Appendix_D_T53_Eval_10Jun20.docx

ATTACHMENT 4 – ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ATTACHMENT 4 – APPENDIX D - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

T53

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection procedures, for acceptable technical proposals with acceptable past performance. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the offeror who is rated “acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical and has acceptable past performance, has the lowest evaluated price, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions.

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(d)(5). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Price, or a combination of the two factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the FPR. The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1 Technical with acceptable past performance, who has been determined responsible IAW para 2.2.1 below, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation).

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each proposal will be evaluated for technical acceptability, based on the criteria listed below. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must meet all the criteria listed below. Failure to meet any criteria will result in an unacceptable technical rating. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

2.2.1. Technical Criteria

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed approach / documentation to provide proof of required certifications and agreements. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The criteria minimum is met when the proposal meets the requirements for all of the following essential elements:

a. Proof of current and valid OEM Technical Data License for T53 or Sub Contracting arrangement to vendor whom has the OEM Technical Data License Agreement to perform T53 engine repairs IAW PWS para 1.0 and sub paras.

b. Current FAR Part 145 FAA Certification or Equivalent IAW PWS para 1.0 and sub paras.

c. Current ISO 9001:2008 or higher version, OR AS9110 certificate IAW PWS para 1.0 and sub paras.

Note: Current is defined as dates being valid and current at time of contract award.

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance:

The past performance evaluation assesses the level of expectation the government has in an Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation, based on a demonstrated record of performance. Past performance will be rated as “acceptable” or “unacceptable” in accordance with the following definitions:

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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). 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 as “acceptable.”

2.3.1. Evaluation Process:

The past performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance expectation is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Factor 1 technical criteria and price assessment. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Offeror, and information obtained from other sources, such as the past performance information retrieval system (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.2. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

2.3.3. Relevancy Assessment:

The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Factor 1 technical criteria and price assessment. Price relevancy will be based on contract type. Consideration will be given to things such as similar products, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude, and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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, or subcontractor, whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. The government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts. The relevancy rating will take into account past performance examples reviewed in the aggregate.

2.3.4. Performance Quality Assessment:

The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

SATISFACTORY (S)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered for which corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

2.3.5. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessment of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive a past performance rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”, as defined in para 2.3.

3.0. Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) price realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, para 4.2.1. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable.

3.3.2. Balanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for balanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

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

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

3.3.3. Price Realism

The Government intends to determine price realism based on adequate price competition. In the event the Government cannot determine price realism based on adequate price competition, the Government reserves the right to conduct a more detailed price realism evaluation using one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), or other evaluation techniques, as needed. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement, and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. Prices determined to be unrealistic will ineligible for award. All documentation and rationale submitted to support price realism (such as assumptions, historical data, projections, expertise, management decisions, etc) will be considered in making a determination of price realism.

3.3.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

3.3.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with 52.212-1, ITO, pricing instructions. The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Price Matrix (Appendix B) as a separate tab titled “TEP Calculation Methodology.” The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the extended values for Offeror’s proposed prices for the Base Period (five years including a 45 day Transition) and one three-year incentive option and one two-year incentive option period for a total of 10 years.

Proposed pricing shall be provided in the Price Matrix cells designated for proposed unit prices per CLIN/SubCLIN. Unit prices for all performance periods shall be provided in the Price Matrix spreadsheet, these cells are highlighted in yellow. Spreadsheet formulas will calculate extended evaluated pricing based on multiplication of unit prices by evaluation quantities estimated by the Government. Extended pricing for all years of contract performance will be summed to yield total evaluated pricing for each CLIN. All years of performance will be included in the TEP to include the incentive option period.

For purposes of TEP calculation, the estimated quantities in Appendix B – Price Matrix provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods. Extended pricing per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government-provided estimated quantities: number of occurrences, estimated dollars or estimated hours. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Not all CLINs will be evaluated in the TEP.

