maturation and Area of Interest Proficiency) described below.

If an Offeror’s proposal receives a rating of Unacceptable the proposal is ineligible for award.

Offerors will receive a rating IAW the ratings defined in Table 1.

Don’t know yet

If you’re using subfactors, then ratings should be assigned at that level. If you’re not using subfactors, the factor can receive a rating. This used to be very explicit in the DoD SSPs, but still exists in para 2.3.2.3, “If sub-factors are used, they are to be evaluated separately.”

TABLE 1 – FACTOR 1 PROPOSAL RATINGS

TABLE 1 – FACTOR 1 PROPOSAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.1.1 SUBFACTOR 1- S&T MATURATION

The submitted narrative must demonstrate how the Offeror's was able to progress through technical maturity as it pertains to the research and development categories defined in section L paragraphs 4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.3.The submitted narrative must demonstrate how the Offeror was able to show progression though the developmental categories as it pertains to the research and development definitions. It is the offeror responsibility to provide the traceability of the developmental categories for technical maturation.

2.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2- AREA OF INTEREST (AOI) PROFICIENCY

The submitted narrative must demonstrate how the Offeror has technical proficiency in at least one Aera of interest identified in the Statement of Objectives as it pertains to the research and development categories defined in section L paragraphs 4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.3.

The Offeror shall submit a detailed description of one (1) narrative that aligns with an AOI, adhering to the formatting instructions provided in Section L. This submitted narrative shall clearly detail the Offeror's proficiency in performing work and delivering results related to the aligned AFRL AOI.

2.2 FACTOR 2 – SMALL BUSINESS FACTOR

The Small Business Factor is an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to meet the requirements for each small business subfactor (Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) and Small Business Subcontracting Goals {as applicable}) described below.

If an Offeror’s proposal receives a rating of Unacceptable the proposal is ineligible for award.

Offerors will receive a rating in accordance with the ratings defined in Table 2.

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

These changes align with the DoD SSPs as currently written. They will change soon, but you’re still subject to them at the moment. As previously written, not only were they non-conforming to the SSPs, but they used the rating title in the description...this is not appropriate for any ratings.

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

Is there a guidance document with which to point both the Offerors and the evaluators? Something that defines maturation in this context as well as basic, applied, and advanced. Some of these statements should be in Section L. Remove and place in Section L all statements that instruct the Offerors on what they “must” do

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

Section L.

SARTIN, SHELBY A CIV USAF AFMC AFRL/PK

Need PM input

See comment on Technical factor of where to apply the rating.

TABLE 2 – FACTOR 2 PROPOSAL RATINGS

TABLE 2 – FACTOR 2 PROPOSAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable The proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1- SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT

This Subfactor will assess the extent to which small businesses (SB) participation is identified in the proposal. Offerors will be evaluated on the degree to which they met or exceeded small business participation commitments. An Offeror’s SBPCD will be considered to have identified SBs when it is submitted in its entirety with all applicable, fillable fields completed. A SB minimum quantitative requirement is not being specified for this contract; however, SB utilization shall be considered for all DO/TOs issued during the life of the contract.

2.2.2 SUBFACTOR 2- SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

Other than Small Business offerors shall submit a written small business subcontracting plan that complies with RFO 52.219-9, Alternate II, and R-DFARS 252.219-7996 or R-DFARS 252.219-7997. Offerors must submit their performance against the goals established in an approved subcontracting plan.

Offerors will be evaluated on the degree to which they met or exceeded small business and socioeconomic category goals indicated in Section L, Table 5.2.

3.0 INITIAL DELIVERY ORDER SUBMISSION

The Government intends to award a minimum Delivery Order of $500 for the post-award conference. The post-award conference will be held by video/ teleconference. The purpose of the post-award conference is to establish the contractual relationship and educate awardees on the AMAC Industry Guide. The Government may schedule or structure the post-award conference differently than described. The Contracting Officer will notify

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

These should be the same as technical.

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

Above you say “Plan”. Just need to be consistent.

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

Just trying to simplify and making it align more with PGI 215.104-70(a)(1). Page 59 of 98 at this link: https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/dars/classdev/DFARS_RFO/Part-215/2026-O0048_TAB_A_Deviation_Memo_Part_215.pdf

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

Don’t let me change the intent, however.

NEER, KRAIG W CIV USAF AFMC AFLCMC/AZK

This is all Section L language. What standard do they have to meet? Some percentage of their on contract goals? Meet or exceed the goals? Show a reasonable effort to meet the goals? Show they met or explain why they didn’t? I see this as a problem with this subfactor. Need to identify a standard the offerors must meet and document why you chose that standard in the contract file.

In addition, RFO 19.109 is not enforceable on a vendor. Only solicitation provisions and contract clauses are enforceable, so giving them an instruction IAW RFO19.109 legally means nothing to them. Recommend using RFO 52.219-9, or just tell the Offerors, “This Subfactor is only applicable to non-small business concerns.”

offerors after award by email of the date and time of the post-award conference.

3.1 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors shall meet solicitation requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.