EVALUATION PROCEDURES

1.  Evaluation Procedures:  The Median Source Selection Procedures in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.300 will be used for the MACC and shall result in six awards.  The competition will be twofold.  SBA 8(a) firms will compete among 8(a) firms for three contracts and three contracts shall be awarded based on full and open competition.  For a proposal to result in an awardable contract, it must meet at least all minimum requirements, conform to all required terms and conditions, and include all required certificates.

2.  Evaluation Factors and Subfactors:  Four evaluation factors will be used; Past Performance, Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, and Price in accordance with AFFARS 5315.304.

a.  Basis for Contract Award:  This competitive, best value source selection will be conducted in accordance with AFFARS Source Selection Procedures, Median Source Selections.  Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR); whose proposal conforms to the RFP's requirements and demonstrates technical, management, and financial capabilities necessary to support the MACC; and is judged, by an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.  The best value is represented by the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet the Government's requirements, all factors considered, and in consonance with the Government's stated importance of evaluation criteria.  The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors.  While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b.  When the integrated assessment of all aspects of the evaluation is accomplished, the color/adjectival ratings for the Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, Past Performance, and Price factors are all considered.  The color/adjectival ratings and risk assessments are conceptual, not numerical, in nature.  Any one of these considerations can influence the SSA's decision.

c.  Explanation of Evaluation Factors:  The four evaluation factors are:  (1) Past Performance, (2) Mission Capability, (3) Proposal Risk, and (4) Price.  Past performance, mission capability, and proposal risk are equal in importance and when combined are significantly more important than price.  Price only applies to the analysis of the proposed cost of the sample project.

(1) Factor 1:  Past Performance.  For the purpose of this evaluation, the "offeror" includes the prime contractor's bidding organization as complemented by the prime's team (subcontractors and other operating units of the prime, for example).  The assessment of past performance as a specific evaluation factor is separate and distinct from the Determination of Responsibility required by FAR Part 9.  Past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform based on previous and current contract efforts.  The main purpose of the past performance evaluation is to appropriately consider each offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in meeting users' needs including cost and schedule.  Current performance will have greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent performance.  In assessing performance risk, the Government will review aspects of the offeror's past performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is conducive to Mission Capability subfactors.  Offerors are advised that in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources.  Offerors will have the opportunity to address any negative past performance information received that they have not already had the opportunity to address.  Negative past performance equates to receiving anything below unsatisfactory.  Each offeror shall be assigned one of the following ratings in accordance with AFFARS 5315.305(a)2:

(a) Exceptional/High Confidence:  Based on the offeror's performance record, essentially no doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(b) Very Good/Significant Confidence:  Based on the offeror's performance record, little doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(c) Satisfactory/Confidence:  Based on the offeror's performance record, some doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(d) Neutral/Unknown Confidence:  No performance record identifiable (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iii) and (iv)).

(e) Marginal/Little Confidence:  Based on the offeror's performance record, substantial doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Changes to the offeror's existing processes may be necessary in order to achieve contract requirements.

(f) Unsatisfactory/No Confidence:  Based on the offeror's performance record, extreme doubt exists that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

(g) IAW FAR 15.305(a)(2), firms lacking relevant past performance history will receive a neutral evaluation for past performance.

(h) Volume II (Past Performance Information):  Offeror shall provide the original and five (5) complete copies of the following clearly identified as Past Performance Information, Volume II.  REQUEST VOLUME II BE SUBMITTED 10 CALENDAR DAYS PRIOR TO PROPOSAL DUE DATE.  Failure to provide timely Past Performance Information may eliminate the offeror from further consideration.  Areas of past performance include Management, Quality and Quality Control, Knowledge and Professionalism, Problem Resolution, Adherence to Schedules, Working Relationships, Design Capabilities, Environmental Awareness, and Contract Performance.  The following information shall be included:

The Government's evaluation of the past performance factor may include the following:

1 Demonstrated record of successful design, construction, and completion of multi-discipline projects; successful compliance with established minimum standard operations; compliance with standards of good workmanship; ability to meet user's mission needs, including cost and schedule.

2 Timeliness of performance; demonstrated ability to adhere to contract schedules; compliance with notification requirements; successful record of work integration among subcontractors/teaming arrangements and other parties affected by the work; and ability to solve multiple problems and to stay on schedule.

3 Successful business relations to include effective project management and workforce structure to perform the contract; track record of principal individuals selected to manage and perform key aspects of the contract to include the past performance of the offeror as a whole and how well the offeror's employees and subcontractors have performed.

(2) Factor 2:  Mission Capability.  The Mission Capability evaluation criteria will receive a rating applied to each subfactor.  Mission Capability subfactor ratings focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the offeror's proposal and shall be assigned a color rating as follows:

(a) Blue:  Exceptional.  Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Air Force.

(b) Green: Acceptable.  Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

(c) Red:  Unacceptable.  Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

Subfactor ratings shall not (per AFFARS 5315.305) be rolled up to an overall color rating for Mission Capability.  Any features or technical offerings that enhance, exceed the minimum acceptable requirements as listed in the subfactors below, and that are determined to provide added value to the Government will be considered under a best value determination.  However, the SSA will ultimately determine in accordance with the evaluation subfactors whether or not exceeding the stated requirements provides the best overall affordable benefit to the Government.  Offerors are advised that any features or technical offerings exceeding the minimums that are accepted by the Government may be incorporated into the resultant contract as the minimum standards.

(d) Subfactor 1 - Sample Project Proposal Preparation: To be determined acceptable, a proposal must contain all the elements required by the sample project Task Order and meet the following minimum standards.

