17-Draft_AVCAD_Section_M_20170420.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

(SEE FAR 3.104)

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-1

Section M – Evaluation Factors/Subfactors for Award

M.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

M.1.1 All proposals received pursuant to the solicitation will be fully evaluated in a careful and impartial manner. All factors/subfactors against which proposals will be evaluated are described in this section. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is practical and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion.

M.1.2 Basis for Award

The Government will award to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the Government, by applying the tradeoff process described in FAR 15.101-1. Accordingly, the Government may award a resulting contract to other than the lowest evaluated Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating. The Government intends to award up to two (2) contracts. The basis for award of a contract will be the results of the proposal evaluations of all of the factors/subfactors set forth herein giving due consideration to the relative order of importance indicated herein. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-cost factors/subfactors. An adjectival rating of “unacceptable” for any non-cost factor/subfactor will cause the entire proposal to be evaluated as “unacceptable” and will exclude an Offeror from consideration for contract award. A Cost/Price Evaluation will only be performed on those Offerors eligible for contract award. No award will be made to an Offeror who is required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 and the plan is determined to be unacceptable.

M.1.3 Competitive Range

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will make the determination as to which proposals should be in the “Competitive Range”and submit it to the SSA for review and approval.

M.1.4 Discussions and Final Offers

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1 (Alt I), the Government intends to award with discussions.

M.1.5 Final Evaluation of Proposals

During discussions, the Contracting Officer may request or allow proposal revisions to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations. At the conclusion of discussions, each Offeror still in the competitive range will be given an opportunity to submit a final proposal revision. The Contracting Officer is required to establish a common cut-off date only for receipt of final proposal revisions. Requests for final proposal revisions will advise Offerors that the final proposal revisions shall be in writing and that the Government intends to make award without obtaining further revisions.

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-2

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS/SUBFACTORS

M.2.1 Offerors will be evaluated based on the Evaluation Factors/Subfactors specified in Table M-1 below.

Table M-1: Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Supporting Information

Number Evaluation Factors/Subfactors/Supporting Information

Rating Method

1 Technical (Factor) Will receive Adjectival and Risk Ratings along with Narrative Evaluation.

Section A: Technical Approach (Subfactor) Will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies and contribute to the Technical Factor adjectival and risk ratings.

Section B: Support and Ownership (Subfactor) Will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies and contribute to the Technical Factor adjectival and risk ratings.

Section C: Test Reports (Supporting Information)

None. Will not receive Adjectival or Risk Rating. Supports evaluation of Technical Approach and Support and Ownership subfactors.

2 Producibility & Manufacturing (Factor) Adjectival and Risk Rating along with Narrative Evaluation.

3 Cost/Price (Factor) Evaluated in accordance with M.2.4 4 Past Performance (Factor) Relevancy and Performance Confidence Ratings 5 Small Business Participation Plan (Factor) Will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating.

6 Administrative (Supporting Information) None. Will not receive Adjectival or Risk Rating.

7 Uncosted Information (Supporting Information) Narrative supporting cost realism evaluation.

M.2.2 All factors/subfactors against which proposals will be evaluated are described below.

Other content of the proposal that will not receive an adjectival or risk rating, but will be used to assist in the evaluation of a factor/subfactor, are also discussed. All proposals will be evaluated by a team of individuals on the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets the solicitation requirements.

M.2.2.1 The Technical Factor (Volume 1) will receive an adjectival and risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.2.1.1 Technical Approach Subfactor (Volume I, Section A): The Technical Approach Subfactor will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies and contribute to the Technical Factor adjectival rating and risk rating.

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-3

M.2.2.1.2 Support and Ownership Subfactor (Volume I, Section B): The Support and Ownership Subfactor will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies and contribute to the Technical Factor adjectival rating and risk rating.

M.2.2.1.3 Test Reports (Volume I, Section C): The Government will use both Government and Offeror test reports to assist in the evaluation of the Technical Approach and Support and Ownership Subfactors’ risks, and therefore will not receive an adjectival or risk rating. The reports will be used to substantiate the claims made in Sections A and B and support the risk ratings assigned to the Technical Factor.

M.2.3 Producibility and Manufacturing Factor (Volume II): The Producibility and Manufacturing Factor will receive an adjectival rating and risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.4 Cost/Price Factor (Volume III): The Cost/Price Factor will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate this factor with a narrative of the Offeror’s proposed cost for the basic requirement and all options for fairness, reasonableness, and realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Price analysis technique(s), such as those listed under FAR 15.404-1(b), will be used to: 1) Ensure that the final agreed to price is fair and reasonable; and 2) Determine if the prices are unbalanced. Cost Realism Analysis will be performed on Offerors’ proposals to determine their respective probable costs of performance for cost reimbursable efforts. The Government will use probable cost in the final evaluation to determine the final evaluated cost.

