B02_Section_M_7_July.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors 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 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 Offeror with the lowest Evaluation Price, or to other than the Offeror with the highest evaluated technical rating. The Government intends to award approximately (2) contracts. The basis for award of a contract will be the results of the proposal evaluations of all of the factors 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. An adjectival rating of “unacceptable” for any non-cost factor will cause the entire proposal to be evaluated as “unacceptable” and will exclude an Offeror from consideration 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 Source Selection Authority (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 PCO 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 PCO 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.

M.2 EVALUATION FACTORS

DRAFT

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

Table M-1: Evaluation Factors and Supporting Information

Number Evaluation Factors/Supporting Information Rating Method

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

2 Support and Ownership (Factor) Adjectival and Risk Ratings along with Narrative Evaluation.

3 Test Reports (Supporting Information) None. Will not receive Adjectival or Risk Rating. Supports evaluation of Technical Approach and Support and Ownership Factors.

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

5 Cost/Price (Factor) Evaluated in accordance with M.2.2.5

6 Past Performance (Factor) Relevancy and Performance Confidence Ratings

7 Small Business Participation Plan (Factor) Will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating.

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

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

M.2.2 All factors 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, 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 Technical Approach Factor (Volume I): The Technical Approach Factor will receive an adjectival rating and risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.2.2 Support and Ownership Factor (Volume II): The Support and Ownership Subfactor will receive an adjectival rating and risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.2.3 Test Reports (Volume III): The Government will use both Government and Offeror test reports to assist in the evaluation of the Technical Approach and Support and Ownership Factors’ risks, and therefore will not receive an adjectival or risk rating. The reports will be used to substantiate the claims made in Volumes I and II and support the risk ratings assigned to the Technical Approach and Support and Ownership Factors.

M.2.2.4 Producibility and Manufacturing Factor (Volume IV): The Producibility and Manufacturing Factor will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies and will receive an adjectival rating and risk rating along with a narrative evaluation.

M.2.2.5 Cost/Price Factor (Volume V): The Cost/Price Factor will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate Offerors’ proposals for fairness and reasonableness. CPIF CLINs will be evaluated for realism. 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. The evaluation price will be the “Proposed Price” in the submitted Excel Cost Proposal’s Summary tab, inclusive of evaluation quantities and weightings provided in the Cost Template, as well as any probable cost adjustments based on the Cost Realism Analysis of CPIF CLINs.

M.2.2.6 Past Performance Factor (Volume VI): 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.2.2.7 Small Business Participation Plan Factor (Volume VII): 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.2.2.8 Administrative (Volume VIII). This volume contains administrative information and will not receive an adjectival or risk rating.

M.2.2.9 Uncosted Information (Volume IX). 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.

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 Approach II Support and Ownership IV Producibility and Manufacturing

VI Past Performance VII 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 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.

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 Approach, Support and Ownership, 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.

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. Risks 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 Approach, Support and Ownership, 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 Technical Adjectival and Risk Ratings (Technical Approach, Support and Ownership, and Producibility and Manufacturing).

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.

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

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.

Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness. CPIF CLINs will be evaluated for realism. The evaluation price will be the “Proposed Price” in the submitted Excel Cost Proposal’s Summary tab, inclusive of evaluation quantities and weightings provided in the Cost Template, as well as any probable cost adjustments based on the Cost Realism Analysis of CPIF CLINs.

M.5 EVALUATION CRITERIA

M.5.1. The previous stated evaluation factors (Technical Approach, Support and Ownership, 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 in M.4.

M.5.1.1 Technical Approach Factor. The Offeror’s proposal is expected to address each of the following evaluation criteria for this factor. 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 factor based on how the Offeror addresses the following paragraphs: M.5.1.1.1; M.5.1.1.2; M.5.1.1.3;

M.5.1.1.4; M.5.1.1.5; M.5.1.1.6; M.5.1.1.7; M.5.1.1.8 and M.5.1.1.9.

M.5.1.1.1 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.5.1.1.2 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.5.1.1.3 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.5.1.1.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s system maturity discussion. The proposed EMD AVCAD Hardware discussed in Section C.7 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.5.1.1.5 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 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.5.1.1.6 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s narrative discussion addressing requirements within section C.8.1 of the AVCAD PWS and Appendix B of the AVCAD PSPEC.

