Attachment 0029 Section M 701D Engine W58RGZ21R0070.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION (SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104)

Attachment 0029 BASIS FOR AWARD/EVALUATION (Section M)

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

The Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) technique for source selection will be used for this effort. Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria set forth in this Section. Pursuant to FAR 15.306(a)(3), Offerors are advised that the Government may evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a).

Therefore, the initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from price and past performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Offerors are reminded that unsupported claims will not be sufficient. Proposals must document clear and convincing evidence that fully substantiates proposal claims relating to past performance. Inconsistencies in the Offeror’s proposal may indicate a lack of understanding and increased proposal risk and could result in a reduced rating in the applicable factor. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Price.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal offer, that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government based upon an integrated assessment, with appropriate consideration given to two (2) evaluation factors: Past Performance and Price. The Past Performance factor and Price factor are equally important and amount to 100% of the evaluation criteria. After the SSEB evaluates each individual proposal, the Source Selection Authority will determine the “Best Value – Trade-off” proposal submitted for the identified scope of work. Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Army the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. 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 team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and requirements detailed in the SOW, in addition to those identified as factors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By submitting a proposal, the offeror represents that the firm will perform all the requirements specified in the solicitation. 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. EVALUATION FACTORS

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:

Factor 1: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed and assessed. A confidence assessment will be performed on each offeror’s past performance based on recency, relevancy and quality.

Factor 2: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed Price contract. Total price will be based on the evaluation of the criteria that is in Section M: Basis For

Award/Evaluation.

2.1 Past Performance Factor

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

Statement of Work (SOW).

2.1.1 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence 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 Statement of Work (SOW).

a. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s records of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including price, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors and in compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small

Business Subcontracting Plan. 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 will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past five years) in their proposal. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal, questionnaires and data obtained from other sources available to the Government. Since the

Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offerors, it is incumbent upon the offerors to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data obtained from other sources, the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the offerors. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past five years prior to the issue date of the Request For Proposal (RFP) (no more than three past performance submissions from the Offerors), but may include performance data generated during the past five years without regard to the contract award date.

b. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

The Past Performance evaluation establishes a performance confidence assessment rating by combining the recency, relevancy, and quality aspects of the prime offeror’s past performance. 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 a “neutral confidence” rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

c. 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.

(i) Recency is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the past performance submission occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. For this requirement, recency is limited to contract actions performed during the past five years from the date of this RFP by the offeror and the offeror as a major subcontractor.

(ii) Relevancy: Relevancy is a measure of the extent of similarity between the effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type or other comparable attributes of past performance submissions and the RFP requirements; and, a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance. In establishing relevancy, consideration shall be given to the aspects of an offeror’s and major subcontractor’s contract history that provide the most confidence of the offeror’s ability to satisfy the current procurement with a higher relevance indicating a stronger predictor of future success. A higher relevance will have more influence on the Past Performance rating conclusion than a contract with a lesser relevance.

The following criteria 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.

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.

(iii) Quality Assessment: The Past Performance evaluation assesses how well the contractor performed on contracts. When assessing Past Performance, the Government will focus its inquiry on the past performance of the offeror and its proposed major subcontractors as it related to all RFP requirements.

These requirements include all aspects of schedule and performance, including the offeror’s and major subcontractor’s record of: quality/ relevance of the offeror’s performance for projects/references provided, that is answered in the Performance Confidence Assessment. The past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offerors past performance and small business assessment. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment. Pursuant to FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305 (a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR

52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Past Performance Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available. 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. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

(iv) Performance Confidence Assessment: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in below – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

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.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

2.2 Price Factor: Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Price proposals.

The Government reserves the right to make an award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same. The Government will fully evaluate all priced ordering periods. 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)). For award purposes, the Total Evaluated

Price will be calculated by summing the following: (1) the proposed FFP for CLIN 0001AA PVA and (2) the proposed FFP CLIN prices for CLINs 0002 through 0005 that result from applying the proposed unit prices by ordering period to the quantities detailed below.

701D ENGINES (US & FMS QUANTITIES EACH)

US

Ordering Period 1

Period 2

Period 3

Period 4

Period 5

Total

0001AA PVA

0002AA- Overhaul 50 105 105 105 105 470

FMS

0003AA- Overhaul 0 25 25 25 25 100

SCRAP/BER & CONTAINERS (QUANTITIES EACH)

0004AA- Scrap

0005AA-Containers 10 10 10 10 10 50

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(a) Compliance with Section L- Volume II Price: The Price proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L- Proposal preparation 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 items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and 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. 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 reasonable. The reasonableness evaluation will include a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i). Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.