4.4.  Evaluation Criteria and Basis for Award. IG 4.4R1

Evaluation factors and subfactors represent those specific characteristics that are tied to significant requirements IG 4.4R2 having an impact on the source selection decision and that are expected to be discriminators. IG 4.4R3  They are the uniform baseline against which each offeror's proposal is evaluated allowing the government to make a best value determination.  The evaluation factors and subfactors and their relative importance shall be set forth in the evaluation criteria (Section M or equivalent provision) of the solicitation in enough depth to communicate how the proposal will be evaluated and the rating determined.  Numerical or percentage weighting of the relative importance of evaluation factors and subfactors shall not be used.  Evaluation factors and subfactors may be quantitative, qualitative, or a combination of both.  The evaluation factors and subfactors shall be the primary determinant of the detailed information requested in the solicitation's instructions to offerors (Section L or equivalent provision). IG 4.4R4

4.4.1.  Evaluation Factors.  Air Force source selections shall utilize the following evaluation factors:

4.4.1.1.  Mission Capability. The mission capability evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments:  the Mission Capability Technical Rating and the Mission Capability Risk Rating (see 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.1.2). IG 4.4.1.1r1  The Mission Capability Technical Rating provides an assessment of the offeror's capability to satisfy the government's requirements. IG 4.4.1.1r2 When subfactors are used, establish the minimum number necessary for the evaluation of proposals, normally limited to six subfactors.  Additional subfactors may be justified and documented in the Source Selection Plan.  Systems Engineering shall be a mission capability subfactor in all ACAT program acquisitions, and in all other acquisitions where systems engineering effort is required.  If the ACAT acquisition has no Systems Engineering effort, the SSA, with PEO approval, shall document the contract file accordingly and a systems engineering subfactor is not required.  The Mission Capability Risk Rating assesses the degree to which the offeror's proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance.

4.4.1.2.  Past Performance. The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the government has in an offeror's ability to supply products and services that meet users' needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.  A past performance evaluation is required in accordance with Director of Defense Procurement Class Deviation 99-O0002 dated January 29, 1999, which states the requirement thresholds are: (1) $5 million for systems and operations support, (2) $1 million for services, information technology, and (3) $100,000 for fuels or health care.  A past performance evaluation may be accomplished for acquisitions below these thresholds at the discretion of the Source Selection Authority.  For acquisitions that require a past performance evaluation, but are below the threshold for establishing a Performance Confidence Assessment Group, the Source Selection Plan shall indicate individual(s) responsible for the Past Performance review.  IG 4.4.1.2

4.4.1.3.  Cost or Price.  The evaluation of the cost or price to the government for the supplies or services being acquired.

4.4.1.3.1  Most Probable Cost (MPC).  The MPC estimate is the government estimate of the costs to acquire specified goods and/or services.  This estimate includes not only those costs that will be included as part of the contract, but may include any other costs that will be incurred by the government in the performance of the acquisition program. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror's unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1, and may consider such information as contained in the Program Office Estimate (POE) or Independent Government Estimate.  Define all the components that make up the aggregate government most probable cost and specify them in the Section M evaluation criteria. IG 4.4.1.3.1 and IG5.5.4

4.4.1.3.2.  (Most Probable Life Cycle Cost (MPLCC).  For ACAT programs, the Deputy Assistant Secretary (Contracting)(DAS(C)) will approve the use of MPLCC as an evaluation criterion.  The program manager with the assistance of the Contracting Officer will prepare the request for approval by including a justification statement addressing the rationale and methodology for using MPLCC as an evaluation criterion.  Such request will be submitted to SAF/AQCK, safaqck.workflow@pentagon.af.mil 10 working days prior to convening the acquisition strategy panel (ASP) or the staffing of the acquisition plan, whichever occurs first.

4.4.1.4  Cost/Price Risk (Optional).  This evaluation factor may be used, with SSA approval, for programs that use a Cost Reimbursement or Fixed-Price Incentive type contract structure involving a most probable cost/price evaluation.  The Cost/Price Risk rating assesses the degree to which an offeror's cost proposal compares with the government's best estimate of the offeror's Most Probable Cost (MPC). IG 4.4.1.4R1  If utilized, Cost/Price Risk shall be a significant evaluation factor.  IG 4.4.1.4R2

4.4.2.  Relative Importance of Factors and Trade-offs.  The solicitation shall state, at a minimum, whether all evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are (1) significantly less important than cost or price; (2) approximately equal to cost or price; or (3) significantly more important than cost or price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. IG 4.4.2r1  If specific trade-offs are to be considered, then how the trade-offs will be evaluated must be stated in the Request for Proposal. IG 4.4.2r2

4.4.3.  Other Solicitation Requirements.  The statement and accompanying instructions required by AFFARS 5315.305(a) shall inform offerors how the government will consider those solicitation requirements not covered by the items in 4.4.1 above.  While offerors may propose exceptions to the solicitation requirements, the government is not obligated to accept such offers.  Any change to the requirement as a result of accepting an exception shall be reflected within the resultant contract. IG 4.4.3

4.4.4.  MAJCOMs and DRUs may establish alternative factors or subfactors for specific classes of "other contracting" acquisitions when required to conduct an effective and efficient evaluation of offers.  However, all other requirements of this procedure must be followed. IG 4.4.4