Section M MQ-9 Evaluation Factors for Award.docx

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government using a tradeoff process in accordance with FAR 15.101-1, all factors considered. “Best value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The Government advises Offerors that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost/price may not be selected for an award if the Government determines that the higher priced proposal is more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional price.

A. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government will evaluate each proposal and conduct discussions with each Offeror that submits a timely proposal and meets the Pre-requisite criteria described in Para B.II.A below. Offerors that do not meet the Pre-requisite will be found “Unacceptable”; no further evaluation will be conducted, and the Offeror will be eliminated from the competition and not included in the competitive range.

The fact that an Offeror may be initially included in the competitive range does not preclude the Government from excluding the Offeror’s proposal from further consideration if the proposal is found to no longer have a reasonable chance of receiving award. Therefore, the Offeror is cautioned that its initial offer should contain its best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. This exchange of information will continue until the Government declares Discussions to be complete. If verbal Discussions are conducted, any verbal responses provided must be submitted to the Government in writing to be considered an update to the proposal. The Government may incorporate any part of the Offeror’s proposal deemed beneficial to the Government into the final contract within the proposed Price. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation of proposals (e.g., past performance information, PPQ responses, site surveys, cost models, etc.).

The Government may consider non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation a Deficiency. The Government may also consider any exceptions or deviations to a term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to make the proposal unawardable. Additionally, the Government may consider an approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g., Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc.) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, a Deficiency. A proposal assessed with a Deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The Government will evaluate proposals using the factors listed below, where Past Performance is more important than Technical and Technical is more important than Price. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Small Business will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Small Business is not part of the best value trade-off but must be found Acceptable for contract award.

A. Past Performance B. Technical C. Price D. Small Business

The Offeror’s proposal must demonstrate, to the Government’s satisfaction, an approach that ensures the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. The Government may use proposal information provided for one factor in the assessment of other factors if the Government deems it appropriate.

II. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

A. PRE-REQUISITES

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s pre-requisite for the following:

Experience performing similar work: The Contract References (CRs) submitted by the Offeror must contain at least one (1) Very Relevant (VR) or Somewhat Relevant (SR) contract performed by the Offeror or one of its JV Team Members where the Offeror or JV Team Member was the Prime Contractor (i.e. the contractor listed in Block 15A of the SF33).

Offerors are responsible for identifying and submitting at least one VR or SR CR performed by the Offeror or one of its JV Team Members where the Offeror or JV Team Member was the Prime Contractor. The Government will assess the relevancy of CRs submitted under the Past Performance volume and evaluate Offerors that submit timely proposals and have a pre-requisite assessed as acceptable. Offerors that receive a pre-requisite rating of “Unacceptable” will be eliminated from the competition.

B. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and its principal entities’ (defined in Section III., B. Other Evaluation Definitions) demonstrated past performance on CRs in delivering quality services similar to the solicitation requirements. The Government will primarily base its Past Performance evaluation using customer feedback CRs in the performance areas of Quality, Schedule, Management, and Small Business Utilization. The Government will consider the recency and relevancy of the CR and past performance information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in performance. The Government will not consider CRs associated with predecessor companies (i.e., an entity that is replaced by a successor entity), unless the CR has been novated under the same CAGE/SAM UEI as the principal entity and it has demonstrated performance after the novation. The Government will not consider CRs rated as Not Relevant in its evaluation of Past Performance. The Government defines recency and relevancy in Section III., B. Other Evaluation Definitions. In general, the Government considers recent performance more relevant than older performance.

The Government will consider performance problems not addressed by the Offeror to still exist. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it or its principal entities successfully applied improvements to resolve past performance problems and may consider discounting problems addressed through demonstrated improvement that has been deemed systemic by the Government.

The Government will assign a separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on an integrated assessment of the performance areas. This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s (including principal entities’) relevant past performance and demonstrated systemic improvement. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is sparse or not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral.” Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror and its proposed Principal Entities performed similar work before. As such, the term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition refers to the records that indicate how well the Offeror and its proposed Principal Entities have performed on recent/relevant work (e.g., CPARs, Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs), CARs, Supplier Risk Reports and PPQs). When entities form a JV team to propose on one or more acquisitions, the Government will consider the past performance of each individual team member and the JV in aggregate.

C. TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical 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 Offeror’s approach. The Government’s Technical evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s Technical Approach (i.e. Maintenance Approach and Aircrew Approach) and Key Personnel elements.

The Government will assign a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating for the Technical factor. The Technical Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit, which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations. The Government will assign Strength(s) or Significant Strength(s) only for the Maintenance and Aircrew Approach elements. Key Personnel requirements are stated in Paragraph 4.1.1 of the PWS. The Key Personnel element will not be evaluated for benefits and Significant Strengths and Strengths will not be assessed. Additionally, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to assess the Offeror’s level of understanding and ability to meet or exceed contractual requirements with respect to Section M evaluation criteria when assigning a technical rating. The Technical Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach with respect to Section M evaluation criteria in meeting the requirement. The 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.

A proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service, or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the Government by enhancing performance, operations, or by reducing risk, may be assessed as a Strength, Significant Strength, or Risk Reducer.

