Attachment 3 - Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

RFP FA445226R0002- Attachment 3

Section M - Evaluation Factors for

Award

1.0. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1.1. This is a Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation Overhaul (RFO) Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, competitive, Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) RFO Part 15 and Defense Federal

Acquisition Supplement (R-DFARS) Part 215.3, and Department of Defense (DOD) Source

Selection Procedures dated August 2022. The offeror’s proposal shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Attachment 2, Instructions to Offerors. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration.

1.1.2. A contract may be awarded to the offeror 1) who is deemed responsible IAW the

RFO 9.104-1, as supplemented, 2) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Attachment 2 – Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or

Respondents of this solicitation), 3) whose proposal passes the Gates requirements listed in

Paragraph 1.1.4. below, 4) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal.

1.1.3. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one C-40 Flight Simulator Training Follow-on Training

Requirements contract from solicitation FA44526R0002. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3. Competitive Negotiations and Final Proposal Revision

The Government intends to award without competitive negotiations but reserves the right to conduct competitive negotiations (CNs) if necessary. The offeror’s responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPR), if required, will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time competitive negotiations 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.

1.3.1. If the Government determines that, after the initial evaluation of proposals, competitive negotiations are necessary, the Government will make a competitive range determination to establish a list of offerors with which it will conduct competitive negotiations.

1.3.2. Competitive negotiations, if necessary, will be initiated by the Contracting

Officer (CO) upon issuance of ENs to the offerors within the competitive range.

Evaluation Notices may be briefed to offerors prior to written release to ensure complete understanding by the respective offeror of any discrepancies.

1.3.3. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any aspect of a proposal. The judgement 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, or if the amount and complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

First, the Government will rank the proposals from lowest price to highest price based on the offeror’s calculated Initial Total Evaluated Price (I-TEP). The I-TEP will be calculated as described in paragraph 2.1.4. Factor 3 – Price.

Next, the Government will evaluate the lowest-priced proposal to determine if it passes the Gates requirements listed in Paragraph 2.1.1, below. If the lowest-priced proposal passes all Gates, the Government will then evaluate each subfactor under

Factor 1 (Technical Approach) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

If the lowest-priced proposal passes all Gates and is evaluated as Acceptable for both

Technical and Past Performance, the Government will then continue the evaluation process sequentially with the next lowest-priced offeror until two (2) technically acceptable proposals are identified for adequate price competition. Once two technically acceptable proposals are identified, the technical evaluation concludes. No higher-priced proposals will be evaluated unless one of the two lowest-priced technically acceptable proposals lacks complete, reasonable, or balanced pricing.

The Government will evaluate the two lowest technically acceptable proposals for complete, reasonable, and balanced pricing, as defined below. If the lowest-priced proposal is technically acceptable with a price proposal that is complete, reasonable, and balanced, then this offeror’s proposal represents the best value to the Government and award will be made to that offeror.

The Government reserves the right to utilize alternative price analysis techniques IAW

RFO 15.404 to determine that the proposed price is fair and reasonable.

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The technical evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors to evaluate the C-40 Flight Simulator Training Follow-on Requirements Contract:

1. Gates

2. Factor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 1: Course Syllabus

Subfactor 2: Quality Control Plan

3. Factor 2: Past Performance

4. Factor 3: Price

2.1.1. Gates (Pass/Fail). To be eligible for award and for further evaluation of subsequent Volumes, the

Government will ensure offerors have provided the following:

(1.) A copy of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Training Specifications for a training program approved under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Part 142, for B737-700/800 Series

Aircraft (as well as subsequent variants to include MAX8) including the USAF C-40B and C-40C.

IAW Performance Work Statement (PWS) para. 1.2)

(2.) Evidence of current access to a fully operational FAA certified Level D simulator for the USAF

C-40B/C as well as subsequent variants to include MAX8. (IAW PWS 1.2, 1.3.7, 1.3.10 and 4.12.1)

(3.) Proof that the C-40B/C (to include B737-700/800/MAX8) simulators are capable of CAT IIIa

Instrument Landing System (ILS) approaches, at minimum (IAW PWS 1.2, 1.3.1, 1.3.6, 1.3.7, 1.3.10

4.12.1)

(4.) A copy of all FAA certifications IAW 14 CFR 142 for all B737-700/800/MAX8 pilot instructors.

(5) A confirmation statement that all training can be implemented no later than 31 October 2026.

(6) Proof of Boeing OPC load software (IAW PWS paragraphs 1.2. and 4.11.2) has been obtained and can be provided.

