Attachment_0035_-_Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_For_Award_(West).pdf

W58RGZ-16-R-0271

Attachment 0035 25 April 2018

M-3 BASIS FOR AWARD & EVALUATION CRITERIA (AFM-WEST)

A. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M) The award will be made based on the best overall proposal that is determined to provide the best value to the Government. Offerors must meet all entry gate criteria (see B. ENTRY GATE CRITERIA) in order to proceed to full proposal evaluation (see C.

FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED). Consideration of those Offerors meeting the entry gate criteria will be evaluated based on the following four (4) factors: Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price and Small Business Participation. The Technical factor is more important that than the Past Performance factor, which is more important than the Cost/Price factor, which is more important than the Small Business Participation factor.

NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE

IMPORTANT THAN COST/PRICE. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor.

Proposal risk is integral to each evaluation element within these areas; however, the Government shall assess the risk associated with the Offeror’s overall proposal when determining which proposal offers the best value to the Government. Inconsistencies between an Offeror’s technical capabilities, past performance, cost/price or small business proposal will indicate risk, which could reduce an Offeror’s chance of being selected for award. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced Offeror or to the highest rated technical Offeror.

B. ENTRY GATE CRITERIA

The Offeror must be deemed acceptable for all of the following criteria in order to proceed to full proposal evaluation:

1. The Offeror must have Government Flight Representatives (GFR) approved procedures performing and managing Department of Defense (DoD) flight and ground operations in accordance with DCMA Instruction 8210.1C, AFI 10-22_IP, NAVAIRSINST 3710.1G, COMDTINST M13020.3A, or AR 95-20, dated 21 AUG 2013 or later.

2. The Offeror must demonstrate experience within the last five years (as a prime or subcontractor) performing and managing field level rotary wing maintenance while certified AS 9110 Revision B or C.

3. The Offeror must demonstrate experience within the last five years performing and managing DoD rotary wing maintenance located Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS).

4. The Offeror must demonstrate experience within the last five years managing multiple DoD aviation maintenance sites that are geographically dispersed greater than 700 miles apart.

C. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

1. FACTOR I – TECHNICAL. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) for providing aviation maintenance support services as well as the application of this plan to sample scenarios. A detailed explanation of the evaluation criteria is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach” (Section D). The government will incorporate key portions of the CMP, identified during the evaluation period, into any resulting contract.

2. FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of their successful performance of the PWS requirements. Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed for relevancy and performance to assess confidence.

3. FACTOR III – COST/PRICE. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness, compliance, cost realism, fee, and adequacy of business systems.

4. FACTOR IV – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION. All Offerors are to propose a Small Business participation commitment. The proposed commitments will be evaluated on the level of participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors and small business subcontractors). The Small Business participation commitment will be incorporated into and become part of any resulting contract.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

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

The SST will comprise Government employees and Non-Government support contractor subject matter experts (SME), if required. The final adjectival ratings and accompanying narrative evaluations will be made by the Government factor evaluators only. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government employees.

The evaluation of factors will utilize applicable sections of the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures (effective 31 March 2016).

1. TECHNICAL FACTOR The technical evaluation approach will evaluate the CMP as follows.

a. Completeness. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach completely considers, defines, and satisfies the elements specified in the CMP (Section L Narrative of the RFP).

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of the Offeror’s proposed approaches identified in the Comprehensive Management Plan (RFP, Section L Narrative) are realistic and effective.

c. Risk. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the level of risk with the Offeror’s proposed approaches identified in the Comprehensive Management Plan (RFP, Section L Narrative).

The Offeror’s scenario responses will be evaluated on their overall interpretation of the PWS requirements and the approach to accomplish each scenario’s effort, identification of appropriate resources, and application of processes and resources to provide timely and cost effective solutions to the presented problems. The technical evaluation approach will evaluate the responses to the sample scenarios as follows:

a. Completeness. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s responses to the scenarios completely consider, define, and satisfy the requirements specified in the CMP (Section L Narrative of the RFP).