The Government considers unsubstantiated statements that the prospective Offeror understands, can or will comply with the specifications, or paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof inadequate and such statements may adversely affect the proposal’s ratings. The Government may assess the Offeror’s failure to address part or parts of the technical factor caused by a lack of information as an Uncertainty, Significant Weakness, or multiple Significant Weaknesses. Proposals assessed with one or more Uncertainties may result in a Marginal rating.

A combination of Significant Weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level may be considered a Deficiency.

A Technical Rating of “Marginal” or “Unacceptable”, or a Technical Risk Rating of “High” or “Unacceptable” will make the Offeror’s proposal unawardable.

D. PRICE

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a) the Government will use price analysis to support its determination of whether the proposed prices are fair and reasonable, unless a fair and reasonable price cannot be determined through price analysis alone. The Government expects adequate competition in response to this solicitation and that competition will establish a fair and reasonable price per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) and FAR 15.403-1(c)(1). However, if adequate price competition does not exist, the Government will perform further price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(ii-iv) or a cost analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(a)(4) to support the determination of a fair and reasonable price. The Government will evaluate all CLINs for unbalanced pricing. If the Government finds that unbalanced pricing exists, it may render the proposal ineligible for award in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g)(3).

Section B and Attachment L-7 will be used to identify the proposed Cost/Price. If discrepancies exist within the Price submissions, the price proposed in Section B of the model contract prevails and will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed price.

In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DoD contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, DCAA audit information, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government. In addition, the Government may make adjustments for evaluation purposes to include all Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal across all Offerors (e.g., additional Government Property required by the Offeror to implement its approach).

The values provided for the cost reimbursable CLINs are “plug” numbers and are considered to be fully burdened and realistic as provided. The Government will not perform a cost analysis on these CLINs to determine cost realism. If these values are adjusted in the Offeror’s proposal the proposal will be found unawardable.

The Offerors Total Evaluate Cost/Price (TEC/P) will be evaluated for reasonableness. All CLINS will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. The Government may use price analysis techniques per FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government will not perform a realism analysis on any CLINS.

The Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEC/P) is defined as the sum of the following:

a) The total proposed price for FFP CLINs 0001, X002, X003, X006, X008-X011, and 0012;

b) The proposed cost for COST CLINs 0005 and 0007;

c) Estimated costs associated with FAR Clause 52.217-8 which will be calculated by applying proposed Ordering Period 3 pricing to the quantities in the CLINs listed in the Option to extend services pricing table in Section I of the RFP; and

d) Costs to the Government (e.g., Government Property required by the Offeror to implement its approach). These costs include all Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal among all Offerors.

E. SMALL BUSINESS

If the Offeror provides information supporting that it is a small business it will receive the maximum small business evaluation rating of ACCEPTABLE, in accordance with 13 CFR § 125.3(g)(3) and FAR 15.305(a)(5), for the Small Business Participation evaluation factor.

If the Offeror is Other Than a Small Business, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach and understanding of Small Business Objectives through determining whether the Offeror:

0. Proposed to meet or exceed the minimum small business participation goal of not less than 18% of the total proposed price inclusive of options; and dollar and percent values are mathematically correct (calculated to the second decimal place when rounded); as proposed under section 1 of the SBPCD. If the Offeror is required to submit an Individual Subcontract Plan (ISP) the goals in the SBPCD must be consistent with those in the ISP. If the ISP is inconsistent with the SBPCD and less than the required goal of 18%, the small business factor will be evaluated as “Unacceptable”.

0. Identified goals for each small business socioeconomic category as proposed under section 2 of the SBPCD.

0. Listed small business entities under section 3 of the SBPCD that have an active registration in SAM that is current, accurate, and complete or provide a written representation for each small business entity’s status applicable to the size standard of the NAICS assigned by the Offeror.

The Government will incorporate the successful Offeror’s SBPCD and subcontracting plan, as applicable, into the contract as Section J attachments.

III. DEFINITIONS

A. EVALUATION RATINGS AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

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.

For the Past Performance factor, the 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 relevant past performance and systemic improvement.

EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS

Technical Ratings: The Technical Rating assignments reflect the Government's assessment of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Technical Risk Rating: The risk assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

SMALL BUSINESS RATINGS

Small Business Ratings: The Small Business Rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the Offeror’s approach to meeting Small Business Objectives for the solicitation.

B. OTHER EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract required Group 5 UAS aircrew tasking and aircraft maintenance tasking performed in accordance with the NAMP at 3 or more sites (permanent or deployed) with Multi-Site Flight Operations on 3 or more aircraft across all sites.

For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have some of the scope, magnitude, and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract required aircrew tasking or aircraft maintenance tasking performed in accordance with a Department of War Service Maintenance Program(s), at 2 sites (permanent or deployed) with deployed maintainers on 3 or more UAS or 10 or more manned aircraft across all sites.

i. Contracts performed by an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Table KA-1 (Offeror Summary);

ii. Contracts performed by an entity that does not have any work that matches the entity’s proposed role and responsibility identified in Table KA-1 (Offeror Summary);

iii. Contracts performed by any entity that is not a principal entity.

iv. Contracts performed by a different location (e.g., with different CAGE code/SAM UEI) than the entity proposed in Table KA-1 (Offeror Summary); or

v. Contracts, or those portions of contracts, whose performance is older than 3 years from the initial solicitation release date. (If only a portion of a contract is older than 3 years, then only that portion is not relevant for reasons of recency.)