If an offeror fails to provide proof of their ability to meet the Gates requirements listed above, their proposal will be rendered ineligible for award and may not be further evaluated. If the Government enters into competitive negotiations with the offerors, the Government will notify any offeror who failed to provide evidence of their ability to meet the Gates requirements they are eliminated from the competitive range before entering into competitive negotiations (See RFO 15.306(c)).

2.1.2 Factor 1: Technical

Technical proposals shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation or does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Ratings. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Table 1. Technical Approach - Acceptable/Unacceptable

Rating Method (Reference: DoD Source Selection Procedures, 20

August 2022) Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

2.1.2.1. Factor 1 – Technical

Under this Factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Technical proposal based on the following measures of merit:

2.1.2.1.1. Subfactor 1: The Offeror’s course syllabus for each training program will be rated acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates that it has an acceptable understanding of the requirements necessary for each training program. Understanding is demonstrated when the

Offeror submits the following:

1. A course syllabus for each training program (Initial, Refresher, Recurring, Senior

Officer, Requalification, and 737MAX Differences) indicating at a minimum the course description and a daily outline of subjects or activities (IAW PWS para. 1.3.1, 1.3.2, 1.3.3, 1.3.4,1.3.5, 1.3.6, and 1.3.10).

2.1.2.1.2. The Offeror’s quality control plan will be rated acceptable when the Offeror demonstrates that it can submit an acceptable Quality Control Plan (QCP) that addresses the requirements of the PWS. An acceptable QCP consists of the following:

1. Training meets all PWS requirements and includes proposed actions for correction of any simulator malfunctions, deficiencies, or student complaints.

2. The plan provides the process to review and validate student complaints with the

COR and identifies how corrective actions will be taken to ensure timely resolution of validated complaints or suggested improvements submitted via course critique.

2.1.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting

PWS paragraphs 1.3.1., 1.3.4, 1.3.5., and 1.3.6. The Government shall consider the entire C-40B/C

Requirements contract size and magnitude when considering each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance, as well as the quality of that performance. Therefore, the offeror shall consider the entire C-40B/C Requirements contract size and magnitude when submitting past performance products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Ratings. The Past Performance factor will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table C-2 – Past performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating

Method, excerpted below.

Table C-2 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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 RFO 15.202(c)(1)). 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 “acceptable.”

2.1.3.1. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and similar services that meet the contract’s requirements. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the

Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System

(CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA). There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (how well the offeror performed on the prior contracts).

2.1.3.1.1. Recency Assessment. An evaluation will be made to determine if a submission is recent. To be recent, performance must have been performed within the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Interim CPARS are acceptable if a final report has not yet been generated for an ongoing contract, provided the contract has been active for at least six (6) months.

2.1.3.1.2. Relevancy Assessment. An evaluation will be made to determine if a submission is relevant.

To be relevant, the submitted references (taken as a whole) must explicitly demonstrate successful performance in all four (4) mandatory areas:

1. PWS 1.3.1 (Initial Qualification)

2. PWS 1.3.4 (Refresher/Recurring Evaluation - 4 days)

3. PWS 1.3.5 (Senior Officer)

4. PWS 1.3.6 (Requalification)

2.1.3.1.3. Quality of Services Assessment. An evaluation will be made to determine if a submission is of acceptable quality. To meet the standard for an Acceptable quality rating, the evaluated past performance must demonstrate the following:

1. A documented record of performance with ratings of "Satisfactory" or higher (or equivalent) across all evaluated assessment areas (e.g., Quality, Schedule, Management, Business Relations).

2. If an offeror has a history of marginal or unsatisfactory performance in any area, the offeror must have demonstrated documented, effective corrective actions to prevent recurrence, resulting in improved subsequent performance ratings. An unmitigated record of marginal or unsatisfactory performance will result in an Unacceptable rating.

2.1.4 Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated (but not rated). The offeror’s I-TEP will be calculated as the sum of the

Pilot training proposed rate for each unit of measure multiplied by the estimated quantities per year, provided below. If awarded without CNs, the I-TEP will become the F-TEP. Future task orders (TOs) issued under this Requirements Contract will be awarded utilizing the rates determined complete, reasonable, and balanced, as defined below, at the Requirements Contract level.

2.1.4.1. Completeness. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in

Instructions to Offerors Section, paragraphs 2.1-2.5. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an Offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced, or incomplete. Submission of an incomplete Pricing Worksheet as set forth in the Instructions to Offerors Section will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of this solicitation.

2.1.4.2. 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 price analysis techniques as described in RFO 15.404. If price analysis techniques at RFO 15.404 are insufficient to establish a fair and reasonable price determination, other proposal analysis techniques may be used.

2.1.4.3. Unbalanced Pricing. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items. A proposal that is determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting

Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.