Attachment_5_CDAS_Section_M_4May2022.pdf

CUI

FA8609-22-R-B003

Attachment 5

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, 4 May 2022

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

KC-46 Commodities Depot Activation Support (CDAS) Solicitation #FA8609-22-R-B003

4 May 2022

Prepared by:

Mobility and Training Aircraft Directorate, KC-46 Program

Office (AFLCMC/WLC)

FA8609-22-R-B003

Table of Contents

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

Source Selection Methodology

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.2.1 Entry Gate - FAA Certification Capability

FA8609-22-R-B003

Attachment 5

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, 4 May 2022

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

The United States Government (USG) will utilize FAR Subpart 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment. The USG intends to award multiple contracts as a result of this solicitation. If the USG determines to not award a contract, the USG will not be liable for costs incurred by offeror(s).

Award will be made to all qualifying offerors which the USG anticipates will result in multiple Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) CDAS contracts under unrestricted competition, as defined in paragraph 1.2 below.

The USG will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each offeror.

For large businesses, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 while also meeting the criteria listed in Section L is required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business contractor can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall identify the offeror’s subcontracting goals expressed in dollar/percentages at the ID/IQ contract level.

1.2 Initial/Minimum Order Price/Qualifying Offerors Approach

FAR Part 15.304(c)(1)(ii) states that for DoD, the contracting officer may choose not to include price or cost as an evaluation factor for award when a solicitation:

• Has an estimated value above the simplified acquisition threshold.

• Will result in multiple-award contracts (see subpart 16.5) that are for the same or similar services and.

• States that the USG intends to make an award to all qualifying offerors (see

2.101).

Price will be evaluated more in-depth at the order level and in accordance with the ordering procedures; however, Price for each awardable offeror’s initial/minimum order will be evaluated as identified in Para 2.4 Past performance will not be evaluated as part of this source selection; however, it may be used as evaluation criteria at the order level. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in paragraph 2.0 below.

FAR Part 2.101 defines “qualifying offeror” as an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing (10 U.S.C. 2305(a)(3)(D)).

FA8609-22-R-B003

To be considered for a CDAS ID/IQ award, a “qualifying offeror” is an offeror who:

1. Is determined to be a responsible source IAW FAR Part 9.

2. Conforms to the requirements of the solicitation (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation).

3. The contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing at the task order level; and

4. Is rated Acceptable for Factor 1.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The USG will make an award to all qualifying offerors, which the USG anticipates will result in multiple CDAS ID/IQ contracts and intends to have multiple fair opportunity competitions each year for CDAS requirements IAW FAR 16.5.

There is no limitation on the number of contracts the USG anticipates awarding.

1.4 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the offeror being determined ineligible for award. For example, offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

The USG reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.5 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The USG may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in 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 set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

FA8609-22-R-B003

1.6 Discussions

The USG reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical standpoint. However, the USG reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the USG. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the USG to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.7 Correction Potential of Proposals

The USG will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the USG. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the USG's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 General

The USG technical evaluation team will evaluate technical proposals on an acceptability basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The USG must be assured that each offeror has the ability to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) on subsequent task orders/delivery orders. Only those technical proposals determined to be Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

The offeror’s proposal must pass the entry gate and shall address each of the subfactors. Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Paragraph 1.3, Proposal Preparation Instructions. During evaluation of each proposal, the USG will assign each subfactor a rating as shown below. A rating of Unacceptable in one or more subfactors will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

The USG’s evaluation will be based on the following entry gate, factors, and subfactors.

FA8609-22-R-B003

Attachment 5

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award, 4 May 2022

• Entry Gate: FAA Certification Capability

• Factor and Subfactors o Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Engineering and Technical Support Subfactor 2: Support Equipment and Tooling Subfactor 3: Training Subfactor 4: Parts Supply o Factor 2: Initial/Minimum Order Price

2.2 Initial Evaluation

In order for a proposal to be considered awardable, offerors must first meet the entry gate: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Certification Capability. If the offeror’s proposal fails to meet the requirements of the entry gate, the proposal will be unawardable. If the USG determines that discussions are necessary, the USG reserves the right to include any offeror that has not yet been eliminated from the competition. Depending on the circumstances it may be possible for an offerors proposal to meet the entry gate criteria during discussions.

2.2.1 Entry Gate - FAA Certification Capability

The offeror must provide documentation of an FAA-approved quality system standard which validates that the offeror can provide FAA-certified parts with a Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag. FAA-approved systems may include: 14 CFR part 145 Repair Station, 14 CFR Part 121 Operator, 14 CFR Part 21 Parts Manufacturer Authorization (PMA) or a letter of compliance from a quality certifying organization or acceptance by Aviation Suppliers Association in accordance with Advisory Circular (AC) 00-56B. Offerors must provide documentation of one FAA-approved quality system standard which validates that the offeror is capable of providing FAA-certified parts with a Form 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag with proposal submission SOW Para 3.2. The Contractor must maintain a current FAA certification in order to be awarded a contract.

2.3 Factor 1: Technical

2.3.1 Technical Rating

Description: Technical Rating will provide an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s approach for meeting USG requirements. A Technical Rating will be assessed at the subfactor level, using the Measures of Merit set forth below. Subfactors will be evaluated using Table 1 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

FA8609-22-R-B003

Table 1 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the subfactor.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the subfactor.

2.3.2 Technical Subfactors

Subfactor 1 – Engineering and Technical Support

• Description: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s ability to provide Engineering and Technical Support to enable the USG-led Commodities organic depot activation standup tasks as stated in SOW Para 3.1. The following Measure of Merit applies:

• Measure of Merit (MoM): This MoM is met when the offeror provides a sound approach toward engineering and technical support that addresses requirements of the USG-led commodities depot activation standup tasks stated in SOW Para. 3.1.

Subfactor 2 – Support Equipment (SE) and Tooling

• Description: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s ability to provide SE and Tooling required to support the USG-led commodities organic depot activation standup tasks stated in SOW Para.3.2. The following Measure of Merit applies:

• Measure of Merit (MoM): This MoM is met when the offeror provides a sound approach to deliver SE and Tooling that addresses requirements of the USG-led commodities depot activation standup tasks stated in SOW Para. 3.2.

Subfactor 3 – Training

• Description: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s approach to provide training, including materials, in support the USG-led commodities depot activation stand-up tasks stated in SOW Para. 3.3. The following Measure of Merit applies.

• Measure of Merit (MoM): This MoM is met when the offeror provides a sound approach to provide required training and materials in support of the USG-led commodities depot activation standup tasks stated in SOW Para. 3.3.

FA8609-22-R-B003

Subfactor 4 - Parts Supply

• Description: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s approach to provide Parts in support of the USG-led commodities depot activation standup tasks stated in SOW Para. 3.4. The following Measure of Merit applies.

Measure of Merit (MoM): This MoM is met when the offeror provides a sound approach to provide required Parts in support of the USG-led commodities depot activation standup tasks stated in SOW Para. 3.4.

2.4 Factor 2: Initial/Minimum Order Price

The Price Volume will be evaluated for reasonableness and completeness only in order to award and satisfy the ID/IQ initial/minimum order for each awardable offeror. No other cost or price evaluation will be conducted for purposes of ID/IQ award.

2.4.1 Reasonableness

The offeror’s Price Volume will be evaluated, using one (1) or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the USG that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

2.4.2 Completeness

The offeror’s Price Volume will be evaluated for completeness in compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.5 Contract Documentation

The Contract Documentation Volume will be evaluated to ensure compliance with Section L and all Request for Proposal terms and conditions as well as consistency with the entire proposal as submitted.