M.2.5 Past Performance Factor (Volume IV): There are two (2) aspects to the past performance evaluation. The Government will first evaluate whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to this effort. The Government will assign a “Past Performance Relevance Rating” as described in Section M.5.1.4 below. For the second aspect of the past performance evaluation, the Government will assess how well the Offeror performed on the contracts through the Performance Confidence Assessment Report.

M.2.6 Small Business Participation Plan Factor (Volume V): The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s utilization of small business through the evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan. The SB Participation Plan Factor will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating.

M.2.7 Administrative (Volume VI). This volume contains administrative information and will not receive an adjectival or risk rating.

M.2.8 Uncosted Information (Volume VII). The Government will use Uncosted Information as part of a narrative supporting the cost realism evaluation. This volume will not receive an adjectival or risk rating.

M.3 EVALUATION APPROACH.

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-4

M.3.1 The Government will conduct this source selection in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.3, Source Selection. Award(s) will be made to the Offeror(s) whose proposal(s) represents the best value to the Government by applying the tradeoff process described in FAR 15.101-1.

M.3.2 Relative Order Of Importance of Factors:

M.3.2.1 Table M-2 lists all Non-Cost Evaluation Factors in descending order of importance.

Table M-2: Non-Cost Evaluation Factors Order of Importance Volume Factor

I Technical II Producibility and Manufacturing IV Past Performance V Small Business Participation Plan

M.3.2.2 All of the non-cost Factors in Table M-2, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price, in accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(1). The Government is willing to pay more if an increase in the technical merit of the proposal under the Best Value Continuum tradeoff process justifies and is in the best interest of the Government. However, the Cost/Price Factor may become more significant in contributing to the source selection decision if competing proposals are technically comparable. The Government will not award to an Offeror who is required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 52.219-9 if the plan is determined to be unacceptable.

M.4 RATING SYSTEM

M.4.1 An explanation of the overall integrated rating system is as follows:

M.4.2 Technical Adjectival Rating for Non-Cost Factors. The technical adjectival rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Table M-3 defines the technical adjectival ratings. These ratings will be applied in the evaluation of the following factors: Technical and Producibility and Manufacturing.

Table M-3: Technical Adjectival Ratings Definitions

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

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and contains at least one strength.

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-5

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

Marginal Proposal does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and thus contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

M.4.3 Risk Rating. Risk ratings will assess the degree to which the Offeror’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk shall be rated using the ratings definitions listed in Table M-4. These ratings will be applied in the evaluation of the following factors:

Technical and Producibility and Manufacturing.

Table M-4: Risk Ratings Definitions

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.

M.4.4 Rating Term Definitions. Table M-5 provides the definitions for strength, weakness, significant weakness and deficiency. These definitions will be applied when evaluating the factors that use, and the subfactors that contribute to, Technical Adjectival and Risk Ratings (Technical Approach (subfactor), Support and Ownership (subfactor), and Producibility and Manufacturing (factor)).

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-6

Table M-5: Rating Term Definitions Finding Definition

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

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

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 unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

M.4.5 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. In conducting a past performance relevancy assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table M-6.

Table M-6: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

M.4.5.1 Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in Table M-7.

Table M-7: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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.

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-7

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.

M.4.6 Small Business Participation Plan Ratings. Table M-8 provides the ratings that will be utilized in the evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan Factor.

Table M-8: Small Business Participation Plan Ratings Rating Description

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M.4.7 COST/PRICE FACTOR. The Cost/Price Factor will not receive an adjectival rating but will be evaluated with a narrative for realism, reasonableness, and completeness. The Uncosted information will be used as part of the cost realism analysis to determine cost realism. The results of the cost realism analysis will determine the probable cost of performance. Probable cost will be used in the final evaluation to determine the final evaluated cost.

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.5.1. The previous stated evaluation factors (Technical, Producibility and Manufacturing, Cost/Price, Past Performance and Small Business Participation Plan) are further discussed in terms of evaluation criteria establishing those aspects of a proposal that will be evaluated qualitatively to arrive at an integrated assessment of the proposal meeting the Government’s needs as stated in the solicitation. The ratings for each factor will be in accordance with the definitions set forth in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and restated M.4.

