Attachment 0003 - Section M - Evaluation Approach.pdf

Attachment 0003 W31P4Q-21-R-0029 6 December 2020

EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. TECHNICAL FACTOR evaluation approach is as follows:

The Technical Factor will consist of the comprehensive plan for the AMCOM Fleet Management Centers and the resolution of the AMCOM Fleet Management Centers sample tasks. The Government will evaluate the offerors comprehensive plan for AFMC to meet the requirements in the RFP and PWS. The offerors’ response to the AMCOM Fleet Management Center sample tasks in Section L will be evaluated to determine the application of the proposed comprehensive plan (to include step by step processes and procedures) to provide a realistic and effective resolution to the scenario.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror’s proposal. Adjectival/color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical requirements.

Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

6 December 2020

2. COST FACTOR – The contract will be a hybrid type contract consisting of CPFF labor line items and cost reimbursement no fee material, travel and Other Direct Costs (ODCs) line items. The Government will evaluate the realism of the offerors proposed cost for the cost reimbursable effort through a probable cost analysis. The base effort and all options shall be included in the calculation. Probable cost is the Government’s estimate of what it will cost for the offeror to complete the contract based on the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s technical proposal and proposed costs. If the Government evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. Should the Government determine proposed prices are unrealistically low, an indication of buy-in, this will be considered a performance risk. In evaluating this area, the following criteria will be used:

a. Cost Analysis. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors cost proposal.

Instead, cost proposals will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, errors, accounting system, cost realism, and fee. The cost/price evaluation assesses each offerors proposed cost/price including the base effort and all options for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, and cost realism of the proposed costs. The burden of proof for cost/price fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, and cost realism rests with the offeror. An assessment that the proposal is not fair, reasonable, compliant, complete or realistic will result in the offer being considered unacceptable for award.

b. Fairness and Reasonableness. For a cost/price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a cost/price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offerors cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.4 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The base effort and all options will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. Proposed rates and factors will be verified with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other Cognizant Audit Agency via rate check or formal audit, as appropriate.

c. Compliance. The cost/price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation. The offerors rate tables and cost/price proposal and estimates will be assessed, as appropriate, for completeness, price reasonableness, and cost realism using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs indicate a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements, reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and are consistent with the various methods of performance described in the offerors overall proposal. If the cost realism/price reasonableness assessment indicates the proposed cost/price is excessively high or low, the Government may consider the offeror to have a lack of understanding of the technical requirements and the proposal may be considered unreasonable and/or unrealistic and may be excluded from further consideration for award. The Government

6 December 2020 reserves the right to make award based upon cost/price in the event that the technical and past performance factors of all the offerors proposals are substantially the same.

In addition, pursuant to the Service Contract Act of 1965, the determination by the Secretary of Labor as to the applicable minimum monetary wage and fringe benefits will be made part of any resulting contract. For evaluation purposes only, the Government has incorporated the applicable Area Wage Determinations as outlined in Attachments 002 - 0005 of the RFP. The offerors proposed labor rates will be compared to the applicable wage determination labor category to ensure compliance.

d. Completeness. The rate tables and cost/price proposal and estimates submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for completeness and currency of information based upon the submission requirements contained in the solicitation instructions. In addition, the offerors price proposal and estimates including subcontractor(s) cost/price informationwill be evaluated based on the traceability of the cost proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the technical proposal.

e. Errors. The offerors overall cost/price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

f. Accounting System. The cognizant DCMA/DCAA office will verify evidence provided by the offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. If the offerors accounting system has not been audited to determine adequacy, the DCMA/DCAA will be requested to perform a pre-award survey of the accounting system and provide any current post-award and audit information to support an adequate accounting system status. The offeror should have an adequate accounting system as determined by the DCMA/DCAA prior to award of a cost type contract.

g. Cost Realism. A cost realism analysis will be performed on the CPFF CLINS to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offerors technical proposal. The results of this evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. See FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of cost realism and probable cost. The evaluated cost will be determined by adjusting each offerors proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Governments best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offerors

6 December 2020 proposal. The cost realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offerors understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the offerors technical proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. No adjectival ratings shall be utilized in the evaluation of cost/price.

h. Evaluation. The Government will fully evaluate and negotiate the base effort and all options for award. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all the CPFF and cost reimbursable CLINS for a total sum (contract ceiling). Evaluation of all options will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR - The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Attachment 0007.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror's (and major subcontractor's, if proposed) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror's overall team who are expected to perform 10% or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any factor of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most relevant current and past efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and its current and past performance under Federal, State or local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to North American Industry Classification System 493110. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past 3 years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

6 December 2020

c. Offerors shall submit a maximum of three Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and one contract for each major subcontractor.

Contracts relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation must have been performed or awarded during the past three years from the issue date of this RFP.

d. The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings 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 effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below.

6 December 2020

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition 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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) 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.