Addendum.Eval.Final.docx

ADDENDUM TO 52.212-2

ADDITIONAL EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

F-16 SLEP FALL PROTECTION WORK STAND DESIGN-BUILD

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government evaluation team will first evaluate all offers against the Go/No Go standard at Evaluation Factors paragraph 3.1 below. The Go/No Go must be evaluated as a “Go” in order for the offer to advance for continued evaluation. If an offer is evaluated as a “No Go” the submission shall not be further evaluated. Those offers evaluated to meet the “Go” criteria will advance and be evaluated against the evaluation factors at paragraphs 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 below.

Of the remaining offers advanced beyond the Go/No Go standard, the Government may be willing to accept a higher priced submission offering less risk to successful performance. Advantages identified in the successful offeror’s submission shall be incorporated into the applicable contract award document, (e.g. SOW; Contract Schedule – Section F: Deliveries or Performance; etc.), as the Government requirement.

1.1 REJECTION OF UNEXECUTABLE OFFERS

The Government shall reject any offer that, as a result of its evaluation, is determined to be unexecutable in terms of quality, safety, personnel, infrastructure and/or price, including proprietary elements and/or exceptions taken, such that the offer is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence, high or unacceptably high risk or failure to comprehend the complexity of the requirement.

2.0 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 COMPARATIVE EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The following factors and subfactors will be used to conduct a comparative evaluation of each offer. Award will be made to the offeror providing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon a comparative evaluation of the factors and subfactors described below:

1) Factor 1: Past Performance

2) Factor 2: Technical Capabilities

a. Subfactor 1: F-16 Full Wrap Design

b. Subfactor 2: Personnel & Infrastructure

c. Subfactor 3: Schedule

3) Factor 3: Price Offer

2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

Past Performance, Technical Capabilities and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Past Performance) being most important. Within Factor 2, the three subfactors are in descending order of importance with Subfactor 1 (F-16 Full Wrap Design) being most important. Factors 1 and 2 are more important than price.

3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

3.1 GO/NO GO

The contractor’s offer will be evaluated to ensure (1) the existing F-16 design is full wrap and (2) that the design is entirely the contractor’s intellectual property in accordance with SOW 3.5.1. A design which is evaluated to not be full wrap is unacceptable. Partial or shared ownership of any aspect of the design is unacceptable.

Full wrap is defined as a “passive” work stand configuration around the perimeter of the airframe such that an “active” restraint system, e.g. a clip-in harness system or vertical life line (VLL), is not necessary regardless of whether maintainers are on or near the tail, wings or cockpit area of the airframe.

3.2 Part 1: PAST PERFORMANCE

The offeror’s past performance submission will be evaluated for recency, relevancy and quality of relevant past performance as an indicator of future performance.

Recency is defined as a measure of the elapsed time since the relevant past performance reference occurred. Specific to this solicitation, recency will be evaluated as contract performance (i.e. from date of executed award) occurring within the past ten years. The ending point for ten years of recency will be calculated from the date of solicitation close.

Relevancy is defined as a measure of the likelihood the contractor’s past performance is an indicator of future performance. Specific to this solicitation, relevancy will be evaluated as the extent of similarity between the contractor’s previous full wrap F-16 fall protection work stand performance history and the current solicitation requirements. The offeror will receive a relevancy rating as defined in Table 1-A below.

Table 1-A - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Quality of relevant past performance history will take into account feedback regarding overall functionality and quality of the stands, safety compliance, longevity of the stands, timeliness of both delivery and install relative to the contract terms, and quantities of stands accepted. As defined in Table 1-B below, offerors will receive an overall past performance rating based on the the feedback received from the COs and POCs submitted for the offeror’s Past Performance submission and assessment by the evaluation team of the recency, relevancy and quality of relevant past performance.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Table 1-B - Overall Past Performance Ratings

3.3 Part 2: TECHNICAL CAPABILITIES

The offeror’s proposal for technical capabilities will be evaluated as follows:

As defined in Table 2 below, each technical subfactor of the offeror’s technical quote will receive either an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating. If any element of the offeror’s Technical Capability Subfactors are found to be unacceptable, their entire proposal will be deemed unacceptable. Any technical risks identified by the evaluation team within the technical subfactors will be taken into account by the Contracting Officer when making the comparative evaluation determination. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of disadvantages, considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Disadvantages identified may render an offeror’s submission unawardable if those disadvantages are determined to impact performance such that risk of successful performance is likely to be high or unacceptably high.

Table 2- Technical Subfactor Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

3.3.1 Technical Subfactor 1: F-16 Full Wrap Design

The design will be evaluated for the degree to which the offeror has incorporated components and subcomponents that are appropriate in industrial settings, that minimize preventative maintenance, maximize lifecycle and maximize ability to take abuse (i.e. all-metal construction, industrial duty as opposed to plastic construction, high-grade coatings, etc.), rigidity and strength, the degree and extent of proprietary components, and selection of safety finishes, e.g. platform material, etc. This assessment may lead to the identification of disadvantages such that the technical risk for this subfactor is rendered high or unacceptably high and therefore, unawardable.

The warranty will be evaluated for the degree to which it meets or exceeds the requirements at SOW 9.

3.3.2 Technical Subfactor 2: Personnel & Infrastructure

The contractor’s offer will be evaluated to ensure that at least one licensed Professional Engineer (PE) is a direct employee of the contractor’s firm. Failure to provide a copy of the employee’s valid PE licensure is unacceptable. Documentation that does not clearly evidence the licensed PE is a direct employee of the contractor’s firm is unacceptable.

The contractor’s offer will be evaluated to ensure welding staff are American Welding Society (AWS) certified welders and are direct employees of the contractor’s firm. Failure to provide copies of the employees’ valid AWS certifications is unacceptable. Documentation that does not clearly evidence the certified welders are direct employees of the contractor’s firm is unacceptable.

The contractor’s offer will be evaluated for the degree to which the contractor’s facilities are viable for executing the entirety of the full wrap F-16 fall protection work stand prototype the at contractor’s facility by contractor’s staff. This assessment may lead to the identification of disadvantages such that the technical risk for this subfactor is rendered high or unacceptably high and therefore, unawardable.

3.3.3 Technical Subfactor 3: Schedule

The Schedule will be evaluated for the degree to which the offeror meets or improves upon the Government’s estimated milestone timeframes and goal completion dates listed in Table 1 of SOW 4.6. This assessment may lead to the identification of disadvantages such that the technical risk for this subfactor is rendered high or unacceptably high and therefore, unawardable.

3.4 Part 3: PRICE PROPOSAL

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, and (2) Total Evaluated Price.

3.4.1 Reasonableness: The offeror’s price quote will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 13.106-3(a).

3.4.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be comprised of the following CLINs: 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004 and 0005.

TEP will be evaluated as the sum of the offered prices for each CLIN. (Note: CLIN 0003 is unpriced for solicitation purposes as $0 and CLIN 0005 is NSP.)