M.5.1.1 TECHNICAL (Factor 1). The Technical Factor will receive an adjectival and risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-8

M.5.1.1.1 Section A: Technical Approach Subfactor. The Offeror’s proposal is expected to address each of the following evaluation criteria for this subfactor. The Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal and the assigned adjectival rating for the Technical factor will be equally based upon how well the Offeror addresses the evaluation criteria discussed below and for the Support and Ownership subfactor provided in Section M.5.1.1.2. The Offeror is encouraged to review the definitions provided in section M.4 to ensure an understanding of how the ratings will be applied. Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies will be assigned to this subfactor based on how the Offeror addresses the following paragraphs:

M.5.1.1.1.1; M.5.1.1.1.2; M.5.1.1.1.3; M.5.1.1.1.4; M.5.1.1.1.5; M.5.1.1.1.6; M.5.1.1.1.7;

M.5.1.1.1.8 and M.5.1.1.1.9.

M.5.1.1.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of the applicable analytical technique, hardware, software and algorithm approach, and primary vapor and aerosol inlet approach. The Government will evaluate the technical description of the proposed system at the preliminary design stage showing modularity, size and weight, power, and interface controls (including communications).

M.5.1.1.1.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach to meet the Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) of the AVCAD Performance Specification (PSPEC) for each hardware delivery. The Government will rely on the provided independent and Offeror test reports as well as the Offeror’s proposal for substantiation of the discussion. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to meeting or exceeding the threshold requirements of the AVCAD PSPEC for each hardware delivery. Exceeding threshold requirements is desired if there is no change or a reduction in unit or sustainment costs.

M.5.1.1.1.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and assess the Offeror’s proposed plan of action for executing the base contract and all options. The Government will evaluate the IMS in terms of defined dates and time frames for all contract tasks, milestones, reviews, and deliverables.

M.5.1.1.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s system maturity discussion. The proposed EMD AVCAD Hardware discussed in Section C.5 should currently meet or exceed Technology Readiness Level (TRL) six (6) as defined in the AVCAD PSPEC. The Government will evaluate the level of maturity of the proposed technology, supported by provided independent and Offeror test reports. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s development approach discussion supports maturing the technology to TRL eight (8) over the duration of the AVCAD Engineering Manufacturing Development (EMD) Phase including technological risks. As part of this evaluation, the Government will evaluate the likelihood of the system transitioning from EMD to LRIP and meeting all system requirements.

M.5.1.1.1.5 The Government will evaluate the technical approach and expected percentage difference in LRIP and FRP unit prices associated with the proposed primary and secondary techniques for sampling, collection and analysis of aerosol chemicals as discussed in Section C.4 of the PWS. The expected percentage difference (increase or decrease) between the

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-9

price of the primary and secondary aerosol approaches may impact an offeror's technical risk rating and the Government's assessment of the feasibility of the secondary approach.

M.5.1.1.1.6 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s narrative discussion addressing requirements within section C.14.1 of the AVCAD PWS and Appendix B of the AVCAD

PSPEC.

M.5.1.1.1.7 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of performance or hardware limitations impacting effectiveness, survivability, or sustainability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for engineering/software development and testing required to meet requirements. The Government will evaluate any proposed changes to the schedule, including any additional chamber testing required.

M.5.1.1.1.8 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s assessment of the technical and schedule risks associated with the requirements of the PWS and the AVCAD PSPEC. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of how it will identify potential program risks and develop and manage the risk mitigation strategies.

M.5.1.1.1.9 The Government will rely on the classified appendix to the Technical Approach, if provided, to substantiate discussion relative to the Classified Annex to the AVCAD PSPEC.

M.5.1.1.1.10 The Government will assess the Property Management Plan per FAR 45.202(b).

Accordingly, the Government will assess the level of risk associated with the likelihood the Offeror will successfully manage Government property during the required effort. Government property includes Government -Furnished Property (GFP) and contractor-acquired property, per FAR 52.245-1(a).

M.5.1.1.2 Section B: Support and Ownership Subfactor. The Offeror’s proposal is expected to address the following evaluation criteria for this subfactor. The Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal and the assigned adjectival rating for the Technical Factor will be equally based upon how well the Offeror addresses the evaluation criteria discussed below and the evaluation criteria associated with the Technical Approach subfactor provided in M.5.1.1.1. The Offeror is encouraged to review the definitions provided in section M.4 to ensure an understanding of how the ratings will be applied. Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies will be assigned to this subfactor based on how the Offeror addresses the following paragraphs: M.5.1.1.2.1; M.5.1.1.2.2; M.5.1.1.2.3; M.5.1.1.2.4; M.5.1.1.2.5;

M.5.1.1.2.6; M.5.1.1.2.7; M.5.1.1.2.8 and M.5.1.1.2.9.

