Atch_10_SecM_20R0002.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 1 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

Center for Aircraft Structural Life Extension (CAStLE)

Engineering and Research Activities for Aging Structures

Contract

Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

15 September 2020

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 2 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

Contents

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1.1 Best Value

1.1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property

1.1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

1.1.5 Competition

1.1.6 Discussions

1.1.7 Mandatory Requirement

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical

2.1.2 Factor 2: Price

2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

2.2.1 Unawardability

3.0 FACTOR 1 - TECHNICAL

3.1 GENERAL

3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Program/Business Management

3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Research and Engineering Scenarios

3.1.3 Subfactor Ratings

3.1.4 Offeror’s Prior Experience

3.2 TECHNICAL SUBFACTOR SECTIONS

3.2.1 Subfactor 1: Program/Business Management

3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Research and Engineering Scenarios

4.0 FACTOR 2 – PRICE FACTOR

4.1 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

4.1.1 Reasonableness:

4.1.2 Unbalanced Pricing

4.1.3 Certified Cost and Pricing Data

5.0 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

5.1 REVIEWS AND VISITS

5.2 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

5.3 SOLICITATIONS, REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 3 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

1.1.1 Best Value

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, and FAR 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) Acq.Gov.

The Government intends to make a single award by selecting the best value offeror, who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, as supplemented by the DFARS 209.1. The Offeror’s proposal shall conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors) and will be assessed based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical and Price factors. Among the acceptable proposals, a tradeoff will be made between Technical and Price. This may result in an award to other than the lowest priced proposal or other than the highest technically rated proposal where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the offer is in the best interest of the Government.

While the Government source selection 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. The SSA may consider recommendations, minority opinions, and reports and analyses prepared by others; the source selection decision shall be based upon the SSA’s independent judgment.

1.1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one single-award Indefinite-delivery Indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property

The use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) will not be a consideration during evaluation, No request for additional GFP will be entertained.

1.1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any instance in which the proposal does not clearly meet the solicitation requirements, contains a weakness or significant weakness, or is otherwise considered unawardable. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 4 of 13

1.1.5 Competition

The Contracting Officer (CO) has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the CO will review this determination, and if in the CO's opinion adequate price competition exists, no additional data will be requested and certification under FAR 15.406-2, Certificate of Current Pricing Data, will not be required.

1.1.6 Discussions

In accordance with FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to award the contract without discussions (except clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)) but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. In the event discussions are held, the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.1.7 Mandatory Requirement

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications as required in Section K, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of this solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination that represents the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The evaluation factors are listed in descending order of importance. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined are significantly more important than price.

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program/Business Management Subfactor 2: Research and Engineering Scenarios

For each subfactor, the Proposal Approach will be rated numerically as described in Table 3-1.

Following the assignment of a numerical rating, an assessment of the Offeror’s experience in performing the same or similar task(s) will be made and rated numerically as described in Table 3-2. Based on these numerical ratings, a Color Rating for Subfactor 1 and each of the three scenarios of Subfactor 2 will be assigned as described by Table 3-3.

The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated and will be assigned a color rating for Subfactor 1 and a color rating for each of the three scenarios of Subfactor 2.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 5 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

2.1.2 Factor 2: Price

Factor 2 (Price) will not have a rating, but a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be established for source selection evaluation purposes only. An assessment will be made on reasonableness and balance as described in paragraph 4.1.

2.2 Relative Importance Factors and Subfactors

The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor. Within Factor 1 (Technical), all Subfactors are approximately equal. Among those offerors rated “Acceptable”, “Good” or “Outstanding” in approach for Factor 1 (Technical), a tradeoff will be made between Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Price). Table 2-1 summarizes evaluation factors and subfactors as well as the ratings that will be used to obtain an integrated evaluation (i.e., to determine best value). Details of how proposals are evaluated follow in Sections 3 and 4.

Table 2-1: Evaluation Matrix

2.2.1 Unawardability

A Red “Unacceptable” or a Yellow “Marginal” rating for Factor 1, Subfactor 1 or any scenario of Factor 1, Subfactor 2 will render the overall proposal unawardable. Any proposal with a Price Factor that is unreasonable or unbalanced may result in exclusion from the competitive range or render the overall proposal unawardable.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 6 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

3.0 Factor 1 - Technical

3.1 General

The offeror shall demonstrate their proposed technical approach for meeting the request for proposal requirements specified by each of the two subfactors.

3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Program/Business Management

Evaluation of Subfactor 1 will result in one Color Rating which is an assessment of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement in conjunction with risk as described by the following. The evaluated Subfactor 1 will receive one of the numerical ratings shown in Table 3-1.

These numerical ratings reflect an evaluation of understanding and meeting requirements as communicated by the described approach, and risk associated with that approach. Risk is also evaluated with respect to the offeror’s prior experience in performing the same or similar tasks and assigning a numerical rating as given by Table 3-2. The two numerical ratings are combined in Table 3-3 to obtain the Subfactor 1 Color Rating to depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements which include:

• Surge Management

• Schedule Management

• Task Order RFP Response Time

• Staffing

• Small Business Participation Plan The subfactor 1 evaluation requirements are fully described in paragraph 3.2.1. The result will be one (1) resulting color rating for Subfactor 1.

3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Research and Engineering Scenarios

Evaluation of Subfactor 2 will result in one Color Rating for each Research and Engineering Scenario which is an assessment of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement in conjunction with risk as described by the following. Each of the three scenarios evaluated for Subfactor 2 will receive one of the numerical ratings shown in Table 3-1. These numerical ratings reflect an evaluation of understanding and meeting requirements as communicated by the described approach, and risk associated with that approach in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. Risk is also evaluated with respect to the offeror’s prior experience in performing the same or similar tasks and assigning a numerical rating as given by Table 3-2. The two numerical ratings are combined in Table 3-3 to obtain the Subfactor 2 Color Ratings for each scenario to depict how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements which include the twelve (12) subtasks of the three (3) Research and Engineering Scenarios. The subfactor 2 evaluation requirements are fully described in paragraph 3.2.2. The result will be one color rating for each of the Research and Engineering Scenarios.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 7 of 13

3.1.3 Subfactor Ratings

Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for Factor 1, nor will the scenario ratings be rolled up into a single overall rating for Subfactor 2. If either Subfactor 1 or any scenario of Subfactor 2 is evaluated as Red “Unacceptable” or Yellow “Marginal” it will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, not eligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of clarifications, will be considered for award without discussions.

The definitions for weakness and significant weakness are as follows:

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (FAR 15.001, Definitions).

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (FAR 15.001, Definitions).

For any weakness identified by the offeror in their proposal, the evaluation will address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 3-1: Proposal Approach Ratings Rating Adjectival

Rating Description

5 Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

4 Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

3 Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

2 Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

1 Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 8 of 13

3.1.4 Offeror’s Prior Experience

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical experience on the basis of its breadth, its depth, and relevance to work that will be required in the prospective contract. An offeror without experience may be rated unfavorably. The Government is most interested in examples of real work with actual results of the contractor in planning, designing, developing and deploying solutions relevant to the specific requirements of paragraph 3.2 below. This should be addressed to the subtask level in the scenario proposals. Prior experience will only be credited to the prime or the prime and a major subcontractor for work where the parties have a long-established relationship.

As an example, when addressing prior experience for Subfactor 2, Scenario 1, Subtask 1 (paragraph 3.2.2.1.1) “technically relevant” includes experience in designing and implementing data acquisition systems, “very similar” includes experience in designing and implementing data acquisition systems on a vehicle, and “nearly identical” includes experience in designing and implementing a data acquisition system on an aircraft.

Table 3-2: Prior Experience Ratings Rating Description

5 Proposal describes experience with a nearly identical task in past two years, or very similar task in past year

4 Proposal describes experience with a nearly identical task in past four years, or very similar task in past two years

3 Proposal describes experience with a very similar task in past four years, or technically relevant task in past two years

2 Proposal describes experience with a technically relevant task in past five years

1 No technically relevant experience in past five years is described in the proposal

Table 3-3: Resulting Subfactor 1 and Subfactor 2 Scenario Color Rating from Combining Numerical Ratings of Table 3-1 and Table 3-2.

Pr op os al

A pp ro ac h

Blue Outstanding

Purple Good

Green Acceptable

Yellow Marginal

Red Unacceptable 1 2 3 4 5 Color Rating Prior Experience

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 9 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

3.2 Technical Subfactor Sections

The Technical Factor is divided into two subfactors. Each subfactor will be evaluated with respect to meeting requirements, approach, understanding, and risk based on the evaluation criteria in this section. The Government's evaluations and subfactor ratings may consider any and all applicable information provided within the Technical Volume of the offeror's proposal, to include all attachments of the Technical Volume.

3.2.1 Subfactor 1: Program/Business Management

Subfactor 1 confirms an offeror’s capability to establish and maintain the necessary program and business management to successfully perform the requirements identified in the basic Work Statement (Attachment 1 Work Statement) for the entire contract. This includes the offeror’s ability to manage surge efforts, maintain schedules, respond to the agency task order request for proposal (RFP) in a timely manner, and adjust to staffing requirements. Subfactor 1 is rated a 3 “Acceptable” for Proposal Approach (reference Table 3-1) when the proposal clearly describes an acceptable approach for each of the following:

3.2.1.1 Surge Management. This element confirms an offeror’s ability to successfully manage surge efforts. Specifically, discuss and document the approach to realistically meet surge requirements to perform three simultaneous aircraft teardown analyses of three different airframe types, to include:

Surge Staffing

Obtainment of or availability of additional facilities to include storage.

Subcontracting arrangements, and

Procurement or availability of necessary equipment, materials, and services.

3.2.1.2 Schedule Management. This element confirms an offeror’s ability to successfully manage schedules and timely provide required deliverables. Discuss and document the approach for meeting schedules to achieve periods of performance specified in task orders and the timely submission of deliverables for task orders to include:

A Microsoft Project Gantt chart that adequately documents necessary tasks with realistic and viable time frames for the successful simultaneous performance of each of the three research and engineering scenarios.

An explanation of your company’s procedures to successfully develop, implement, and monitor schedules to ensure the timely completion of multiple simultaneous task order requirements, not limited to the three research and engineering scenarios.

3.2.1.3 Task order RFP response time. This element confirms an offeror’s ability to timely respond to agency request for proposal. The basic Work Statement requires a 10-day response time upon receipt of an RFP. Discuss and document the approach for meeting the 10-day response time.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 10 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

3.2.1.4 Staffing. This element confirms an offeror’s ability to staff multiple and differing task order requirements identified in the basic Work Statement with required labor categories.

Discuss and document the staffing approach to include:

A detailed description of how you plan to recruit, hire, train and retain qualified employees to meet basic Work Statement task requirements.

Identify by each basic Work Statement tasks the work you intend to perform in-house and the work you intend to subcontract.

3.2.1.5 Small Business Participation – This element confirms the offeror has an acceptable small business participation commitment plan. A separate small business rating will not be applied; however, the Government will evaluate the following to determine if the offeror has an acceptable approach:

An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names the offeror’s plans to use small business in the performance of this resultant contract; and, An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by the proposed small business firms is provided; and, The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided.

3.2.2 Subfactor 2: Research and Engineering Scenarios

The criteria in this subfactor will be applied to evaluate the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s minimum requirement. Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. Subfactor 2 contains twelve (12) subtasks from three (3) scenarios. In every case, the contractor’s approach will be evaluated for conformance to the model contract terms and conditions and the detailed Work Statement requirements for each of the three scenarios (Attachment 12 Scenario Work Statements).

3.2.2.1 Scenario 1: Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) Support to a USAF Weapon System Subfactor 2, Scenario 1 is rated 3 “Acceptable” for Proposal Approach (reference Table 3-1) when the proposal clearly describes an acceptable approach for each subtask in this scenario.

Subtask 1: Flight Loads Data Collection, Analysis, and Reporting. Describe how the flight loads data collection, testing, analysis, and reporting efforts would be performed.

Subtask 2: Contractor Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) Support. Describe how, working in close concert with the T-XX ASIP and NDI Offices, the research to develop the necessary methods and procedures for structural inspections would be performed on the two structural details described in the WS.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 11 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

Subtask 3: Durability and Damage Tolerance Analyses (DADTA). Describe how a specific Damage Tolerance Analysis would be performed (reference the scenario WS), and how that analysis would inform the annual update to the DADTA documentation.

Subtask 4: Analytical Risk Management. Describe how the analysis for a given fatigue-critical location on the aircraft (reference the scenario WS) would be performed, with the intention of producing results in terms of a Single Flight Probability of Failure as a function of flight hours, and including the effect of periodic inspections.

Subtask 5: Force Structure Maintenance Plan (FSMP). Describe how an update to the FSMP would be performed for a USAF fleet IAW MIL-STD-1530D.

Subtask 6: ASIP Master Plan Update. Describe how an update to the ASIP Master Plan would be performed for a USAF fleet IAW MIL-STD-1530D.

Subtask 7: On-Site Support. Describe how ASIP technical liaison on-site support at Hill AFB, UT would be provided at a sufficient level to support all subtasks of this WS throughout the Period of Performance.

3.2.2.2 Scenario 2: Damage Tolerance Test and Teardown Analysis of A-10 Lower Wing Skin Panel at Access Door Cutout Subfactor 2, Scenario 2 is rated 3 “Acceptable” for Proposal Approach (reference Table 3-1) when the proposal clearly describes an acceptable approach for each subtask in this scenario.

Subtask 1: Damage Tolerance Test. Describe how a damage tolerance test of a simulated lower cover fuel tank access opening, to include all elements described by this subtask in the scenario WS, will be executed.

Subtask 2: Lower wing cover teardown analysis. Describe how teardown analysis of the specific subject structure is performed, is feasible, and demonstrates an ability to meet the requirements of the protocols specified in the scenario WS. Reiterating the protocol requirements does not constitute how your processes will meet those requirements and will result in an unacceptable rating for this scenario.

3.2.2.3 Scenario 3: Research Testing to Investigate Inhibition of Corrosion Fatigue Subfactor 2, Scenario 3 is rated 3 “Acceptable” for Proposal Approach (reference Table 3-1) when the proposal clearly describes an acceptable approach for each subtask in this scenario.

Subtask 1: Experimental Configuration. Describe how experimental configuration requirements of the scenario under this subtask WS are to be achieved.

Subtask 2. Test Execution. Describe how the test execution requirements of the scenario WS under this subtask are to be achieved.

Subtask 3: USAFA Cadet Projects. Describe how opportunities for involving cadets in the research associated with this scenario WS would be proposed.

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 12 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

4.0 Factor 2 – Price Factor

4.1 Total Evaluated Price

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated based on a summation of total prices proposed for the three scenarios: 0001, 0002, and 0003 (inclusive of cost reimbursables) and proposed storage. Pricing is to be provided for the sum amount of the scenarios and proposed storage will constitute the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be evaluated against the criteria of reasonableness.

4.1.1 Reasonableness:

The offeror’s total price for all three scenarios and storage will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Price competition in response to the solicitation will establish reasonableness, but the Government may also determine reasonableness through cost and price analysis techniques, pursuant to FAR 15.404, if necessary. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

4.1.2 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze Price proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The Government will also analyze fully burdened labor rates to determine whether they are unbalanced. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The term “items” in reference to unbalanced pricing, means any part of the offeror’s proposal that is priced. Reference FAR 15.404-1(g), “Unbalanced Pricing”

4.1.3 Certified Cost and Pricing Data

Certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.403 is not required in response to this RFP. However, the successful awardee may be required to provide certified cost or pricing data in response to future task order RFP.

5.0 Additional Information

5.1 Reviews and Visits

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) does not intend to conduct site-visits during the evaluation phase at this time.

5.2 Pre-Award Survey

The Government does not intend to conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection.

5.3 Solicitations, Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result

FA700002R0002

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD 13 of 13

UNCLASSIFIED

in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors are cautioned not to submit an exception to the solicitation, proposal conditions, or ground rules.