Part 7 - Section M- 19AQMM22R0007 Special Missions FINAL.docx

22AQMM22R0007 – Special Missions SECTION M- Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M: Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR AWARD - BEST PRICE/TECHNICAL TRADEOFF

Award will be made to the Offeror that is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1; whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements; and whose proposal is determined to provide the best overall value to the Government. The proposal offering the best value is the one that is most advantageous to the Government, when price and other factors are considered. The Government may select for award the offeror whose price is not necessarily the lowest, but whose technical proposal is more advantageous to the Government and warrants the additional cost. When determining best value, the technical factor is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. However, the importance of price may increase with the degree of equality of the proposals in relation to the other non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance proposals).

EVALUATION APPROACH

The Government reserves the right to reject an offer if one of the following conditions exists:

· Offeror fails to submit any of the required proposal documents specified in Section L or does not include full pricing information.

· Offerors, including any offeror organized as a joint venture, must have an active SAM registration at the time of proposal submission and throughout the procurement process. Any offeror whose registration is not active in SAM at the time of proposal submission will be excluded from the process and their proposals will not be evaluated”

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD:

Technical Factor

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical Factor Subfactor as it applies requirements set forth in this solicitation and Performance Work Statement (PWS) and outlined in Section L. The Technical Subfactors are as follows:

a. Subfactor 1: Engineering and Technical Services

b. Subfactor 2: Sustainment Operations

c. Subfactor 3: Operations

d. Subfactor 4: Quality Assurance

e. Subfactor 5: Aircraft Procurement Sample Task Order

f. Subfactor 6: DHC-8 Storage Sample Task Order

In assessing the Technical Factor rating, the Offeror’s approach to the component subfactor and the assessed strengths and weaknesses will be considered in accordance with the following order of importance. The Technical Subfactor 1 is of greatest importance and will be rated significantly higher than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 will be rated higher than Subfactor 3. Subfactor 3 will be rated higher than Subfactor 4. Subfactor 4 will be rated higher than both subfactors 5 & 6, which will be rated equally. When combined, the non-price factors (Technical and Past Performance) are significantly more important than price. As proposals become more equal in technical merits, price may become significantly more important.

Note: To receive consideration for award, an overall rating of no less than “ACCEPTABLE” must be achieved for Factor 1 – Technical. Any subfactor rating evaluated as “UNACCEPTABLE” will cause the overall Factor 1- Technical proposal to be deemed Unacceptable.

Subfactor 1 – Engineering and Technical Services INL/A seeks to understand the proposed aviation engineering and technical services and the offeror's ability to react to critical engineering requirements with accurate time sensitive solutions and delivery of critical information. Proposals will be evaluated against all relative requirements in the area of engineering and technical services, with emphasis on the elements cited below.

Describe the engineering tools, techniques, and standards you propose to utilize in project management, associated reporting. Discuss why you believe them to be the most effective and efficient to apply to the work requirements.

INL/A will evaluate the proposal to determine the extent to which the offeror demonstrates understanding of the appropriate and most effective engineering standard(s) applicable to the work. Strengths in relevant engineering disciplines will be evaluated to determine ability to implement the cited tools, techniques, and standards.

Perform a risk analysis of aviation Engineering and Technical Services. Identify the three (3) most critical areas of risk when implementing your proposed engineering management, tools, techniques, and standards. Also explain how you would successfully manage each of these risks.

INL/A will evaluate the offeror’s implementation of their approach to assess the offeror’s rationale behind their selection. INL/A will also evaluate the offeror’s implementation of their approach to manage and mitigate the identified risks through its proposed tools, techniques, and standards

Provide four (4) recent examples of experience deemed most relevant in providing aviation Engineering and Technical services for requirements similar to those identified in the SOW. Provide project contact information (POC, phone, email).

INL/A will evaluate the offeror’s implementation of their approach for relevant experience, degree of complexity, level of expertise required to successfully perform the services.

Subfactor 2: Sustainment Operations INL/A seeks to understand the offeror's technical approach, relevant experience in aircraft maintenance and logistics management, and proposed processes and standards for support of continuing aviation operations at CONUS and OCONUS locations. Proposals will be evaluated against all relative requirements in the area of sustainment operations, with emphasis on the elements cited below.

