Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M-1.1. This competitive best value source selection is conducted using the tradeoff source selection process in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 20 August 2022, and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 for Source Selection effective 16 October 2024. The Government will award one contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible (IAW FAR Part 9) offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

M-1.2. The Government will utilize evaluation methodology that permits a trade-off between technical and price factors. Technical is significantly more important than price. Technical Subfactor E is the only Subfactor included in the Trade-off. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government reserves the right to award to other than the lowest proposed price. While the technical factor is determined to be significantly more important than price, price will contribute to the award decision. The greater the equality of proposals for technical factor, the more important price becomes in selecting the best value for the Government.

M-1.3. The Government will evaluate the minimum number of proposals for efficiency and to maintain adequate competition, as specified in this section. Upon receipt of the Technical and Price proposals, the Government will follow a two (2) step process as outlined below:

Step 1: Factor Evaluations. The Government will evaluate proposals as follows:

Technical Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the technical proposals of Offerors as specified in paragraph M-2.1.

Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate the price proposals of Offerors as specified in paragraph M-2.2.

Technically Unacceptable proposals may not be evaluated for price.

Step 2: Government Determinations. At the conclusion of Step 1, the Government reserves the right to award without discussions but may conduct discussions if the Government determines it is in the Government’s best interest. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is "Acceptable" or "Unacceptable" based on the initial proposal submitted. Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information required. If the Government elects to open discussions, the competitive range may include proposals rated as “Unacceptable” at the sole discretion of the Government.

M-1.4. The Government contemplates award of one contract resulting from this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the acceptability of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

M-1.5. Per FAR Clause 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to award without discussions. The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is the best value solely based on the initial proposal as submitted.

Accordingly, offerors are advised to submit initial proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. Should the SSA determine that discussions are necessary, a competitive range determination will be made prior to conducting discussions. This range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of all tradeoff factors. The competitive range may include lesser rated proposals at the sole discretion of the Government.

M-1.5.1. The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors in writing if their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition IAW FAR 15.503(a). That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered.

M-1.5.2. Evaluation Notices (EN) will be issued to Offerors in the Competitive Range. Formal responses to ENs and final proposal revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

M-1.5.3. Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be requested from each offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Any revision or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the submitted FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation. This provision is not intended to restrict the offeror’s opportunity to revise figures

(e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed, and understood during discussions. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2. EVALUATION FACTORS.

M-2.1. FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

M-2.1.1. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The focus of the Technical Rating is on the offeror’s ability to satisfactorily meet the evaluation criteria identified within each subfactor and subfactor aspect. The Government will not search for data to cure problems or address inconsistencies in an offeror’s proposal. Technical will be rated using a methodology of Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings for Subfactors A and B;

and combined technical/risk rating for Subfactors C and D per paragraph 3.1.2.2. of DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022. Technical ratings will be assessed at the subfactor level; an overall factor-level rating will not be assigned.

Proposals receiving an Unacceptable rating for Factors A, B, C, or D may not receive further evaluation. Finally, proposals rated Unacceptable in Factor D are not awardable and may not be included in the competitive range.

M-2.1.1.1. Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings. The Government will evaluate Factors A and B using a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. All criteria in each factor must be met to receive an Acceptable rating.

M-2.1.1.2. Technical Rating. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2. The combined technical/risk rating in Table 1 includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. In conducting the assessment, the Government will also consider the information provided in the proposal as to how the offeror will manage and mitigate risk. Subfactors C and D shall be assigned a combined technical/risk rating as shown below in Tables 1 and 2. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirements. If an offeror's proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, this is a deficiency in the offeror's proposal resulting in a Red/Unacceptable rating and the proposal is not awardable. The severity of the deficiency will determine if the offeror will be able to correct the deficiency through discussions. To be eligible for award, all Subfactors must receive a minimum color rating of "Green/Acceptable." Table 3 further defines terminology contained within Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1 - Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Description Blue 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.

Purple 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.

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

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

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

Table 2 - Technical Risk Rating

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

Table 3 – Technical Evaluation Descriptors

Terminology Definition

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.

Strength An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

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

See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weaknesses

A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

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).

Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

M-2.1.2. Subfactor A: Technical Experience. Any proposal that does not provide evidence of performing similar scope work IAW L-7.4.1.3 for a minimum of 12 months with performance within the last five (5) years from the issue date of this solicitation may not be evaluated for Subfactor E IAW M.2.1.1. and will not be eligible for award.

M-2.1.3. Subfactor B: Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) Capability. Proposed approach must demonstrate the offeror’s understanding and ability to (1) effectively utilize IFR equipment in support of the NWS mission and (2) provide a listing of pilot qualifications to ensure competency and sage operations. Additionally, the proposed approach shall demonstrate the ability to achieve certified IFR aviation capability at contract start date.

M-2.1.4. Subfactor C: HFW Capacity and Distance

M-2.1.4.1. Aspect I – Payload capacity. Proposed approach must demonstrate a comprehensive plan to successfully accomplish NWS mission requirements with the following:

a. HFW aircraft to take-off and land at all airfields in the proposed aircraft’s operating area as referenced in PWS –

Appendix 1, having a capability of transporting any combination of passenger(s) and/or cargo totaling a minimum of 45,000 pounds.

b. HFW aircraft, at a minimum, having the capability of safely transporting 3,700 Imperial or 4,750 US gallons of bulk POL per sortie between Hall Beach (Fox-M) and Dewar lakes (Fox-3).

c. HFW aircraft with a minimum cargo load door of 9 feet (2.74 meters) high by 10 feet (3.04 meters) wide.

d. The proposal will address mitigation factors for unimproved surface operations and factors for potential adverse weather operations found in the arctic environment.