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of the Offeror’s proposed responses to the scenarios are realistic and effective resolutions.

c. Risk. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the level of risk with the Offeror’s proposed responses to the scenarios (RFP, Section L Narrative).

d. Consistency. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s response to the scenarios is consistent with the Offeror’s approaches identified in the CMP (Section L Narrative of the RFP).

The Technical factor will be assigned an adjectival rating which includes the assessment of risk in accordance with the table below:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

Table 1 Technical Factor Ratings

The technical evaluation will also include an evaluation of the appropriateness of the Offeror’s proposed labor hour skill mix in the Skill Classification Crosswalk, Attachment 0007 at Section J.

2. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR considers the Offeror’s record of current and relevant past performance to ascertain the probability of successful performance of the required effort of this solicitation.

The Government will focus its inquiries on the Prime and major subcontractors, records of performance as they relate to all solicitation requirements, including cost/price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an Offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform fifteen (15) percent or more of the proposed cost. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal as well as data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local government, or commercial contracts for same or similar services encompassed by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 488190, Aircraft Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul.

a. Recency and Relevancy. The past performance factor considers each Offerors demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying similar services that meet the contract requirements. The criteria to establish what is relevant may include, but is not limited to; similarity of service/support; the level of complexity; performance under AR 95-20, AS9100 or AS9110 (any revision); dollar value; contract type; location and degree of subcontract/teaming. The Offeror’s past performance in utilizing small businesses in complying with FAR 52.219-8 and FAR 52.219-9, as well as maximizing opportunities for U.S. small business subcontractors. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three 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. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess 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. The Offeror’s relevancy shall be evaluated using the ratings identified below:

Table 2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Note: In order to be considered “Very Relevant,” contracts must have been performed utilizing the following certifications: AS9110 Revision A (or higher);

plus Government approved Ground and Flight Risk procedures that comply with DCMA 8210.1 and/or Army Regulation 95-20.

b. Quality Assessment. Assess the quality of the Offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts identified as relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaire (Attachment 0020), interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

c. Performance Confidence Assessment. The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the Offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially is 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.

Table 3 Performance Confidence Assessments

d. Lack of Past Performance Information. If the Offeror is truly a new entity and none of the company principals have relevant work experience, the Offeror is considered to have no past performance. In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the Offeror’s past performance will be assessed as Unknown Confidence (Neutral), having no favorable or unfavorable impact on the evaluation.

3. COST/PRICE FACTOR. Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ Cost/Price proposals. Instead, Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated, as detailed below.

FFP Evaluation. The FFP CLINs will be evaluated to determine if they are fair and reasonable. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s FFP CLINs, will be evaluated, to determine if they are fair and reasonable based on adequate competition in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2)(i). In addition, the Government may evaluate price reasonableness using the various techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). For the FFP CLINs, price realism will not be conducted.

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.

T&M Evaluation.

a. Fairness and Reasonableness. The T&M CLINs will be evaluated to determine if they are fair and reasonable. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s T&M CLINs, will be evaluated, to determine if they are fair and reasonable based on adequate competition in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).

In addition, the Government may evaluate price reasonableness using the various techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). For the T&M CLINs, price realism will not be conducted.

b. Compliance with the Service Contract Labor Standards and CBAs.

Pursuant to the Service Contract Labor Standards, 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 National Wage Determination as outlined in Section J, Attachment 0037 of this RFP.

The Offeror’s proposed labor rates for applicable CONUS locations and OCONUS locations Hawaii and Alaska will be compared to the applicable wage determination labor category to ensure compliance. For evaluation purposes, the Government has also incorporated the CBAs Joint Base Lewis McChord (JBLM), Fort Irwin, Fort Carson, and White Sands Missile Range (WSMR), New Mexico/Holloman AFB as outlined in Section J, Attachment 0037 of this RFP. The Offeror’s proposed labor rates for the locations JBLM, Fort Irwin, Fort Carson and WSMR, New Mexico/Holloman AFB will be compared to the applicable CBA labor category to ensure compliance.