1. Drawings: Drawings must be complete, appropriate, neat, legible, and contain the required professional certifications.

2.  Construction Cost Estimate: The construction cost estimate (AF Form 3052) must be complete and legible.

3.  Design Calculations: The design calculations must be complete, legible, and appropriate.

4.  Specifications: Specifications must be complete and edited to match the project requirements.

5.  Submittals: Submittals must be complete and appropriate.

6.  Color Board(s): Color board(s) must include all appropriate interior and exterior elements.

7.  Rendering: The rendering must be professionally prepared and be consistent with the project drawings.

8.  Design Submittals: The 35% and 95% design submittals must contain all the required elements. The elements must be indexed or otherwise easily identifiable.  

(e) Subfactor 2 - Subcontracting Support Capability:  This subfactor is applicable to full and open competition contractors only.  This subfactor is divided into two parts, Part A and Part B.  Part A requires the submission of a subcontracting plan or corporate plan.  Part B specifies how the evaluation of the plan will be accomplished.

1.  Part A:  The subcontracting plan (or corporate plan) submitted must include the following to elements to meet the standard.  As it may be difficult to project specific goals since the scope of work is unknown until the time the task order is issued, plans may specify that small business goals shall be indicated for each delivery order and a process for tracking cumulative achievements and providing the contracting officer with periodic reports shall satisfy these requirements.

a.  Separate percentage goals for using small business, veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns as subcontractors. Service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns meet the definition of veteran-owned small business concerns, and offerors may include them within the subcontracting plan goal for veteran-owned small business concerns. A separate goal for service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns is not required.

b.  A statement of the total dollars planned to be subcontracted and a statement of the total dollars planned to be subcontracted to small business, veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

c.  A description of the principal types of supplies and services to be subcontracted and an identification of the types planned for subcontracting to small business, veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

d.  A description of the method used to develop the subcontracting goals.

e.  A description of the method used to identify potential sources for solicitation purposes.

f.  A statement as to whether or not the offeror included indirect costs in establishing subcontracting goals, and a description of the method used to determine the proportionate share of indirect costs to be incurred with small business, veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

g.  The name of an individual employed by the offeror who will administer the offeror's subcontracting program, and a description of the duties of the individual.

h.  A description of the efforts the offeror will make to ensure that small business, veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns have an equitable opportunity to compete for subcontracts.

i.  Assurances that the offeror will include the clause FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, in all subcontracts that offer further subcontracting opportunities, and that the offeror will require all subcontractors (except small business concerns) that receive subcontracts in excess of $1,000,000 to adopt a plan that complies with the requirements of the clause at FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

j.  Assurances that the offeror will -

(1) Cooperate in any studies or surveys as may be required.

(2) Submit periodic reports so that the Government can determine the extent of compliance by the offeror with the subcontracting plan.

(3) Submit Standard Form (SF) 294, Subcontracting Report for Individual Contracts, and SF 295, Summary Subcontract Report, following the instructions on the forms or as provided in agency regulation.

(4) Ensure that its subcontractors agree to submit SF 294 and SF 295.

(5) A description of the types of records that will be maintained concerning procedures adopted to comply with the requirements and goals in the plan, including establishing source lists; and a description of the offeror's efforts to locate small business, veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns and to award subcontracts to them.

2.  Part B:  This subfactor will be evaluated as a pass/fail.

(3) Factor 3:  Proposal Risk.  Proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach.  For any risk identified the evaluation must address the offeror's proposal for mitigating those risks and why that approach is or is not manageable.  Proposal risk shall be evaluated using the following ratings as defined in AFFARS 5315.305:

(a) High:  Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Risk may be unacceptable even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

(b) Moderate:  Can potentially cause some disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

(c) Low:  Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance  Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will probably be able to overcome difficulties.

The Government will assess proposal risk for all Mission Capability subfactors, which includes potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance and the need for increased Government oversight as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.  The Government will examine offerors in each of the Mission Capability subfactors.  The following two assessment criteria will be used by evaluators to judge how well an offeror's proposal satisfies each of the subfactors within Mission Capability factor:

1.  Soundness of Approach:  This refers to the extent to which an offeror's proposal provides evidence of a sound approach to meet the objectives of the sample project in context of an operational environment and adheres to sound engineering design and management practices.  Soundness of approach also implies a sensible approach to risk management as well as cost feasibility.  Innovative approaches to meeting program objectives and requirements are strongly encouraged provided the proposed solutions are sound and improve the overall performance, enhance the program in a way deemed valuable to the Government, and satisfy the Government's requirements as set forth in the solicitation.

2.  Compliance with the Requirements:  This refers to the extent to which the offeror's proposal demonstrates an understanding of the solicitation requirements and provides evidence that program requirements will be met.

(4) Factor 4:  Price.  Offerors have been provided a sample project on which to submit a price proposal for evaluation.  The Government will evaluate the individual line items to determine whether costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the various elements of the offeror's mission capability proposal.  An unrealistically low, or high, proposed price for the sample project may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.  In addition, offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer.  The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items.  Offers that are determined to be materially unbalanced may be rejected.  An offer is mathematically unbalanced if it is based on prices which are significantly less than the cost for some contract line items and significantly overstated in relation to cost for others.  An offer is materially unbalanced if it is mathematically unbalanced, and if:

(a) There is a reasonable doubt that the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest evaluated offer; or

(b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advance payment. The government's price analysis may include, but is not limited to, a comparison of proposed prices received, contract prices for the same or similar services, comparison with current Defense Contract Audit Agency inflation indexes, and a comparison of proposed prices with the independent Government cost estimate.