M.5.1.1.7 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.5.1.1.8 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.5.1.1.9 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.5.1.1.10 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.5.1.2 Support and Ownership Factor. The Offeror’s proposal is expected to address the following evaluation criteria for this factor. 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 factor based on how the Offeror addresses the following paragraphs: M.5.1.2.1; M.5.1.2.2; M.5.1.2.3;

M.5.1.2.4; M.5.1.2.5; M.5.1.2.6; M.5.1.2.7; M.5.1.2.8 and M.5.1.2.9.

M.5.1.2.1 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.

M.5.1.2.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of all the analysis planned to achieve the support requirements identified in the AVCAD PSPEC.

M.5.1.2.3 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of significant operations and support cost drivers for implementation of the proposed IPS Solution.

M.5.1.2.4 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of their developmental approach to minimizing the complexity of organizational 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.5.1.2.5 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.5.1.2.6 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s strategy for ensuring a modular design that allows for future reconfiguration and addition of new capabilities without large-scale redesign, mitigating technology obsolescence and reduces life cycle ownership costs.

M.5.1.2.7 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.5.1.2.8 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.5.1.2.9 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.5.1.3 Producibility and Manufacturing Factor. 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 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.5.1.3.1; M.5.1.3.2; and M.5.1.3.3.

M.5.1.3.1 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.5.1.3.2 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.5.1.3.3 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.5.1.4 Cost/Price Factor

M.5.1.4.1 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.5.1.4.2 Cost Realism Analysis: Cost Realism Analysis will be performed on Offerors’ proposals to determine their respective probable costs of performance for cost reimbursable efforts (CPIF CLINs). Probable costs may differ from proposed costs based on any adjustments made for evaluation purposes 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 an “undetermined” probable cost.

M.5.1.4.3 Evaluation Price: The Evaluation Price, used for source selection purposes, will be the “Proposed Price” in the submitted Excel Cost Proposal’s Summary tab, inclusive of evaluation quantities and weightings provided in the Cost Template, as well as any probably cost adjustments based on the Cost Realism Analysis of CPIF CLINs. An evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

M.5.1.5 Past Performance Factor

M.5.1.5.1 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.5.1.5.2 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.5.1.5.3 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.5.1.5.4 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.5.1.5.4.1 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.5.1.5.4.2 Performed timely in terms of meeting milestones, reliability, responsiveness to technical guidance, deliverables completed on-time, adherence to contract schedules including contract administration.

M.5.1.5.4.3 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.5.1.5.4.4 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.5.1.5.4.5 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."

M.5.1.5.4.6 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.5.1.5.4.7 The Government may determine that a Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence past performance rating is worth more than a Neutral Confidence past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

M.5.1.6 Small Business Participation Plan Factor.

M.5.1.6.1 The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Plan Factor on the basis of:

M.5.1.6.1.1 The extent to which SB firms are specifically identified (by company name, NAICS, and CAGE code) in proposals.

M.5.1.6.1.2 The extent of commitment to use SB firms, including documentation of enforceable commitments.

M.5.1.6.1.3 Identification of the complexity and variety of the work that each SB firm is to perform.

M.5.1.6.1.4 The extent of participation of SB firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition.

M.5.1.6.1.5 The extent to which the offeror meets or exceeds the SB Participation Plan Goals identified in L.4.7.3.2. Note however that failing to meet the SB Participation Plan Goal for any individual small business category may not necessarily result in an overall Unacceptable rating for the Small Business Participation Plan Factor depending on: (i) the offeror’s detailed explanation of why it will fail to meet a specific goal, as required by L.4.7.3.2.2, and (ii) the extent to which the offeror will exceed the listed goals for other categories.

M.5.1.6.2 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Large Business Only). Separate from Small Business Participation Plan, other than U.S. Small Business offerors must also submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan meeting the requirements of FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219- 7003 (or DFARS 252.219-7004 if the offeror has a comprehensive subcontracting plan). While the Small Business Subcontracting Plan is not an evaluation factor for this solicitation, other than U.S. Small Businesses must submit an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to be eligible for award. Small Business Subcontracting Plans shall reflect and be consistent with the commitment percentages offered for the Small Business Participation Plan factor and failure of the plans to correlate properly may make the proposal unawardable.

M.5.1.7 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.