CPFF LOE Evaluation. The CPFF LOE CLINs will be evaluated for the following:

a. Fairness and Reasonableness. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed CPFF CLINs may be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i) in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable. In addition, the Government may evaluate price reasonableness using the various techniques described in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2).

b. Compliance with Service Contract Labor Standards. Pursuant to the Service Contract Labor Standards, 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 National Wage Determination as outlined in Section J, Attachment 0037 of this RFP. The Offeror’s proposed labor rates for applicable CONUS locations will be compared to the applicable wage determination labor category to ensure compliance.

c. Cost Realism. A cost realism analysis will be performed on the CPFF LOE

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 Offeror’s technical proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror’s technical proposal. Therefore, the Offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. The Offeror’s CPFF LOE proposal and estimates will be traced from the Cost/Price proposal volume basis of estimates to the technical proposal.

The Government will perform an evaluation of the technical elements contained within the Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal to perform the PWS.

The results of the Government’s evaluation of the Cost/Price proposal’s technical elements will be incorporated into the cost realism evaluation.

The results of the cost realism 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”. As part of the cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed, the evaluated becomes the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost.

d. Fee. The Offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the Government’s evaluation of the CPFF CLINs. The fee dollars shall not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i). For a CPFF contract, the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee.

Overall Cost/Price Proposal Evaluation.

a. Compliance. The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L-24.3.d VOLUME IV - COST/PRICE of the solicitation.

b. Business Systems. The Government will verify adequacy of the Offeror’s Purchasing System and Accounting System.

c. Evaluation. The Government will fully evaluate all priced CLINs for award.

For award purposes, the Government will add the total proposed price for all the CLINS into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option.

The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed FFP and T&M CLIN prices, the probable cost amount for the CPFF CLINs, and the Government-provided amounts for the Cost (no fee) CLINs. The Total Evaluated Price will only include the last option (Option Year 7) for the Transition Out CLINs.

4. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION: All Offerors will be evaluated on the level of proposed participation of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition (for large and small business prime contractor’s small business subcontractors). All Offeror’s shall propose their best effort for all socioeconomic categories. Proposed participation of zero percent (in the aggregate for socioeconomic categories) will be determined unacceptable. The Government will evaluate:

a. The extent to which such firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, are specifically identified in proposals.

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms (enforceable commitments will be considered more favorably than those that are not enforceable).

c. The identification of the complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform.

d. The extent of overall management and oversight of subcontractors.

e. The extent of evidence (small business utilization) in support of small business goal attainment on prior and similar work effort to ensure realistic and attainable goals.

f. The extent of evidence of supply chain subcontractors, including information technology subcontractors and suppliers that are proposed for use at any time in the performance of the contract and may involve the use of all-source intelligence information.

g. The extent of participation of small business prime Offeror’s and small business subcontractors in terms of the percentage of the value of the total acquisitions.

** Note - The adjectival rating will consist of the first six elements described above and will not include the percentage of small business participation. The percentage of small business participation will be provided to the SSA/SSAC as a separate percentage in addition to the adjectival rating. In this way the SSA/SSAC will be able to compare the Offerors' quality of the small business proposal in addition to the amount of small business participation.

Table 4 Small Business Participation Ratings

Small Business Subcontracting Plan: A Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not a requirement for evaluation in the source selection, but rather, a requirement for award to a large business and will be incorporated into any resultant contract. Large Businesses must submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003. Large Businesses must submit an acceptable subcontracting plan to be eligible for award. Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the Small Business Participation Commitment. Should a contractor have an approved Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan, the approved plan must be submitted at time of proposal.

However, the contractor may provide additional information for evaluation.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.