Provide a detailed summary explaining the specific management methodology, business practices, standards, technologies, and processes you plan to utilize to support continuing DoS operations at both CONUS and OCONUS locations. Discuss why you believe them to be the most effective and efficient to apply to the work requirements.

Perform a risk analysis of sustainment operations. Identify and fully explain the three (3) most critical risks in implementing your business practices, proposed standards, technologies, and processes. Explain how you would successfully manage each of the identified risks.

INL/A will evaluate the proposal for relevance and the offerors understanding of the appropriate, most effective, and balanced approach applicable to perform the assigned tasks. Strengths in relevant disciplines will be evaluated to determine ability to understand and implement the cited standards, technologies, processes, and practices.

INL/A will evaluate the three areas deemed most critical for their relevance, the logic, and reasoning behind their selection. INL/A will also evaluate the offeror’s approach to manage and mitigate the identified risks

Provide two (2) recent examples of global experience deemed most relevant in performing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance on aircraft similar to the active and inactive DoS aircraft listed in the SOW.

INL/A will evaluate the offeror’s implementation of their approach for relevant experience, degree of complexity, level of expertise required to successfully perform the services.

Provide two (2) additional examples of global experience in successfully developing and sustaining a fleet level end to end aviation logistics support system (more than 10 aircraft).

INL/A will evaluate the offeror’s implementation of their approach for relevant experience, degree of complexity, level of expertise required to successfully perform the services

Subfactor 3: Operations INL/A seeks to understand the approach, processes, and standards the offeror proposes to apply in conducting aviation operations at CONUS and OCONUS locations. Proposals will be evaluated against all relative requirements in the area of operations, with emphasis on the elements cited below.

Provide a detailed summary explaining the specific standards, processes, technologies, and procedures you plan to utilize when providing rotary and fixed wing aircraft operation support at both CONUS and OCONUS locations.

INL/A will evaluate the extent to which the offerors’ proposal demonstrates a safe, professional, regulated, proven model, with associated technical and administration solutions. Strengths in relevant aircraft operation disciplines will be evaluated to determine ability to implement the cited standards, processes, technologies, and procedures to meet or exceed all requirements related to operation and the accomplishment of the Statement of Work.

Subfactor 4: Quality Assurance INL/A seeks to understand the offeror's quality program(s), technical approach, management involvement and processes, and the proposed task order plan(s). Proposals will be evaluated against all relative requirements in the area of Quality Assurance, with emphasis on the elements cited below.

Describe the Quality Assurance Program, management tools, techniques, and standards you propose to utilize. Discuss why you believe them to be the most effective and efficient to apply to the work requirements.

INL/A will evaluate to the extent to which the offerors proposed solution demonstrates a reliable and proven quality model and associated tools, techniques, and standards meet or exceed all requirements related to Quality Assurance. Strengths in relevant Quality Assurance disciplines will be evaluated to determine ability to implement the cited tools, techniques, and standards.

Provide three (3) recent examples of establishing a Quality Assurance Program with reportable performance measures deemed most relevant in providing Quality Assurance for requirements similar to those identified in the SOW. Provide project contact information (POC, phone, email).

INL/A will evaluate the offeror’s implementation of their approach relevant certifications, experience, performance measures, and level of expertise required to perform.

Subfactor 5: Aircraft Procurement Sample Task Order INL/A seeks to understand the approach, processes, and standards the offeror proposes to apply in rapidly locating and acquiring commercially available aircraft to meet DoS specific needs and requirements. Proposals will be evaluated against all relative requirements in the area of aircraft procurement, with emphasis on the elements cited below.

Provide a summary explaining what specific technologies, standards, and procedures you plan to utilize in aviation procurement for CONUS and OCONUS locations.

Perform a risk analysis of the SOW and identify the three (3) most critical areas of implementing your proposed aviation procurements, including standards, and procedures. Also explain how you would successfully manage each of these risks.

