Attachment 10 RDIF Section M 20250514 (Draft).pdf

SECTION M

Evaluation Criteria

1. GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the Past Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) with Technical Acceptability source selection procedures conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022, and Air Force Mandatory Procedure 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at Acquisition.gov, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Past Performance and Price among technically acceptable proposals. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price. However, Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

1.2 A Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible, in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, 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 and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to make award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force 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, technically acceptable offer outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all evaluation criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the process.

1.3 Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors, as defined in this Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort https://www.acquisition.gov/ by the Offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation. If a proposal is found to be grossly deficient, the Government retains the right to exclude the proposal from further consideration at any time during the evaluation process without allowing the Offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal.

1.4 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite-Delivery/Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Rapid Development Integration Facility (RDIF) support. The Government reserves the right to award no contract as a result of this solicitation.

1.5 “Correction Potential” of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. 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.

1.6 Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, an Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.7 Solicitation 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 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. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) COMPLIANCE

Initially, the Government contracts team will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for compliance with instructions in Section L. Any proposals that fail to comply with RFP Section L, Instructions to Offerors, may be determined unawardable.

3. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

3.1 The technical factor is comprised of two subfactors: Live Task Order and Management of IDIQ. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. In order for the proposal to be technically acceptable, both technical subfactors must be rated as Acceptable.

Failure to meet a technical requirement will result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. An Unacceptable rating in the technical factor renders the Offeror’s proposal unawardable. Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings are defined in the table below:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

3.2 Technical Subfactor 1 – Live Task Order

Description: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to performing the live task order to ensure the Offeror understands the work to be performed.

Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror’s proposal includes all of the following:

3.2.1 A sound technical approach for accomplishing the live order that uses the

RDIF facility and equipment (see RFP Section J, attachment 6, Equipment List) located at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB).

3.2.2 Labor Categories and Labor Hours that are commensurate with the technical approach described by the Offeror in response to paragraph 6.1.1 of RFP Section L.

3.2.3 Personnel qualified to perform the labor hours described by the Offeror in response to RFP Section L, paragraph 6.1.2, with sufficient experience working in aircraft component development, integration, prototyping, and production for military aircraft.

3.2.4 A comprehensive Bill of Materials necessary to complete performance of the live task order, accompanied by the name and Data Universal Numbering System (DUNS) number for each supplier of material, in response to RFP Section L, paragraph 6.1.4.

3.2.5 A comprehensive list of tasks that must be subcontracted to complete the live task order, accompanied by the name and DUNS number of all identified subcontractors, in response to RFP Section L, paragraph 6.1.5.

3.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Management of IDIQ

Description: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to managing the IDIQ contract to ensure the Offeror understands how to obtain the resources necessary to successfully perform tasks requiring any of the capabilities listed in the Performance Work Statement (PWS, RFP Section J, attachment 1). This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes all of the following:

3.3.1 A sound approach for managing the IDIQ contract and performing the PWS tasks that includes all of the information outlined in Section L 6.3.1-6.3.4.

3.3.2 An effective process for obtaining fair and reasonable prices for subcontracted work and materials.

3.3.3 A sound draft quality control plan that it will follow throughout the contract.

3.3.4 A comprehensive plan for maintaining an available, qualified, and experienced workforce performing aircraft component development, integration, prototyping, and production within 50 miles of Wright- Patterson AFB, OH.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying services 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 and relevant past performance. The Government may consider the relevancy of past performance in the aggregate and/or on an individual basis when determining performance confidence. The Government will review the contracts submitted into the RDIF Past Performance Information Tool (SAM attachment (3)) in accordance with the limitations prescribed in RFP Section L, paragraph 7.1.

4.2 The Government will assess recency and relevancy of each contract submitted in the RDIF Past Performance Information Tool (SAM attachment (3)).

4.2.1 An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or performed during the past five (5) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation and demonstrate completion of at least six (6) months of performance. Past performance information that fails these conditions will not be evaluated.

