Attachment 4. National Aircraft Services - Evaluation Factors.pdf

(Attachment #4 – Evaluation Factors for Award) National Aircraft Services

Request for Proposal Solicitation NO.: 15M50026QA4400001

1. FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION - COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS AND

COMMERCIAL SERVICES (Nov 2021)(ADDENDUM).

(a) The contract will be awarded to the company whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and will be most advantageous to the government, based on the evaluation of 3 separate factors:

Technical Capability/Site Visit, Past Performance, Cost/Price and Quality Control Plan/Various.

Technical andPast Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost or Price.

(b) The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. FAR 52.217-8 will be calculated by using 50% of Option Year 4. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer(s), mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror(s) within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

End of Provision

2. GENERAL

An award may be made to the Offeror whose proposal pursuant to the Request for Proposals (RFP) is determined to be in the best interests of the Government. Proposals must be prepared and submitted in accordance with Attachment #3 Instructions to Offerors.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors, except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a). If the Government requires clarifications or revisions to an Organizational Conflict Of Interest Disclosure, including any mitigation plan, these will be considered to be clarifications rather than discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306(a). The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines discussions to be necessary. Any exceptions or deviations by the Offeror to the terms and conditions stated in this solicitation for inclusion in the resulting contract may make the offer unacceptable for award without discussions. If an Offeror proposes exceptions to the terms and conditions of the contract, the Government may make an award without discussions to another Offeror that did not take exception to the terms and conditions of the contract

3. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to award a Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Award to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based on the following criteria:

Phase I - Factor 1 – Technical Capability/Written Proposal Phase II - Factor 1 – Site Visits

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

National Aircraft Services

Phase II- Factor 2 – Past Performance Phase II - Factor 3 – Cost/Price Phase II – Factor 4 – Quality Control Plan/Various

A description of what is required and will be evaluated for each factor is provided below.

Confidence ratings provided below will be utilized when evaluating Factors 1, and 2 and will be used to support the best value decision.

4. EVALUATION PROCESS

The evaluation process will be performed using confidence ratings in evaluating Factors 1, and 2;

each Factor will have its own confidence assessment. The Government will consider the Offeror’s approaches, and the risks associated with the approaches proposed by the Offeror to arrive at a confidence assessment of the Offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the work and meeting the USMS objectives. Table 1 below shows the ratings the Government will assign in its evaluation of these factors.

Table 1 – Confidence Ratings

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low

Confidence

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Factor 3 Cost/Price will be evaluated as fair and reasonable, and on the basis of award being made at a fair market price.

Factor 4 Quality Control Plan/Various will be evaluated for compliance only.

5. PHASE I - FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL CAPABILITY/WRITTEN PROPOSAL

The Offeror’s technical approach will be evaluated based upon its understanding of the objectives of the PWS and understanding of the technical requirements of the PWS. This refers to the manner in which the offeror proposes to plan, manage, control, and provide the services and deliverables. The extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a solid understanding of addressing anticipated problems, issues, constraints, and the approach and methodologies proposed to ensure successful accomplishment of all tasks in the PWS will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach based on their demonstrated understanding of the objectives of the PWS and planned execution of the project and will be assigned a confidence rating.

Factor 1 is comprised of 6 Subfactors, which are all of equal importance:

1. Facility/Operations/Staffing

National Aircraft Services

2. Contract Transition/Relocation

3. Initial Intake/Storage/Management

4. Physical Security Plan

5. Disposal

Subfactors will be evaluated based upon:

a) The manner in which the offeror proposes to plan, manage, control, and provide the required services and deliverables.

b) The extent to which the Offeror understands the problems, issues, constraints, and organizations involved.

c) The methodologies proposed to ensure successful accomplishment of the work.

d) The certifications proposed to accomplish the work and to successfully support the technical requirement.

All listed Subfactors are of equal importance. Specifically, the evaluation will address the following:

Subfactor 1, Facility/Operations/Staffing The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the Technical Evaluation Board (TEB)’s degree of confidence that the proposed staff (to include administrative, mechanical, security, pilots, management, and all other personnel) and procedures can successfully achieve the requirements in the PWS and demonstrates ability to provide all services.

Offeror’s professional certifications of all proposed personnel and/or procedures for obtaining the services of appropriately certified professionals will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposal can successfully achieve the requirements of the PWS; including providing adequate operational planning expertise (both domestic and international), industry knowledge, aircraft assessment, efficient administration, and accurate financial management.

Subfactor 2, Contract Transition/Relocation If the awardee is not the incumbent, the Offeror’s proposed Contract Transition plans will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposals can successfully achieve the requirements in the PWS and demonstrate understanding of the unique challenges in relocating multiple aircraft concurrently while minimizing cost and preserving value, condition, security, and records integrity.

Additionally, Offeror’s sample relocation plan and proposed initial intake process will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposal can successfully achieve the requirements in the PWS and demonstrates an understanding of aircraft initial evaluation, relocation, and applicable regulations.

Subfactor 3, Initial Intake/Storage/Management Offerors will be evaluated on their described ability to support the initial intake and to properly track and document assets in custody.

If proposing a facility(s), including sublets, Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposed facility(s) provides for adequate storage for aircraft, aircraft components, or any related ancillary assets. Offeror’s description of the facility(s) and security plan for all indoor and outdoor storage facilities will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposal can successfully achieve the requirements in the PWS.