Provide two (2) examples of your most recent and relevant global (CONUS and OCONUS) experience in aircraft acquisition, any required mission or systems modifications, and delivery of aircraft similar to the active and inactive DoS aircraft listed in the SOW. Provide project contact information (POC, phone, email).

INL/A will evaluate the extent to which the offerors’ proposed solution demonstrates a reliable and proven procurement model and associated technical and administration solutions to meet or exceed all requirements related to the procurement, transfer of ownership to DoS, and rapid delivery of required rotary and/or fixed wing aircraft in the configuration necessary to accomplish the requirements of the task order Statement of Work.

INL/A will evaluate the three areas deemed most critical for their relevance, the logic, and reasoning behind their selection. INL/A will also evaluate the offeror’s approach to manage and mitigate identified risks.

INL/A will evaluate the offeror’s relevant global experience in the successful aircraft acquisition, modification, transfer of ownership, and delivery. .

Subfactor 6: DHC-8 Storage Sample Task Order

INL/A seeks to understand the approach, processes, and standards the offeror proposes to apply in securing storage IAW with SOW. Proposals will be evaluated against all relative requirements in the area of aircraft storage, with emphasis on the elements cited below.

Provide a summary explaining what specific technologies, standards, and procedures you plan to utilize in aviation storage for CONUS and OCONUS locations.

Perform a risk analysis of the PWS and identify the three (3) most critical areas of implementing your proposed aviation storage management technologies, standards, and procedures. Also explain how you would successfully manage each of these risks.

Provide two (2) examples of your most recent and relevant global (CONUS and OCONUS) experience in aircraft storage, any required mission or systems modifications, and delivery of aircraft similar to the active and inactive DoS aircraft listed in the SOW. Provide project contact information (POC, phone, email).

INL/A will evaluate the extent to which the offerors’ proposed solution demonstrates a reliable and proven procurement model and associated technical and administration solutions to meet or exceed all requirements related to the procurement, transfer of ownership to DoS, and rapid delivery of required rotary and/or fixed wing aircraft in the configuration necessary to accomplish the requirements of the task order Statement of Work.

INL/A will evaluate the three areas deemed most critical for their relevance, the logic, and reasoning behind their selection. INL/A will also evaluate the offeror’s approach to manage and mitigate identified risks.

INL/A will evaluate the offeror’s relevant global experience in the successful aircraft acquisition, modification, transfer of ownership, and delivery.

The following adjectival ratings will be assigned for the Technical Subfactors and overall Factor:

I. Volume II: Past Performance

The Offeror, either as the prime contractor or as a joint venture contractor, will be evaluated to assess past performance using recent (within past 3 years) of relevant CPARS data and Offeror provided questionnaire information. The Offeror will be evaluated based on the relevance of the prior performance as well as the level of customer satisfaction and compliance with contract requirements in the areas of:

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.

The Government will conduct an evaluation of the past performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the requirements of this solicitation. Consideration will be given to similarity of services performed in hostile, austere and remote locations; complexity; magnitude of effort; and schedule. The four levels of relevancy are as shown below:

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

a) The Performance Confidence Assessment chart below serves as the overall past performance rating. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be assigned reasonably will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. It is unlikely that Government intervention will be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Little Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Government has a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Some Government intervention is expected to be needed in order to obtain the required product/service.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and 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), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and other Government representatives involved in a procurement as necessary; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

II. Volume III: Price Factor

The price proposals submitted for the sample task orders referenced in Technical Volume I, Subfactors 5 & 6 will be evaluated for price reasonableness along with the fixed price rates contained in Special Mission Labor Categories & Rates Table (Attachment 3).

The Government will use one or more of the proposal analysis techniques stipulated in FAR 15.404 to conduct the evaluation.

1. The offeror shall submit a detailed price narrative supporting each price/cost proposed and the narrative must provide a thorough explanation and rationale for all proposed prices. Failure to explicitly state cost/price assumptions in Volume III, Cost/Price proposal may result in removal from the competition.

1. Offerors shall fill in the proposed Special Mission Labor Categories & Rates Table (Attachment 3). These proposed rates shall be used in the pricing of both sample task orders and will be utilized for the performance of any task orders issued under the resulting IDIQ contract.