Decision Document (003).pdf

SIMPLIFIED ACQUISITION DECISION DOCUMENT

OPEN MARKET PROCEDURES UNDER FAR PART 12 & 13

F2VAGS9357AW01– MacDill AFB Aircraft Wash Services

1. Acquisition Strategy

Competitive Small Business Set-Aside 8(a) Competitive (requires waiver under $4M) HUBZone Small Business Set-Aside Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Set-Aside Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business Set-Aside Women-Owned Small Business Eligible Under WOSB Program Set-Aside Unrestricted (NOTE: HubZone Price Evaluation Preference (Ref FAR 19.1307))

Other Than Full and Open Competition/Single Source

8(a) Sole Source (FAR 19.808-1)

HUBZone SB Sole Source (FAR 19.1306)

Service Disabled Veteran Owned SB Sole Source (FAR 19.1406)

2. Solicitation

Oral Solicitations IAW FAR 13.106-1(c) (Micropurchase - $25k)

Beta.SAM (GPE) (Over $25k. NOTE: If oral solicitations are not utilized, required over $15k IAW 5.101(2) (ii)

Other Than Full and Open Competition/Single Source.

Solicitation sent directly to vendor.

Single Source Justification/Justification and Approval Document posted to beta.SAM

3. Pricing:

See Table Below. 5 quotes were received. Total pricing is provided in the table below.

Vendor Name Base Year Option Yr 1 Option Yr 2 Option Yr 3 Option Yr 4 6 Month Total

Starlight Corporation

$576,700.00 $576,200.00 $576,200.00 $576,200.00 $576,200.00 $288,100.00 $3,169,600.00

Triad Logistics

$611,430.00 $610,930.00 $610,930.00 $610,930.00 $610,930.00 $305,465.00 $3,360,615.00

Empire Aircraft Services

$635,736.40 $635,236.40 $635,236.40 $635,236.40 $635,236.40 $317,618.20

$3,494,300.20

A2M Consulting

$959,659.20 $906,882.50 $906,882.50 $906,882.50 $906,882.50 $453,441.50 $5,040,630.70

American Veteran Solutions

$1,196,133.70 $1,113,999.80 $1,171,943.70 $1,131,935.20 $1,185,042.20 $592,521.10 $6,391,575.70

SAM registrations were checked upon receipt of each quote and filed with the quote in the contract file. IAW FAR 4.1103(a) (1), unregistered “offerors” have been notified that they must register in order to be considered for award.

4. Evaluation

A technical evaluation was conducted by the requiring activity and the results are documented and contained in the contract file.

Offerors were evaluated on Technical Approach and on Past Performance.

Technical Approach: analyzed the staffing approach and the management plan of three offerors. Technical Approach was rated as acceptable or unacceptable for all offers.

Past performance: was analyzed for relevance and confidence level for three most competitive offerors. A judgment as to the level of confidence that the work described in the Performance Work Statement was successfully made. This judgment was based on the quality of work reflected in the record of relevant past performance as determined by the Source Selection Team.

Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information contained in the Offeror’s submittals will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within the past five (5) years.

Relevancy Ratings: The Government will use the following relevancy definitions/ratings when assessing relevant past performance. To obtain a relevant rating, offerors must describe in detail how closely the provided services performed under identified contracts relate to the Performance Work Statement. Relevancy was rated on a Relevant/Not Relevant scale.

Performance Quality Assessment - The Government considered the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance reference was reviewed, a performance quality rating (PQR) was assigned by the performance raters in accordance with the Performance Quality Ratings.

Price: The price evaluations documented the reasonableness and affordability of the three most competitive offers. To establish reasonableness and affordability the offers were compared to the IGCE, historical data of similar efforts and other available data. All offerors were required to submit pricing information that included all direct and indirect costs. The government evaluated the cost of option years in addition to the base year for award purposes. Price Analysis was conducted. Quotes were evaluated for price reasonableness, balance, and completeness. The proposed price that was evaluated for the entire effort includes options.

Evaluation Process

Step 1: Evaluate price reasonableness of all quotes, and then rank by total evaluated price. The Government shall rank all offers by price (including options) from lowest to highest.

Step 2: Evaluate lowest priced Offeror for technical acceptability.

Step 3 - Evaluate technically acceptable Offeror’s past performance. A tradeoff analysis between price and performance confidence was conducted and the contract administrator and contracting officer made a determination as to the best value to the Government.

Basis of Contract Award

Award will be made to the Offeror providing an offer that is deemed most advantageous to the Government whose technical Quote has been determined to be “Acceptable” and by trading off Past Performance against Price. Past Performance will be significantly more important than Price. Technical Subfactors are of equal importance.

