DRAFT DHS Air Evaluation Factors 8.21.2026.pdf

DRAFT Evaluation Factors

August 21, 2026

Any award(s) will be made to the responsible Offeror(s) submitting an overall proposal that is determined most advantageous to the Government, price and non-price factors considered. The

Government will utilize a Subjective Tradeoff source selection process. Award will be made to the firm whose proposal meets the Government’s requirements and whose technical evaluation and price represents the Best Value to the Government.

To determine Best Value, the Government will conduct a tradeoff analysis between Factor 1

(Demonstrated Technical Experience) and Factor 2 (Price). In its evaluation of the non-price factors, the

Government will consider the benefits and risks associated with the Offeror’s proposed approaches to arrive at a confidence assessment that the Offeror understands the requirement and will be successful in performing the contract.

Relative Importance: Demonstrated Technical Experience (Factor 1) is significantly more important than

Price (Factor 2).

Price may become the determining factor for award as proposals’ technical submissions become more equal. In the event that two or more proposals are determined not to have any substantial technical differences (i.e., are technically equivalent), award may be made to the lower-priced proposal. It should be noted that award may be made to other than the lowest-priced proposal if the Government determines that a price premium is warranted due to technical merit. The Government may also award to other than the highest technically rated proposal, if the Government determines that a price premium is not warranted.

Factor 1: Demonstrated Technical Experience The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Proposal to assess the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the requirements of the Performance Work

Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the single Technical Capability factor by assessing the

Offeror’s approach to the five (5) critical sub-elements listed below. (Note: These are sub-elements of

Factor 1, not separate sub-factors; they will be evaluated holistically to arrive at a single Confidence

Rating for Factor 1).

Sub-Element 1.1: Quality Control & Certifications (PWS 4.1) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s submitted quality certifications (e.g., FAA 14 CFR Part 145, AS9100, ISO 9001) to determine the adequacy of their quality management system for heavy aircraft maintenance and modifications.

Sub-Element 1.2: Upfit & Engineering Capability (PWS 2.2 & 2.3) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s detailed narrative demonstrating prior experience executing aircraft interior modifications and obtaining FAA Supplemental Type Certificates (STCs) or FAA Form 337

Major Alteration approvals of similar scope and complexity.

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s engineering plan detailing structural, electrical, and avionics integration,.

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s drawings for the Congressional Delegation Configuration and

Executive Configuration that demonstrates alignment with the engineering plan discussed in the narrative.

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s preliminary weight and balance impact assessment

The Government will evaluate the Offer’s detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) mapping milestones from contract award to operational readiness.

The evaluation will specifically assess the Offeror's demonstrated ability to manage complex modification schedules, evidenced by the submission of a detailed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) mapping milestones from award to operational readiness, and strictly adhere to all upfit delivery deadlines as required in the PWS.

Sub-Element 1.3: Maintenance & Logistics Plan (PWS 2.5 & 2.6) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Continuous Airworthiness Maintenance Program (CAMP) outline and logistics/supply chain plan to assess their ability to meet the two-hour Aircraft on Ground

(AOG) response requirement and secure critical replacement parts.

Sub-Element 1.4: Pilot Provisioning & Flight Operations (PWS 8.0) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s comprehensive flight operations outline demonstrating the ability to source, train, and manage highly qualified pilots who meet all FAA currency, medical, and safety requirements.

Sub-Element 1.5: Safety Management Approach (PWS 1.1, 2.3, & 13) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s safety narrative describing their safety management considerations, internal safety protocols applicable to aircraft upfit and maintenance operations, safety culture, proactive risk management, and overall approach to aviation safety applicable to aircraft upfit and maintenance operations.

Technical Confidence Ratings The Government will assign one of the following Confidence Ratings to Factor 1:

Confidence Rating Description

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 2: Price The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price Proposal to determine completeness, mathematical accuracy, and reasonableness.

Completeness The Offeror must complete all required Firm-Fixed-Prices and Firm-Fixed-Unit-Prices within the Section 1

Schedule, Exhibit A (Scheduled O&M Catalog), and Exhibit B (Unscheduled Maintenance Catalog), and attached Pricing Template.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) For evaluation purposes, the Government will calculate a comparative TEP. The TEP will be calculated by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed FFUP rates by Government-estimated baseline quantities across the

Base and Option Periods, and adding the Government-established Not-To-Exceed (NTE) ceilings.

Unbalanced Pricing The Government will evaluate proposals for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR RFO 15.404.

Proposals that contain significantly unbalanced line item prices, including unbalanced pricing between the Base Period and Option Periods, or between scheduled and unscheduled maintenance catalogs, may be rejected as representing an unacceptable risk to the Government.