Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_FA890320R0003.pdf

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA8903-20-R-0003

14 Feb 2020

Housing, Enhanced Use Lease and Utilities (HEU) Privatization Management

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection using the Subjective Trade-off process in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.gov, https://www.acquisition.gov/browse/index/far. The Government will select the best overall proposal(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conformed to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of the solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Procuring Contracting Officer seeks to award to an Offeror who gives the AF the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the trade-off process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. The Government reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.

The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows: Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Price) is last in importance.

Within the Technical Factor, the traded sub-factors (1.1 & 1.2) are of equal importance. Subfactors 1.3 and 1.4 will not be a part of the trade-off determination and will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined are significantly more important than price. This process permits subjective trade-offs among cost or price and non-cost factors and allows the Government to accept other than the lowest priced proposal. The perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal shall merit the additional cost, and the rationale for subjective trade-offs must be documented in the file in accordance with FAR 15.406.

1.1 Discussions

The Government anticipates contract award without discussions; however, the Government does reserve the right to conduct discussions if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. For the purposes of making the award decision without discussions, all initial proposals that are rated technically Unacceptable on any factor or sub-factor will be unawardable. Proposals that are rated Unacceptable on any factor or sub-factor, after discussions, will be unawardable. If discussions are required, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will hold discussions with all Offerors in the competitive range and Final Proposal Revisions will be requested. If, after discussions have begun, the PCO determines that an Offeror's proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, then that proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of exclusion from the competitive range will be provided to unsuccessful Offerors.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government anticipates awarding either one single award Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for all HEU business areas (TAB A - Housing, Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) and TAB B - Utilities Privatization (UP)) to a single contractor or the Government may award two independent IDIQs;

one for TAB A - Housing and EUL and one for TAB B – Utilities Privatization to two different contractors.

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s proposal IAW the area(s) of business proposed (TAB A - Housing/EUL, TAB B - UP). Each TAB will be independently evaluated.

Furthermore, the Government can potentially separate an Offeror’s proposal and award only TAB A or B, and select a different Offeror for the remaining TAB. The purpose for the separation of proposals is to achieve the best value for the Government.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

(a) The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Selection shall be made on a “Subjective Tradeoff” basis. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

TAB A: Housing/EUL

Factor 1: Technical

Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach (Trade-off) Sub-factor 1.2 – Document Management Plan (Trade-off) Sub-factor 1.3 – Transition Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Sub-factor 1.4 – Small Business Participation Commitment (SBPC)

(Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Note: Assessment of technical/technical risk associated with approach/plan is applicable to subfactors 1.1 and 1.2 only. Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract, if cited as a strength. Subfactors 1.3 and 1.4 will not be part of the trade-off, and will receive an acceptable/unacceptable rating.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

TAB B: UP

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach (Trade-off)

Sub-factor 1.2 – Document Management Plan (Trade-off) Sub-factor 1.3 – Transition Plan (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Sub-factor 1.4 – Small Business Participation Commitment (SBPC)

(Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Note: Assessment of technical/technical risk associated with approach/plan is applicable to subfactors 1.1 and 1.2 only. Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract, if cited as a strength. Subfactors 1.3 and 1.4 will not be part of the trade-off, and will receive an acceptable/unacceptable rating.

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

(b) Technical Factor (Factor 1): The Technical evaluation for sub-factors 1.1 and 1.2 will provide for two distinct but related assessments for Technical and Technical Risk. These two ratings have equal impact and do not roll up into an overall technical factor rating.

(1) Technical Rating: The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution to meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical sub-factors (1.1 and 1.2 only) will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A - Technical Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings focus on the meets, strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The color ratings depict how well the Offeror’s proposal meets or exceeds the Technical subfactor requirements as captured in the PWS.

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

DoD Table 2A – Technical Ratings Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

(2) Technical Risk Rating: Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical sub-factors (1.1 and 1.2 only) will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B - Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating will consider the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is, or is not, manageable.

DOD Table 2B – Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description 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 significant weakness or 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.

The following are definitions of words that will be used in the Technical Evaluation for Factor 1.

Subfactors 1.1 – 1.4:

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 unacceptable contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Meets – Proposal meets requirements and indicates and antiquate approached and understanding of the requirements.

Significant Weakness – A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength – 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.

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

(3) Technical Rating/Acceptable or Unacceptable (Subfactor 1.3 only)

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s Transition Plan proposal will satisfy the Government’s minimum requirements. Technical Subfactor 1.3 will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-1, excerpted below.

DoD Table C-1 – Technical Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

(4) Small Business Participation Commitment Rating/Acceptable or Unacceptable (Subfactor 1.4 only)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract. Subfactor 1.4 will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 6, excerpted below.

DoD Table 6

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.1 Factor 1: Technical.