Evaluations determined that the three lowest priced offers were technically acceptable, recent and relevant and no other evaluations were performed. Three contracts for Starlight Corporation were reviewed and were determined to be Relevant and reflected a Performance Assessment of Very Good or Excellent. The overall Confidence Assessment was Substantial. Three contracts for Triad Logistics were reviewed and were determined to be Relevant and reflected a Performance Assessment of Exceptional or Satisfactory. The overall Confidence Assessment was Satisfactory. Three contracts for Empire Aircraft Services were reviewed and were determined to be Relevant and reflected a Performance Assessment of Satisfactory, Exceptional, and Very Good. The overall Confidence Assessment was Satisfactory.

Starlight Corporations technical quote: Starlight Corporation’s quote was evaluated first as it was the lowest priced. The evaluation team determined Starlight’s technical quote was Acceptable. Second, the evaluation team reviewed their Past Performance and determined all three contracts submitted were both Recent and Relevant. In addition, all performance assessments of the contract submitted were rated as Very Good or Excellent. Based on the above information the Overall Confidence Assessment was rated as Substantial Confidence; and the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Provision 52.212-3(q) entitled “Representation by Corporations Regarding Delinquent Tax Liability or a Felony Conviction under any Federal Law” was checked for all quotes received and the awardee marked IS NOT

5. Price Fair and Reasonable Determination:

Determination of Price Reasonableness (IAW FAR 12.209 and 13.106-3):

FAR 13.106-3(a) (1) - Competitive quotations were received. Based on the proposed prices all prices were within an acceptable margin and the price proposed by Starlight Corporation is determined to be fair and Reasonable.

6. Contractor Responsibility:

Contractor is registered in the SAM database, representations and certifications have been completed, and the contract file has been documented accordingly. SAM registration is active on day of contract award.

To the best of the Contracting Officer’s knowledge, the contractor is responsible and meets the requirements of FAR 9.104-1(a)

– (g).

7. Over the Simplified Acquisition Threshold

Requirement exceeds Simplified Acquisition Threshold

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS). Contractor information contained in FAPIIS regarding performance has been reviewed, and the contractor is determined to be responsible and shall be awarded the contract. A copy of the website printout is included in the contract file. (IAW FAR 9.104-6)

IAW Memorandum dated 27 April 2011, Subject: Improving Competition in Defense Procurements – Amplifying Guidance.

Solicitation was posted for 30 days.

Solicitation was not posted for 30 days; however, more than one quote was received.

Solicitation was not posted for 30 days and only one quote was received.

Requirement was re-solicited for an additional 30-day period (DFARS 215.371-5) Waiver for requirement to re-solicit for an additional 30-day period has been received from AFICA/KO

(AFFARS 5315.371-5).

8. Legal (AFFARS 5301.602-2(c))

Requirement exceeds $500,000, legal review has been obtained and appropriately filed in the contract file.

9. Business and Contract Clearance (AFFARS 5301.9001(f)(3))

$500k - $1M – One Level Above Contracting Officer

$1M - $10M – DBO review required.

10. Additional Information/Comments (as needed)

A total of 5 Competitive Quotations were received. In accordance with Source Selection Instructions, evaluations concluded once three technically acceptable offers were evaluated. All evaluations were completed by a Source Selection Team consisting of SSgt Anderson, SSgt Vasquez and TSgt Esmieu. Evaluation Factors and Sub factors along with price were evaluated to determine the capability of each offeror to successfully fulfill this requirement. An overall assessment rating of Technically Acceptability was given. All offers were ranked from lowest to highest price and the three lowest priced offerors were found to be technically acceptable. In addition, Starlight’s past performance rating was rated as Substantial Confidence and Triad Logistic and Empire Aircraft Services were rated as Satisfactory Confidence, and no further offers were evaluated. The total evaluated price of Starlight Corporations quote was $3,169,600.00. On March 2, 2020 Colonel B. Wesley Adams was briefed on the Source Selection Evaluations. As the selection authority, Colonel Adams determined that Starlight Corporations ability to perform this contract is warranted and that an award to Starlight Corporation in the amount of $4,125,000.00 is in the best interest of the Government.

Melissa A. Biggar Contracting Officer, 6 CONS/PKA 813-828-7492

B. Wesley Adams, Col USAF Commander, 6 MXG 813-968-2025

Based on the rationale provided above, I hereby the price is determined fair and reasonable, and it is in the best interest of the Government to award an IDIQ to Starlight Corporation.