M.5.1.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of how the proposed Integrated Product Support (IPS) solution is best suited to minimize support and ownership burdens to the end user. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their approach to demonstrating that the AVCAD is reliable, producible and maintainable. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their reliability growth effort and their approach in assisting the Government in compliance with the product support requirements and metrics to successfully achieve an operational capability.

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-10

M.5.1.1.2.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of all the analysis planned to achieve the support requirements identified in the AVCAD PSPEC.

M.5.1.1.2.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of significant operations and support cost drivers for implementation of the proposed IPS Solution.

M.5.1.1.2.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their developmental approach to minimizing the complexity of field level maintenance and minimizing the mean time to repair through the use of line replaceable units, modular open systems design, limiting consumables and limiting calibration requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of the projected maintenance levels required.

M.5.1.1.2.5 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their plan for technical manual development to include configuration management of technical manual XML content, instruction, logistics product data, and methodology applied to support updates. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their methodology and source information used to develop content for the technical manual. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their plan for ensuring that each technical manual submitted to the Government includes safe, adequate and validated content.

M.5.1.1.2.6 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s strategy for developing a software architecture that mitigates technology obsolescence and reduces life cycle ownership costs.

M.5.1.1.2.7 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identification of all Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) and calibration that may be required during the course of testing (for example, replacement of consumable items due to exposure to CW agents or long operational service life testing). The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s System Support Package List (SSPL) that supports all tests identified in the PWS.

M.5.1.1.2.8 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for the development, documentation, and configuration management of technical data to include the AVCAD drawings, interface documentation, software specifications, software source code, and production documentation.

M.5.1.1.2.9 The Government will evaluate the extent to which the rights in Technical Data (TD), Computer Software (CS) and Computer Software Documentation (CSD) provided to the Government ensure unimpeded, innovative, and cost effective production, operation, maintenance (to include procurement of spare/repair parts), and upgrade of the AVCAD system throughout its life cycle; allow for open and competitive procurement of AVCAD enhancements;

and permit the transfer of the AVCAD non-proprietary object code and source code to other contractors for use on other systems or platforms.

M.5.1.2 Producibility and Manufacturing (Factor 2). The Offeror’s proposal is expected to address the following evaluation criteria for this factor. The Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal and the assigned adjectival rating for this factor will be primarily based upon

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-11

how well the Offeror addresses the evaluation criteria discussed below. The Offeror is encouraged to review the rating definitions provided in section M.4 to ensure an understanding of how the ratings will be applied. Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies and contribution toward the Producibility and Manufacturing Factor adjectival ratings will be based on how the Offeror addresses the subparagraphs M.5.1.2.1; M.5.1.2.2; and M.5.1.2.3.

M.5.1.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s manufacturing capability to produce the AVCAD system in a sustained manner beginning with LRIP and continuing through FRP.

M.5.1.2.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their approach to Producibility engineering and design as it relates to achieving the lowest possible production unit cost.

M.5.1.2.3 The Government will evaluate the proposed Quality Assurance Program (QAP) to ensure it addresses all products and services to include the design, development, production, installation, and servicing of products, and other services required. These products and services include, but are not limited to, Hardware Configuration Item (HWCI), software, and data items.

M.5.1.3 Cost/Price Factor (Factor 3)

M.5.1.3.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed cost for the basic requirement and all options for fairness, reasonableness, and realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

M.5.1.3.2 Fairness and Reasonableness: Price analysis technique(s), such as those listed under FAR 15.404-1(b), will be used to: 1) Ensure that the final agreed to price is fair and reasonable;

and 2) Determine if the prices are unbalanced. In the event that only one (1) cost proposal is received in response to the solicitation, a Cost Analysis will also be conducted.

M.5.1.3.3 Cost Realism Analysis: Cost Realism Analysis will be performed on Offerors’ proposals to determine their respective probable costs of performance for cost reimbursable efforts. Probable costs may differ from proposed costs based on any adjustments made (for purposes of evaluation only) to an Offeror’s proposed costs or fees when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions to realistic levels based on the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. If the Government is unable to arrive at a reliable probable cost as a result of material omissions in the Cost Volume, then an “undetermined” probable cost will be assigned and the Offeror may be advised that they will not be considered for award. While omissions in Offerors’ Cost Volumes may be corrected through discussions, the Government reserves the right to make award, even with one or more Offerors having been assigned with an “undetermined” probable cost.