National Aircraft Services

If not proposing a facility, Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the TEB's degree of confidence that the proposed procedures for obtaining storage on a case-by-case basis can successfully achieve the requirements of the PWS for security and preservation of the aircraft, aircraft components, or any related assets for the full duration of asset custody.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposed personnel and systems can successfully achieve all the requirements in the PWS for the preservation, security, maintenance, and associated administrative processes relating to the ongoing custody of aircraft.

The Offeror’s detailed description of the proposed web-based asset management system will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposed system meets all requirements of the PWS; to include real time reporting of inventory, services (both pending and completed), accounting (on a per asset basis as well as in aggregate), and all documentation relating to each asset.

Subfactor 4, Physical Security Plan Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposed Physical Security Plan will support the surveillance and storage of aircraft assets. Evaluating a physical security plan involves assessing the effectiveness of the plan's security measures against identified risks, focusing on surveillance, access control, and maintenance. Key evaluation criteria include the integrity of the perimeter, entry points, and critical areas, the functionality of surveillance and alarm systems, and the effectiveness of operating procedures, security personnel, and emergency response protocols.

Subfactor 5, Disposal Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on the TEB’s degree of confidence that the proposed sample disposal plans for each of destruction, sale, and release to a 3rd party fulfill the requirements of the PWS for each method of disposal. Additionally, for sales, Offeror shall demonstrate understanding of aviation sales techniques, provide sample advertising and description of marketing methods, including all proposed processes or platforms, which will be evaluated on the TEB's degree of confidence that the Offeror demonstrates understanding of effective aircraft marketing tactics and fulfills the requirement of the PWS to maximize net sales proceeds.

PHASE II - FACTOR 1, SITE VISITS

Site visits shall not be construed as an opportunity to supplement the content of the submitted written technical proposal. Site visits are conducted to validate the content of the written technical proposal and identify omitted points of concern that could hinder Government confidence in the offeror’s understanding of the requirement, proposed approach, and/or their ability to successfully perform the requirements of the SOW.

6. PHASE II – FACTOR 2, PAST PERFORMANCE

(a) By past performance, the government means the offeror’s record of conforming to specifications and to standards of good workmanship; the offeror’s adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance; the offeror’s reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, the offeror’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

(b) The evaluation of the offeror’s past performance will be used as a means of evaluating the relative

National Aircraft Services capability of the offeror with that of other competitors. Past Performance will be rated on the scoring system listed below.

(c) In investigating an Offeror’s performance, the government may consider the information provided by the Contractor as well as information obtained from other sources, including past and present customers and their employees; other federal government agencies (including National Institutes of Health Contractor Performance System), state and local government agencies; consumer protection organizations and better business bureaus; former subcontractors; and others who may have pertinent information. Additionally, the Government reserves the right to review CPARS information to complete assessment

(d) The offeror is required to provide information regarding the level of performance, in terms of delivery and quality achieved, under government and/or commercial contract(s) for the same or similar services within the last three years. The information provided should reflect the offeror’s record of performance in the areas of conforming to specifications, adherence to contract schedules, reputation for reasonable and cooperative behavior, commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for the interest of the customer. Additionally, if performance deficiencies are identified, describe the deficiency and the corrective action taken.

(e) The offeror is required to provide a completed worksheet “Past Performance Data Worksheet”

(Attachment #7) for three (3) similar and relevant Federal Government or Commercial contracts worked on within the last three (3) years.

(f) In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and will receive a neutral rating. “Relevant” contracts in past performance are previous contracts that are similar in nature in terms of service being provided, dollar value and complexity.

See applicable Table 1 Confidence Ratings below:

Table 1 – Confidence Ratings/Past Performance

High Confidence The Government has high confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with little or no Government intervention.

Some Confidence The Government has some confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, and will be successful in performing the contract with some Government intervention.

Low

Confidence

The Government has low confidence that the Offeror understands the requirement, proposes a sound approach, or will be successful in performing the contract even with Government intervention.

Neutral

The Government assigns a neutral rating in the case of an offeror without a relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available.

National Aircraft Services

7. PHASE II - FACTOR 3, COST/PRICE

Each price quote will be evaluated for reasonableness. The Government may use any of the price analysis techniques specified in FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine reasonableness. Price reasonableness is a comparison of the proposed price with the prices proposed by other Offerors, the government’s estimate, current prices for the same or similar services, current market conditions, as well as other relevant measures. Contract award will be based on an assessment of which proposal presents the best combination of technical capability, past performance and price. The government may make award for other than the lowest price. Offerors are encouraged to submit their best and most realistic pricing to satisfy the terms and conditions of the requirement.

Each Offeror must submit one (1) original Price Schedule (Attachment #8). The pricing schedule will be provided in Microsoft Excel. The resulting contracting will be Firm Fixed Price (FFP). The price proposal will not be given a confidence rating, but its price must be found to be both fair and reasonable and award must be made at a fair market price.

a. Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. FAR 52.217-8 will be automatically calculated by using the proposed unit prices for Option Year 4. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise the option(s). Evaluation of options, including FAR 52.217-8, will be conducted per FAR 17.207(f).

b. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer(s), mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror(s) within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

8. PHASE II – FACTOR 4/QUALITY CONTROL PLAN(QCP)/VARIOUS

QCP/Various – See attachment #3, Instructions to Offerors. This portion of the solicitation shall be evaluated for compliance only and confidence ratings WILL NOT be assigned.

A non-compliant rating under Factor 4 QCP/Various will make the Offeror ineligible for award.