4.2.2 The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the capabilities required in section 5 of the PWS and the extent to which performance involved the development, integration, prototyping, and production of military aircraft components in a rapid environment requiring adaptive collaboration. Based upon this evaluation, the Government will assign one of the ratings below to the overall relevancy of past performance:

Rating Definition

VERY

RELEVANT (VR)

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

RELEVANT (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT

RELEVANT (SR)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.3 The Government will then evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated record of performance quality in supplying products and services that meet user needs, including schedule. This evaluation will be based on responses to the Past Performance Questionnaire (SAM attachment (4)) that will be provided by the points of contact for each contract submitted using the Past Performance Information Tool (SAM attachment (3)). All Past Performance Questionnaire responses are to be provided directly from the points of contact to the Government Contracting Officer by regular mail or email. Performance information may also be gathered from sources outside the submissions provided by the Offeror.

Sources of performance information may include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and System for Award Management

(SAM).

This 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. 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 past performance:

Performance Assessment

Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN

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

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED

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

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

4.4 Performance Confidence Assessment

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

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.

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 factor 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.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

A strong record of relevant past performance shall be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. More recent, more relevant past performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment.

5. PRICE

5.1 The Government will review the Offeror’s price proposal for completeness, reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

5.1.1 Completeness

The Government will review the Price Proposal for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. If not complete and in compliance, the proposal may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award. The Offeror must also provide a markup rate for materials for Government fiscal years (FY) 2026 – 2036. For the Live Task Order pricing to be considered complete, the Offeror must provide labor hours necessary to complete the live task order. These hours must match the hours identified in the Offeror’s technical proposal in response to RFP section L, paragraph

6.1.2. The Offeror must also provide pricing for all materials it listed in response to RFP Section L, paragraph 6.1.4 and for all tasks it intends to subcontract as listed in response to RFP Section L, paragraph 6.1.5. Failure to provide complete pricing may result in a proposal being deemed unawardable.

5.1.2 Reasonableness

The Government will review the prices submitted in the RDIF Price Matrix for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition. Additional cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404 can also be used. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will review the RDIF Price Matrix for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Failure to provide balanced pricing may result in a proposal being rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.1.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP is the sum of the total labor price, total material price, and the total live task order price. The details of the sections are described in the following paragraphs. The total labor and material prices are based the on forecasted amounts listed in the RDIF Price Matrix (RFP Section J, Attachment 3.

Total labor price: For each fiscal year of the contract’s period of performance, including the Option to Extend Services period, the Government has provided the Offeror with an estimated number of hours per labor category. The RDIF Price Matrix (RFP Section J, Attachment 3) requires the Offeror to provide fully burdened labor rates for each labor category for each fiscal year. The RDIF Price Matrix automatically multiplies the Government-estimated labor hours for each fiscal year by the fully burdened labor rates established by the Offeror. The results for each fiscal year are summed by labor category and are identified in the TEP Contribution column.

Total material price: For each Government FY of the contract’s period of performance including the period covered by FAR clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services—the Government has provided the Offeror with an estimate of material purchases. The RDIF Price Matrix calculates the Offeror’s annual material TEP contribution by adding the Government-estimated Material costs (composed of material and subcontract pricing, collectively referred to as “Material” in the Live Task Order Pricing section of the RDIF Price Matrix) for each FY to the Offeror’s Material Markup for that FY. Material Markup is calculated by multiplying the estimated price of materials by the Offeror’s Material Markup rate. The anticipated material costs for each FY (total Material Markup for the FY added to the Government-estimated material costs for the FY) are included in the TEP Contribution column of the RDIF Price Matrix.

Live task order price: The live task order total labor price will be established by multiplying the number of hours the Offeror requires to complete the live task by the respective hourly labor rate (FY26). The labor prices for all live task order labor categories will then be added together to arrive at the Total Labor price for the live task order. The Material price quoted by the contractor will be calculated by applying the FY26 Material Markup rate to the Offeror’s Material proposed for the live task order to arrive at the Material Markup. The total Material (Material added to Material Markup) will be added to the Total Labor price for the live task order to arrive at the Total Live Task price.

The Total Evaluated Price cell sums all values in the TEP Contribution columns and the Total Live Task cell to generate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The RDIF Price Matrix includes all formulas and will calculate the Offeror’s TEP.