Attachment_5_C-21_AUP_FAR52.212-2_Adendum.doc

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Technical Risk (Factor 2), Past Performance (Factor 3) and Price (Factor 4) among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (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 Addendum to FAR 52.212-1of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. 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 technically acceptable proposal, and superior technical risk and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA 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 select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as an “unacceptable.” The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’ s proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1-Technical, Factor 2-Technical Risk, Factor 3-Past Performance, Factor 4-Price, or a combination of the four factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume III (Price), and Volume IV (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, Statement of Objectives (SOO) requirements, and System Requirements Document (SRD), in addition to those identified as factors and 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.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Avionics Upgrade Subfactor 2: FAA Airworthiness Certification Subfactor 3: Schedule and Planning

Subfactor 4: Training Plan Factor 2: Technical Risk Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade- off between Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, the following is the order of importance in the integrated assessment:

· Factor 2-Technical Risk is approximately equal to Factor 3 Past Performance

· Factor 2-Technical Risk and Factor 3-Past Performance when combined are approximately equal to Factor 4-Price

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below.

Technical Risk will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below against the same criteria as described in Factor 1-Technical, paragraph 2.2. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 below. For the award decision, the SSA will then assess the Technical Risk ratings, Past Performance ratings, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Avionics Upgrade

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed technical approach for meeting the AUP requirements set forth in the SRD and SOO. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale that the proposed strategy can meet the requirements of the SRD and SOO. This subfactor element is met when the proposed solution meets the requirements for all of the following essential components:

(a) Approach for avionics upgrade meets the requirements of the SOO dated 16 Nov 15 and SRD dated 17 Dec 15.

(b) Approach for avionics solution meets the requirements of the SOO dated 16 Nov 15 and SRD dated 17 Dec 15.

(c) Approach for hardware, software, and integration meets the requirements of the SOO dated 16 Nov 15 and SRD dated 17 Dec 15.

(d) Approach for subcontractor agreements meets the requirements of the SOO dated 16 Nov 15 and SRD dated 17 Dec 15.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: FAA Airworthiness Certification

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for FAA airworthiness certification. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that the proposed strategy can meet the requirements of the SOO and SRD.

Specifically the approach for FAA airworthiness certification must meet the requirements of the SOO dated 16 Nov 15 and SRD dated 17 Dec 15.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Schedule and Planning

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed schedule. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that the proposed strategy can meet the requirements of the SRD and SOO. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s schedule meets the requirements for all of the following essential components.

(a) Approach for prototype completion and testing meets the requirements of the I SOO dated 16 Nov 15.

(b) Approach for management and staffing with qualified experts meets the requirements of the SOO dated 16 Nov 15 and SRD dated 17 Dec 15.

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Training Plan

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed data and training plan. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for all of the following essential components Approach meets the requirements of the SOO Section 1.2.1, 3.7, 5.5.2.2, and 5.6.

2.3. Factor 2 – Technical Risk:

The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for the subfactors listed in Factor 1 – Technical, and considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 will be evaluated for technical risk and will receive a single risk rating for all subfactors combined. Subfactor 4 will not be evaluated for technical risk. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. The offeror’s risk assessment provided IAW Addendum 52.212-1 paragraph 4.5 will be considered by the Government in addition to any Government-assessed rick. The risk ratings are defined as follows:

2.4. Factor 3 – Past Performance:

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet program requirements, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.4.1. Ratings:

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5

– Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

NOTE: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.4.2. Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. 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 Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. 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, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the offeror’s past performance.

2.4.2.1. Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.2.2. Relevancy Assessment:

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar modifications/services, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and significant subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph 5.3.1 of the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 2 of ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.1, Table 4, when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Scope, magnitude and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, similar modification/services performed on the C-21 Aircraft, Learjet 35 or other similar type airframes and the similarities between a given Past Performance effort providing similar avionics upgrade modifications.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Number of AUP installations required

2. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the technical criteria.

1. Avionics Upgrade

2. FAA Certification

3. Schedule and Planning

4. Training Plan

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm Fixed Price (FFP) of previous effort as compared to the Avionics Upgrade Program.

2.4.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment:

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. 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 when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

2.4.3. Assigning Ratings:

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.4.1 above. The rating is not based on a quantitative analysis. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.5. Factor 4 – Price Evaluation- Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) reasonableness, (2) price realism, (4) unbalanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected; if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

2.5.1 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. Completeness is one aspect of reasonable pricing; pricing will be reviewed to ensure all required prices have been provided. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable. To assist in the price reasonableness assessment the Offeror may provide supporting explanation/rationale to explain or justify his proposed pricing.

2.5.2 Balanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

Evidence of unbalanced pricing is also present when costs are not appropriately allocated by CLIN. Costs included in one CLIN that are specified to be included in another CLIN can reflect unbalanced pricing. Similarly, any unexplained significant pricing increases or decreases across performance periods within the same CLIN can reflect unbalanced pricing. Offerors provide explanation for such variances in the Pricing Volume. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.3 Price Realism

Proposed pricing will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. Unrealistic prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.5.4 Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, additional data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing, as well as price and/or cost realism.

2.5.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)-

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment A. Estimated Quantities (EQs) in the Pricing Matrix, Attachment A, are for evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government nor guarantee such quantities or prices will be purchased during the contract period of performance.

The offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 pricing instructions. Proposed pricing will be evaluated for completeness to support price reasonableness and balance. All required pricing shall be provided in the Pricing Matrix in Attachment A.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1and reflected in the Pricing Matrix in Attachment A. The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors. The TEP will include the sum of all the extended-proposed-price-calculations for each CLIN. These calculations will include all ordering periods, including the Kit Production, spares and Over & Above.

2.5.6.1. All pricing for supplies or services must be reflected in the Price Volume and the Pricing Matrix, Attachment A, only. The Pricing Matrix will be used to develop the TEP. In addition, the Pricing Matrix will be used to complete Section B of the resulting contract. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy and electronic copy of the price model, the hard copy will be used for the TEP.

2.5.6.2. Information provided in the table below details the pricing calculation methodology to be used in evaluation of proposed pricing. With unit price input into the Pricing Matrix, these calculations will automatically roll up to extended CLIN pricing. Extended pricing added together will yield Total Evaluated Pricing (TEP). Calculations are made for each performance period, yielding extended pricing per year. These annual extended prices are added together resulting in the TEP.

TEP Methodology

TBN

Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) X proposed Unit Price

2.5.6.3 Rounding - Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation. The Pricing Matrix format provides for decimal places that must be IAW the required decimal format.

2.5.7 Hourly Labor Rate & Material Handling Rate for Repair Support - The Government will review the Price Volume to ensure Offeror-specific labor categories that form the basis for the proposed labor rates have been provided and the basis of estimate for the proposed material handling rate has been provided. The Government will also review the Price Volume to ensure the development of the proposed wrap labor rates have been provided in detail including all fringe benefits, indirect costs, and profit. The Government will also review the Pricing Volume to ensure the development of the proposed material handling rate has been provided in sufficient detail.

2.5.8 Subcontractor Pricing - The Government will review the Pricing Volume information pertaining to subcontractor pricing as required in ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. Reasonable pricing determination as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair & reasonable.

2.5.9 Contractor Furnished Material, Property, Equipment, and Tooling - The Government will review Price Volume information to verify each Offeror’s compliance with ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, pertaining to the Offeror’s understanding of requirements for Contractor Furnished Materials, Property, Equipment and Tooling.