USAFE AAS V Section M_ 13 Jul 22.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION CRITERIA

FOR

UNITED STATES AIR FORCES EUROPE (USAFE) – AIR FORCE AFRICA (AFAFRICA)

ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE SERVICES (A&AS) V

13 July 2022

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FA564122R0004

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. FAR 15.101 states that best value can be obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. Award will be made to those acceptable Offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and who have been determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1.

1.1.1 Best value is defined as the Offerors that demonstrate Past Technical Experience within the Government-validated Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR). The Government is not evaluating price as part of this source selection as authorized by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). Therefore, the Government is not selecting a lowest priced technically acceptable proposal, nor will it conduct a subjective tradeoff.

1.1.2 In order to determine that a proposal represents the best value, the Government will also determine (1) if the Offeror is responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1; and (2) if the Offeror’s proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

1.1.3 The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on the evaluation criteria described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. Contracts will be awarded to each Offeror that meets the HTRO MTTR. The number is not known at this time.

1.3 IDIQ Ceiling. The ceiling of the IDIQ is $995M. The total value of all task orders (TOs) awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount.

1.4 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order. The minimum guaranteed order is $2,000.00. This amount represents the effort involved with the post-award conference. This is not a requirements contract and any Contractor that is awarded an A&AS V IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond that for the post-award conference.

1.5 Proposal Substantiation. An Offeror’s submittal of unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-rated score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated. If this were to occur, the Government would unilaterally downward adjust the Offeror’s score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

1.6 Discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussion with one, some, or all Offerors if the Government determines discussions to be necessary. In the event discussions are conducted, they will be limited to those within a competitive range determined by the Contracting Officer.

2.0 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE AND RESPONSISBILITY

2.1 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, technical requirements, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be non-compliant and ineligible for award.

The Government will review each Offeror’s proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the documentation provided by the Offeror to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of proposal compliance.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal, and other information, not limited to proposal information, when making the determination of responsibility.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest Issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract. Please see Section L for additional information and submission requirements for actual and/or perceived OCIs.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize the HTRO MTTR methodology. The HTRO MTTR method requires the Offeror to score itself on Volume II: Past Technical Experience, based on the criteria described in Section L Instruction to Offerors. The Government intends to evaluate Past Technical Experience.

The evaluation uses a single evaluation factor, which is Past Technical Experience. There is no cost/price evaluation for this acquisition at the IDIQ level, and therefore there will be no trade-offs between cost/price and technical. The Government intends to conduct this technical evaluation in a single phase using a Highest Technically Rated Offerors (HTRO) Self-Rated Scoring Validation methodology where Offeror’s Government-validated scores must fall at or above a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) to be deemed an acceptable Offeror.

As discussed above, pricing is not being requested nor will it be evaluated for purposes of award of the A&AS V IDIQ contracts as authorized by FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A). Pricing will be evaluated at the task order level once the IDIQ contracts are awarded. Past Performance information is also not requested and will not be evaluated at time of IDIQ contract award.

3.2 Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR)

The Government has established a Minimum Technical Threshold Rating (MTTR) that an Offeror must meet or exceed in order to be considered acceptable for award. The Government has determined that an Offeror’s Government validated score represents their level of prior demonstrated capability to perform similar work, and those with a high degree of prior demonstrated capability of the categories contained in the Scoring Matrix (Attachment 12) present a lower risk to the Government of unsuccessful performance. The Government has set the MTTR at 22,300 points. The Government will only validate self-scored matrices at or above the MTTR.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTOR

4.1 Evaluation Factors. The Government will use a single evaluation factor, Past Technical Experience, and will evaluate Offeror’s proposals according to the methodology set forth in section 4.2.

4.2 FACTOR 1 – PAST TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE

Category 1: Average Time to Fill an OCONUS Vacancy In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the average time, in days, that the Offeror took to fill OCONUS position vacancies as required by the provided work samples’ PWS. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with the strength of the Offeror’s recruitment process, and their past technical experience/expertise with filling OCONUS requirements, which is a top priority for the Mission Partner. It is important to the Government to understand the normal timeline of the Offeror’s recruitment process, and their ability to fill positions in a dynamic OCONUS environment.

Category 2: Percentage of employees with a TS Clearance or higher In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the percentage of employees that required a Tier 5 investigation. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it demonstrates that the Offeror has knowledge, experience, and hiring methodologies in place to accommodate this aspect of DoD A&AS support.

Category 3: Fill rate In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the average fill rate in their work samples over the previous five years. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with a basis for the strength of the Offerors recruitment process, and ability to fill Mission Partners requirements.

Category 4: Percentage of SOFA approved employees filling DOCPER-approved positions In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the number of SOFA-approved employees filling Department of Defense Contractor Personnel Office (DOCPER)-approved positions. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the process for hiring OCONUS positions in Germany and Italy that are required to be filled under this IDIQ. It is important for the Government to understand the Offerors prior experience with the DOCPER process, as it directly relates to the fill time of an OCONUS requirement.

Category 5: Number of Work Samples that include support for at least two of the following functional areas: Program Management, ISR support, or Flying Operations In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned for the number of work samples that included support for DoD, or similar, Program Management, Intelligence Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations, or Flying Operations. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to past technical experience managing DoD, or similar, programs, providing support for ISR operations, and support for flying squadrons which is a component of the professional services work in theater.

Category 6: Number of key corporate personnel/program managers in theater (local presence) In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the number of key corporate personnel the Offeror has placed in the local OCONUS area. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to provide human resource management functions for personnel assigned OCONUS, and provides the Government insight into the ease of access to key personnel to mitigate issues/risks that arise during performance of the contract.

Category 7: Number of full-time Ordinarily Resident/Other employees In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the number of full-time Ordinarily Resident or Other employees hired/retained during the contract period of performance. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides insight into the Offeror’s ability to recruit and retain quality candidates to work OCONUS, which do not receive any benefits under a SOFA, or SOFA-like treaty, something unique to an OCONUS environment.

Category 8: Retention Rate In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the Offeror’s average retention rate across their work samples. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it provides the Government with insight into the Offeror’s ability to keep qualified personnel employed throughout the period of performance, and poses less of a risk to Mission Partners’ requirements being filled.

Category 9: Number of Work Samples supporting Geographically Separated Operating Sites In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the number of Contracts/TOs where service was performed in at least three (3) geographically separated locations, either CONUS or OCONUS. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to the Offeror’s ability to understand the nuances of multiple and distinct geographical labor markets as well as to manage a distributed workforce.

Category 10: Percentage of FTEs transitioned OCONUS to support a DoD, or similar, service contract within Phase-in Period In this category, the Government will assess the Offeror’s past technical experience by validating points assigned to the percent of FTEs transitioned and/or hired within the allotted work sample Phase-in Period. The Government has determined this qualification to be important as it directly relates to mitigating transition risk to the Government.

5.0 Basis for Contract Award

Award will be made to those acceptable Offerors whose proposals represent the best value to the Government, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and who have been determined to be responsible in accordance FAR 9.104-1.

6.0 Burden of Proof

The Burden of Proof for substantiating points in the HTRO MTTR Self-Rated Scoring Matrix rests with the Offeror. As stated in Section 2.0, the substantiating documentation shall contain sufficient data to validate points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal.