Attachment 0005 3PL Section M.pdf

B. BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

1. The award will be made using a two-step process utilizing entry gate and best-value tradeoff criteria as set forth below.

(a) Step One. The basic proposal will be evaluated utilizing the following entry gate criteria on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis: AS9100 Certification – The certification/documentation shall be current or in the process of renewal/extension at the time of proposal submission. An unacceptable rating on the entry gate criteria will result in the entire proposal being unacceptable and, as a result, will no longer be considered for award:

(b) Step Two. The Offerors whose proposals meet the entry gate criteria at Step One will then have their proposals, submitted in response to the instructions in Section L of the solicitation, evaluated utilizing a best value tradeoff criteria to evaluate the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the three evaluation factors:

Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Price. The Technical/Management and Past Performance Factors are equal in value. When combined, the Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor are significantly more important than Price. Tradeoffs will be made between Technical/Management, Past Performance, and Price. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical/Management factors. A rating of no less than “Satisfactory Confidence” or “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” must be achieved for the Past Performance factor.

2. The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

C. Factors to be evaluated: The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical/Management and Past Performance evaluation results of all the Offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

1. Factor 1: Technical/Management: The Technical/Management factor which includes Quality, Supply Chain Processes, Organizational Structure and EDI.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address all components of the Technical/Management factor as it applies to the SOW. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” Paragraph C of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings for the Technical/Management factor.

2. Factor 2: Past Performance: Each Offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

3. Factor 3: Price: The resulting award will be multiple Firm Fixed Price contracts.

Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation. The proposed prices in the Price factor will be evaluated as follows: FFP elements will be evaluated for reasonableness, to include a comparison of historical prices. Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest cost offered. Note: All non-priced factors combined are greater than Price.

D. Evaluation Approach

All proposals containing the minimal necessary certifications of AS9100, as identified in the entry gate criteria shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors is as follows:

(a) Adequacy of Response: The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have been adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied by the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the

RFP.

(b) Feasibility of Approach: The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. Factor 1: Technical/Management: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Technical/Management proposal to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach which meets all the requirements of the SOW and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of these requirements, specifically including the Offeror’s organizational structure, quality processes, supply chain processes, and EDI system. As part of this evaluation, the Government will evaluate Offerors’ responses to the following:

(1) How the Offeror will ensure that the parts delivered are fully specification compliant.

(2) How the Offeror will ensure the parts are manufactured by an approved source.(to include identifying and qualifying new sources if required)

(3) How the Offeror will address any nonconforming parts.

(4) How the Offeror will ensure that packaging, packing, and marking meet contract requirements

(5) How the Offeror will address and resolve quality escapements.

(6) The Offeror’s approach and capability to establish, maintain, and manage business relationships with multiple vendors to supply Government-approved materials.

(7) The Offeror’s capability to deliver items on-time; their approach to notifying the Government of any potential delinquent deliveries, supplier/supply constraints, or obsolescence issues that could impact contract deliveries and what courses of action will be taken to remedy any delinquency.

(8) The Offeror’s communication plan with suppliers/USG concerning potential requirements, prioritization of deliveries, changes in configuration, etc.

(9) The Offeror’s plan to address and resolve warranty claims.

(10) The Offeror’s architecture and location of the Offeror’s EDI system.

(11) The Offeror’s approach to secure EDI data while allowing USG access.

(12) The Offeror’s approach to populate EDI data, what information each source will input, and the frequency of inputs.

(13) How the Offeror will ensure the accuracy, currency, and completeness of the information.

(14) How information will be made available and what query/report capability will be provided.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the combined Technical/ Risk Rating, (see table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The Offeror's proposal shall be evaluated and assigned a single adjectival rating using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. In order to be considered for award, the proposal must be rated "Acceptable" or above for this factor.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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.

3. Factor 2: Past Performance: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts in the SOW.

(a) Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan, utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D of this document.

(b) The Government will focus inquires on the Offeror’s (and key subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. For the purpose of this requirement, a key subcontractor is considered any subcontractor that is used to substitute or supplement the prime’s capabilities and experience. A key supplier is considered any supplier that sources twenty percent or more of Contractor’s awarded catalog line items. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process.

Therefore, Offerors are reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past five years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror will be assigned an

“Unknown Confidence (Neutral) rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the Offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State, or Local Government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the

NAICS 336413.

(c) Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime Offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past five years from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all the information available.

(d) The past performance factor considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation:

recency, relevancy, and quality.

(i) Recency: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(ii) Relevancy: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rate; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/ support, complexity, dollar value, contract type and degree of subcontract/ teaming. It should be noted with regard to this requirement, the Government defines relevant as active or completed efforts to source, acquire, and manage the procurement and delivery of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Critical Parts, Department of Defense Critical Safety Items and aviation support materials using multiple vendors.

Relevancy will be determined by the Government for each of the four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the Offeror's opinion of relevancy.

The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if applicable), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such information was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror's past performance and technical volumes indicates that the company, affiliate, or division will provide direct and meaningful involvement in the proposed effort such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Note: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only include technical features and characteristics of each effort to include the number of different items, number of vendors, and parts obsolescence but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including, but not limited to, length of effort and total program value. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets similar technical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical magnitude of effort and complexities, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

Note: A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

(iii) Quality Assessment: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(e) Performance Confidence Assessment: Utilize the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included. In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(i) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the Offeror's Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government's Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as, but not limited to, federal and state contracting officers and contract specialists, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(ii) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, JV member, and or/ key subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented.

The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues, including but not limited to, the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(iii) Key Personnel: For Offerors/JV members who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel's performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the acquisition and this performance occurred during the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the Offeror/JV member. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

(iv) Key Subcontractors: For Offerors/JV members who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but intend to utilize key subcontractors with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key subcontractor's performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract(s) involves the key subcontractor performing the same role currently being proposed on the acquisition and this performance occurred during the past 5 (five) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

(v) Evaluation of Long Term Contract Performance: In reviewing past performance relative to long term contracts, the government will assess the submission to determine the extent to which the following conditions have been satisfied:

• Performance is relatively continuous

• The nature of performance is related

• All of the submitted performance satisfies the past performance recency and relevance criteria set forth in Section M

If the Government evaluation team determines that the conditions above are not satisfied to any extent for an individual long term contract submission, they may request clarification of the information provided. If the determination remains unchanged, the evaluation team may exercise subjective judgment in deciding what portion of the information best satisfies the conditions above and proceed with evaluation. The remaining portion, which would effectively constitute an additional contract submission, will not be considered unless an Offeror’s initial past performance submission contained less than four (4) contracts.

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence 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 assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3. Factor 3: Price: Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ Price proposals. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical/Management and Past Performance evaluation results of all the Offerors’ proposals are substantially the same. The Government will fully evaluate all priced CLINs. For award purposes, the total proposed price will be based upon the total unit price proposed for the mandatory 98 individual items identified as applicable to the basic period. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price (FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i)). The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(a) Compliance with Section L Price: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in Section L Price instructions.

(b) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line item is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award.

See FAR 15.404-1(g) for information on unbalanced pricing.

(c) Reasonableness: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable. In accordance with FAR 31.201-3, a price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

(d) Total Evaluated Price: The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed fixed-price required Manufacturer’s Part Number (MPN) as identified in Attachment 0003 of the RFP. A TEP will be calculated as outlined below. The Government will release 156 Manufacturer’s Part Number (MPN) items for Offerors to price. Each Offeror must submit a price for a minimum of 62% of the MPNs (98 of 159 items). Of the 159 MPNs, the Government has identified 98 MPNs that all

Offerors are required to submit pricing on. These required 98 MPNs shall be included in the 62% minimum discussed above. Offerors submitting a price for less than 62% (98) of the items, or do not include pricing of the mandatory 98 items, may result in their proposal to be determined to be noncompliant with the terms of the RFP and therefore not eligible for award. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of item prices shall not obligate the Government to award each item. Proposals shall be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total unit price proposed for the mandatory 98 individual items (unit price multiplied by the TEP evaluation quantity of one) identified as applicable to the basic period. The TEP shall include all costs associated with providing the final MPN to the Government. The total sell price of each MPN will include the Offeror's cost of materials, management costs, and any costs associated with Item Unique Identification (IUID) as appropriate. No additional cost for items will be paid by the Government during contract performance. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. All unit prices should be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

See the following example. For evaluation purposes only, the TEP is calculated by adding the total amount of each unit prices at one (1) each. Only the 98 required MPNs will be evaluated to calculate the TEP.

Example:

A B C D E

Mandatory MPN Unit Price Material

Condition Category

Government

Projected Quantity

Total

X123 $1,500 New 1 $1,500

X123 $1,175 New Surplus 1 $1,175

X124 $250 New 1 $250

X123-5 $48,600 New Surplus 1 $48,600

X123-5 $49,900 Overhauled 1 $49,900

A4128 $3,575 Overhauled 1 $3,575

204-62-ABC-9 $15,000 New 1 $15,000

204-62-ABC-9 $9,575 Overhauled 1 $9,575

TEP $129,575

Each awardee will be awarded a catalog of MPNs based on the lowest price of each MPN in the specified Material Condition Category. MPNs will be re-competed on an annual basis amongst the awarded Offerors. This competition will be a best value tradeoff analysis. Part additions to the IDIQ during the performance year shall be awarded using the same methodology as the annual re-competition. After the re-compete is completed, the Offerors will be issued a new catalog of parts to cover the new ordering period which will also be incorporated via modification into the contract.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each Offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all Offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 14 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSION SCHEDULING. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will schedule the discussion sessions, and each Offeror will be notified of the time and place at least 5 business days prior to their discussion session.

Appropriate security clearances should be provided by the Offerors in sufficient time to process the requests. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion sessions will take place remotely through email or telephonically if email will not suffice.