M.5.1.3.4 Evaluation Price: The Evaluation Price, used for source selection purposes, will be the “Proposed Price” in the submitted Excel Cost Proposal’s “Evaluation Price Summary” tab, with CPIF CLINs subject to probable cost adjustments based on the completed “Cost Realism Analysis.” An evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-12

M.5.1.4 Past Performance (Factor 4)

M.5.1.4.1 There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality. The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information rests with the Offeror.

M.5.1.4.2 The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how recent the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the solicitation requirements. “Recent” means any contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has taken place within the last three

(3) years of the issuance of this solicitation.

M.5.1.4.3 The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how relevant the effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the solicitation requirements. In regards to relevancy, the Government will review those aspects of an Offeror’s contract history that will provide the greatest ability to measure whether the Offeror will satisfy the solicitation requirements. Aspects of relevancy that will be reviewed are similarity of service/support to the solicitation requirements; complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming.

M.5.1.4.4 The Offeror’s past performance will be evaluated to determine how well the Offeror performed on recent and relevant efforts. This assessment is known as the Past Performance Confidence Assessment. The Government will make this assessment based on whether the Offeror:

M.5.1.4.4.1 Provided a quality product or service in terms of technical performance for compliance with previous contract requirements, accuracy of reports, and technical excellence to include Quality awards/certificates.

M.5.1.4.4.2 Performed timely in terms of meeting milestones, reliability, responsiveness to technical guidance, deliverables completed on-time, adherence to contract schedules including contract administration.

M.5.1.4.4.3 Controlled cost in terms of performing within or below budget, use of cost efficiencies, relationship of negotiated to actual costs, submission of reasonably priced change proposals, and providing current, accurate, and complete billing timely.

M.5.1.4.4.4 Conducted business relations in terms of providing effective management;

demonstrating a cooperative and proactive behavior with the PCO, Contract Specialist, and the PCO Representative; being responsive to inquiries, resolving problems, and satisfying the customer.

M.5.1.4.4.5 In accordance with DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the Past Performance Evaluation will include the evaluation of the Offeror’s record of efforts to comply with 52.219-8 "Utilization of Small Business Concerns" and 52.219-9 "Small Business Subcontracting Plan."

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-13

M.5.1.4.4.6 Sources of Past Performance Information for evaluation are as follows:

1) Relevant and recent past performance information provided by the Offeror;

2) Past performance information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting Systems (eSRS), or other databases;

3) Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials;

4) The Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA); and,

5) Responses to Past Performance Questionnaires.

M.5.1.5 Small Business Participation (Factor 5).

M.5.1.5.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s utilization of small businesses through the evaluation of the Small Business Participation Plan, which applies to all Offerors.

M.5.1.5.2 Small Business Participation Plan.

The Small Business Participation plan will be evaluated on the basis of the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal identifies and commits to using Small Businesses (SB), Small Disadvantaged Businesses (SDBs), Woman-Owned Small Businesses (WOSBs), HUBZone Small Businesses (HUBZone SBs) and Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Businesses (SDVOSBs) in the performance of the proposed ID/IQ contract. Such evaluation is based upon the information within the Offeror’s SB Participation Plan.

M.5.1.5.2 The SB Participation Plan (Large and Small Business Offerors) will be evaluated on the basis of:

M.5.1.5.2.1 The extent to which SB firms are specifically identified (by company name NAICS, and CAGE code) in proposals.

M.5.1.5.2.2 The extent of commitment to use SB firms, including documentation of enforceable commitments.

M.5.1.5.2.3 Identification of the complexity and variety of the work that each SB firm is to perform.

M.5.1.5.2.4 The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

M.5.1.6 Additional Requirements Offeror Shall Meet to be Eligible for Award

M.5.1.6.1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Only). The Government will evaluate the Offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 19.705-4 and

(SEE FAR 3.104) M-14

AFARS 5119.705-4(d). The Offeror will not be eligible for award if the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is determined to be unacceptable in accordance with AFARS 5119.705- 4(d)(ii). The requirements for submission of a Small Business Subcontracting Plan do NOT apply to small businesses.

M.5.1.6.2 Responsibility: The Procuring Contracting Officer will determine if Offerors are responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1. Proposals received from Offerors determined to be not responsible pursuant to FAR Subpart 9.1 shall not be considered for award.

Table M-8: Small Business Participation Plan Ratings