M-2.1.4.2. Aspect II – Distance Requirement. Proposed approach must demonstrate a comprehensive plan to successfully accomplish NWS mission requirements with the following:

a. HFW aircraft having the capability to take-off and land on 4,000 feet of unimproved runways.

b. HFW aircraft, at a minimum, having the capability of transporting the total payload a range of 258 Great Circle Statute Miles (one way).

M-2.1.5. Subfactor D: Managing Aircraft Utilization, Operations, and Plans Across the Zones

M-2.1.5.1. Aspect I – Maximize Performance, Availability, and Responsiveness. Proposed approach demonstrates a comprehensive plan that shows innovation in providing resource efficiencies to maximize air asset performance, availability, and responsiveness to meet the NWS mission. Additionally, the proposed approach shall thoroughly demonstrate the following:

a. Proposed approach shall also demonstrate a plan to prioritize the NWS mission during the period of performance of the contract and ensure aircrafts supporting the NWS mission are not simultaneously supporting other efforts.

b. The ability to support HFW airlift service requirements, upon 48 hours’ notice, as required IAW paragraph 5.2 of the

PWS.

c. Where possible, develop an alternative air asset basing plan or innovative strategy for asset utilization to increase flexibility and find efficiencies to support adjacent Zone missions and minimize response times.

M-2.1.5.2. Aspect II – Operations. Proposed approach demonstrates a comprehensive plan according to the following:

a. Describes the offeror’s approach to effectively plan and execute simultaneous operations with HFW assets to each of the operating locations with primary focus in Zone 3 IAW PWS – Appendix 1.

b. Describes the offeror’s approach to ensure all NWS airlift missions will be accomplished in a contiguous manner.

M-2.1.5.3. Aspect III – Plans. Proposed approach demonstrates an executable plan according to the following:

a. Effectively comply with the standards and timeline of the Canadian Transportation Act, Part II, Sections 57 and 61, and the Canadian Aviation Regulations (CARs) subparts 703, and 704 or foreign equivalent.

b. Describes how maintenance activities at the aircraft staging locations across the NWS will be conducted with minimal impact on flying operations, to include detailed information on both known/phase maintenance requirements and contingencies for unplanned/emergency maintenance.

M-2.2. FACTOR 2 - PRICE

M-2.2.1. Offerors who receive acceptable or better Technical Subfactor ratings in Factor 1 will be evaluated for Factor 2 - Price.

M-2.2.2. This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition to ensure the awarded price is fair and reasonable. Thus, offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent their best effort to respond to the solicitation requirements. The burden of proposal accuracy rests solely with the offeror. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent between promised performance/technical approach and price, shall be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistency, if unexplained, raises a fundamental issue of the offeror’s proposal and may be grounds for the rejection of the proposal.

M-2.2.3. Ratings will not be assigned for Factor 2 – Price. Price analysis will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, complete, and balanced price.

Offerors whose total overall evaluated price (TOEP) is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or incomplete may not be considered for award.

M-2.2.4. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1 will be the primary means of accomplishing the price analysis, including reasonableness. Price reasonableness will be determined based upon comparison of the offerors’ TOEPs.

The price of each offeror will be evaluated on the TOEP, which will be determined by totaling all Contract Lines Item

Numbers (CLINs) including base year and option years. The Government has provided estimates for the cost reimbursable CLINs. All Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs are exclusive of indirect rates and profit/fee. Evaluation of the option years shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-2.2.5. In addition to the analyses as described in FAR 15.404-1(b), proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (see FAR 15.404-1(g)). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the government and may be a reason to reject an offeror's proposal.

M-2.2.6. A proposal is complete when all pricing data required in the RFP is provided in the format prescribed in this section and Section L, Instructions to Offerors. Submission of an incomplete proposal may result in rejection of the proposal.

M-2.2.7. All CR line items represent those expenses to be reimbursed based on actual costs. These line items are not profit bearing, nor do they allow for additional markup (e.g., G&A, handling, OH).

M-2.2.7.1. The government has provided pre-established not to exceed (NTE) amounts for all CR CLINS. These pre-established amounts are to be included in the offeror's proposal and will be evaluated as part of the TOEP. Additional funding will be obligated to these CLINS if required during contract performance.

M-2.2.8. Offerors shall complete and submit the Schedule of Supplies or Services and Prices or Costs. Offeror shall insert the price elements (unit price and extended total) for all FFP and Optional CLINS for Base Year and all Option Years. For ease of administration, the extended TOTAL should be rounded to whole dollar amounts before they are multiplied by the quantity.

The unit price multiplied by the number of units shall equal the extended price of each CLIN. If submitted unit prices are not rounded to the nearest dollar, the Government will round the unit prices to whole dollar amounts at the time of contract award or modification. If the decimal is followed by 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9, the price will be rounded up to the nearest whole dollar. If the decimal is followed by 0, 1, 2, 3, or 4, the price will be rounded down to the nearest whole dollar.

M-2.2.10. Bid and Proposal Costs are not allowed, or for any modification after award for the duration of the contract.

M-2.2.11. Notice on the Use of the SPRS. The RFP, in Section L, DFARS Clauses Incorporated by Reference, includes DFARS provision 252.204-7024, Notice on the Use of the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). DFARS 204.7603 provides for consideration of price risk and supplier risk if available in SPRS. For any services under this solicitation that do not have an associated Product Service Code (PSC) or Manufacturer CAGE Code with a Part Number or National Item Identification Number (NIIN), then the SPRS Item/Price Risk Report search will not provide any information. Therefore, offerors are advised that the evaluation of Factor 2 cannot utilize the Supplier Performance Risk System and (b) will not obtain nor consider risk assessments as detailed in DFARS 252.204-7024(c). Price evaluation will be conducted as otherwise specified in the RFP.