2.1.1 Sub-factor 1.1 – Technical Approach (trade-off) (Applies to TAB A and B)– This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes a sound approach for executing processes and procedures to accomplish the technical activities outlined in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the PWS, while minimizing the need for Government assistance during the various data collection phases.

2.1.2 Sub-factor 1.2 – Document Management Plan (trade-off) (Applies to TAB A and B) – This subfactor is met when the Offeror proposes a sound approach to:

(a) Manage reporting, execute and document financial analyses, retain documentation, and capture trending information,

(b) Maintain real time access and data interface with Government systems to include the full spectrum of document management services identified in sections 4.16, 4.17, 4.18 and 4.19 of the PWS,

(c) Maintain a secure site requiring user name and password access and a process that permits the

Government to review and approve all users

2.1.3 Sub-factor 1.3 – Transition Plan (acceptable/unacceptable) (Applies to TAB A and B) – This subfactor is met when the when the Offeror proposes a sound approach to:

(a) Implement a secure solution for current and future data management

(b) Transition current data, without data loss, onto the proposed secure solution

(c) Ensure full functionality of the secure solution and access by all required users at the start of the first task order period of performance

2.1.4 Sub-factor 1.4 – Small Business Participation Commitment (acceptable/unacceptable) (Applies to TAB A and B) – This subfactor shall describe the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment:

The Contracting Officer will evaluate in accordance with DFARS 215.304 and PGI 215.304 (c)(i)(A), the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract. The requirements of the factor/subfactor is met when the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of a valid corporate commitment in providing small business participation performance under the contract.

2.2 Factor 2: Past Performance. (Applies to TAB A and B) – The Past Performance evaluation results is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

(a) Evaluation Process: The Past Performance Evaluation Team will assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror's ability to fulfill the solicitation requirements. The assessment will consider the Offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in providing products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. The Past Performance Evaluation Team will assess each Offeror’s present/past performance for recency, relevancy, and quality, which will allow the team to assign an integrated performance assessment rating. The team will consider Offeror-provided information as well as information obtained from Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), CPARS, Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will determine their level of confidence in each Offeror's ability to perform as proposed. The Performance Confidence Assessment rating is at the factor level.

(b) Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past five

(5) years from the date of release of the solicitation.

For present or ongoing efforts, the Offeror must have been performing the effort for at least twelve

(12) months from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

(c) Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed relate to HEU solicitation requirements. Consideration will be given to program scope, similarity, complexity, diversity of tasks and type of effort. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and Team Members. In determining relevancy for individual contracts provided, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, Team Member, including Subcontractors, whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs), Attachment L-5, and information obtained from the proposal and other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing relevant contracts:

DoD Table 4 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 efforts involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(d) Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition. 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. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance were demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent and relevant efforts:

- Exceptional - During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

- Very Good - During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

- Satisfactory - During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

- Marginal - During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

- Unsatisfactory - During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

- Not Applicable - Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

(e) Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevance and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Offerors without a record of recent/ relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown

Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent and relevant performance has a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, excerpted below:

DoD Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessment Adjectival 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. 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 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.

2.3 Factor 3: Price. Price will be a consideration in the selection decision and will be evaluated for reasonableness, Professional Compensation Plan realism, balance and completeness. The following applies to the Price evaluation:

(a) Reasonableness

Price will be evaluated for reasonableness using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) based on TAB A TEP and TAB B TEP values respectively, proposed in Attachment L-10 - Fully Burdened Hourly Labor Rates Table in accordance with one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described under FAR 15.404-1, which includes, but is not limited to, price analysis. Adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.403-1(c)(1)(i) is anticipated to determine price reasonableness. Certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-1(b)(1). However, in the event adequate price competition is not obtained, then certified cost of pricing data will be required.

(b) Professional Compensation Plan Evaluation (IAW FAR 52.222-46)

For evaluation purposes only, Offerors proposals will be evaluated to determine compliance with the provisions at FAR 52.222-46 - Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees (Feb 1993).

Failure to demonstrate a realistic Professional Compensation Plan may render a proposal ineligible for award on the basis that the Offeror does not understand the requirement or proposed unrealistically low professional compensation.

(c) Balanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f) (8), 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 may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(d) Completeness

A proposal is complete when all pricing data required under Section L of the RFP is provided in the format prescribed.

(e) FAR 52.217-8 – Option to Extend Services (Nov 1999)

The Government will apply current year rates, if FAR 52.217-8 is exercised to calculate the total price for the extension of services.

2.4 Foreign Contractors and Subcontractors.

Foreign contractors and subcontractors will not be permitted to participate in the acquisition.

M003 FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY

3.0 PRIME CONTRACTOR FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: Defense Contract Management

Agency (DCMA) will be requested to perform a Financial Capability Risk Assessment for the Prime.

The Government will use the results of the Financial Capability Risk Assessment to determine financial responsibility. Failure to meet financial responsibility requirements will render the Offeror’s proposal not awardable.

M004 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

4.0 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. 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.