3.3.6 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. Documentation to support rounding will be provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume, as well as actual rounding in Section 4 and in the completed Price Matrix located in Appendix B of the RFP. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

3.3.7 Annual Pricing Changes

Evaluation will include review of annual pricing changes (or escalation) to assist in the determination of balanced pricing. All supporting pricing documentation related to annual pricing changes provided in the Pricing Volume will be reviewed and considered.

3.3.8 Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume regarding cost or price assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing.

3.3.9 Proposed Price or Cost Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government shall review Section 2 of the Price Volume for all offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of proposed price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions and so forth. Also, the offerors’ explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated by reviewers. Offerors may provide their rationale as to why reduced pricing does not increase performance risk.

3.3.10. Proposed Fixed Rate Support

3.3.10.1 O&A Labor Wrap Rate Support

The Government will review Section 2 of the Price Volume to ensure reasonableness, balanced pricing and price realism of the proposed fixed rates. The Government will review to ensure offeror-specific labor categories that form the basis for the proposed wrap labor rates have been provided. The Government will also review Section 2 of the Price Volume to ensure the development of the proposed wrap labor rate has been provided in detail based on all labor types of effort designated under CLINs X012 and X014. As fixed priced rates, proposed rates shall be in accordance with Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)/Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) as applicable. Proposed ceiling wrap rates in contract out-years as fixed priced rates shall not be exceeded to include any upward adjustment in future out-years except as allowable under provisions of SCLS/CBA. Note all ceiling wrap rates, whether O&A labor or O&A material handling factor, shall be fully burdened (loaded) as composite wrap rates representing a composite of prime and subcontractor(s) rates.

3.3.10.2 Material Handling Factor Rate Support

The Government will review proposed material handling factor ceiling rates to ensure price reasonableness, balanced pricing and price realism. Material handling Factor Rates proposed in CLINs X013 and X015 will be reviewed for inclusion of indirect costs (overhead and General & Administrative expenses) and profit.

Offerors are strongly advised to seriously note risk for firm fixed pricing/fixed pricing out-years, which is considered contractor risk and not risk to the Government. Proposed pricing shall be sufficient to cover such contractor risk of future unknowns, such as subcontractor rate increases in contract out-years or changes in designated subcontractor or vendor. This also includes any type of unanticipated changes in subcontractors’ or vendors’ pricing in the out-years. Revision of proposed firm fixed pricing/fixed pricing will not be accepted by the Government to cover any additional costs in the future out-years, except as allowed by SCLS/CBA.

3.3.11 GFP

The Government will review information provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume to verify each offeror’s compliance with Addendum 52.212-1, ITO, pertaining to offerors’ understanding of items (including property, equipment, material, and facilities) provided by the Government. The only GFP on the contract is the engine itself as the end item for repair.

3.3.12 CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM

Similarly, the Government will also review Section 2 of the Price Volume information to verify each offeror’s compliance with Addendum 52.212-1, ITO, pertaining to the offeror’s understanding of requirements for Contractor Furnished Materials (CFM), including Contractor Furnished Property (CFP), Contractor Furnished Equipment (CFE), and Contractor Furnished Tooling (CFT).

3.3.13 Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques & Methods The Government will review Section 2 of the Price Volume for your explanation of the basis of estimate of your proposed pricing. The estimating methods (including past experience) used should be thoroughly explained and supported by the data provided in the price model. Any deviations shall be noted and explained.

3.3.14 Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review Section 2 of the Price Volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing as required in Addendum 52.212-1, ITO. Reasonable pricing determination as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor/vendor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair & reasonable.

3.3.15 Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to verify each Offeror’s compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 requirement to provide a table conforming the Offeror’s proposed job categories/skill levels to the job categories/skill levels of the Wage Determination or Collective Bargaining Agreement. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee for which work is performed in the United States.

3.3.16 Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to check compliance with Addendum 52.212-1, ITO, requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

3.3.17 Other Documentation Review

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing. All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing.