Section M DRAFT UH-1 (series) PDM_H-60 (series) Repair DRAFT.docx

19AQMM22R0006

DRAFT

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND RATINGS

M-1.1 General Information

M-1.1 (a): The technical evaluation will represent specific characteristics that are tied to significant RFP requirements. The technical evaluation factors will be the uniform baseline against which each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated allowing the Government to make a determination of acceptability. The evaluation factors will be set forth in the solicitation in enough depth to communicate what will be evaluated.

M-1.2 Technical Evaluation Factors and Criteria The Government will award this Contract in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, using Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable Offer (LPTA) process. A single award will be made to that responsible Offeror whose evaluated price totaling all Contract Line Items (CLINS) in Section B of this Solicitation plus the sum of the two sample task order total prices is the lowest and whose proposal meets all technical and past performance evaluation criteria (non-cost factors). Offerors are hereby notified that the Government intends to use outside contractors to assist in the evaluation of proposals. Those contractors will have access to any and all information contained in the offerors’ proposals and will be subject to appropriate conflict of interest, standards of conduct, and confidentiality restrictions. It is the intent of the Government to make an award based on the initial proposal without discussions.

The Government will conduct its evaluation for acceptability using the below six (6) Technical Factors:

(a) FACTOR 1: UH-1 (series) and H-60 (series) Repair Station Facility Certification EVALUATION CRITERIA: Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine documentation clearly indicates:

accompanied with an approved Bell UH-1 (series) PDM related capabilities list;

(b) FACTOR 2: UH-1 (series) and H-60 (series) or Equivalent Commercial Aircraft Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 14 CFR PART 145 Repair Station Experience with Corporate Experience EVALUATION CRITERIA: Offeror’s proposal demonstrates recent and relevant experience with PDMs, overhauls, modifications, depot level repairs of Bell/UH-1 (series) and H-60 (series) or equivalent commercial rotary wing aircraft within the past 5 years.

(c) FACTOR 3: Government Furnished Property (GFP) Management EVALUATION CRITERIA: Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated for adequate experience and documentation to demonstrate that the offeror can manage and maintain an inventory of all United States Government (USG) provided Government Furnished Property (GFP) in accordance with SOW requirements.

(d) FACTOR 4: - Sample ACI and PDM Quote Documentation including proposed Schedule EVALUATION CRITERIA: Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine

(e) FACTOR 5: ITAR Compliance Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to assess the offeror has the experience and expertise to comply with all International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), customs clearances, and any import/export requirements (Ref: ITAR Clause).

(f) FACTOR 6: On-Site Technical Assistance EVALUATION CRITERIA: Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror is capable of providing technical field service and engineering assistance at unspecified CONUS and OCONUS locations on an as needed basis in accordance with SOW requirements.

M-2.0 Past Performance The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (and principal subcontractors and team members) demonstrated recent and relevant record of past performance in supplying products and services meeting contract requirements. In particular, each of the following areas will be considered:

1) quality of product/service (meeting technical requirements),

2) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance,

3) controlling contract costs,

4) managing the contracted effort (history of reasonable and cooperative behavior),

5) commitment to customer satisfaction and businesslike concern for the interest of its customers.

Under this LPTA solicitation process, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.

Rated definitions:

Acceptable: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the offeror’s past performance is acceptable.

Unacceptable: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the offeror’s past performance is unacceptable.

Neutral: No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably

The TET will perform past performance evaluations on all offers received, in accordance with the SSP. Past performance evaluations will include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) assessment retrieval and information obtained from past performance questionnaires.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government will also use, to further evaluate past performance, existing databases which includes, but is not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) or other databases; interviews with Program Managers; Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; and Contract Administration Offices (CAOs).

is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

obtained. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, joint venture partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing past performance:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CONSIDERATIONS

M-3.0 Price The principal basis for evaluating price as a factor for award under this solicitation will be an evaluation of the reasonableness of the offeror’s total price. The "total evaluated price" is the cumulative total of the base year plus all option years for the total estimated projection of Bell/UH-1 (series) PDM aircraft and H-60 (series) Repair aircraft as noted in the SOW and the sum of the two sample task order total prices. The “total evaluated price” will not include the six (6) month option year extension clause. The Government will use the price analysis technique stipulated in FAR 15.404 to support the selection of the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror and to ensure the overall price is fair and reasonable.

Evaluation of Options will be conducted in accordance with FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them necessary.