DRAFT_Section M.pdf

FA8609-21-R-XXXX

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION (CUI)

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

FOR THE

KC-46 INITIAL SPARES (KIS)

Solicitation #FA8609-21-R-XXXX

XX XXXXX 2021

Prepared by:

Mobility Directorate, KC-46 Program Office (AFLCMC/WLC)

Table of Contents

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.4 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

1.5 Discussions

1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 General…

2.2 Relative Importance

2.3 Initial Evaluation

2.4 Entry Gates

2.4.1 FAA Certification Capability

2.4.2 DDTC Certification

2.5 Factor 1: Technial

2.5.1 Technical Rating

2.5.2 Technical Risk Rating

2.5.3 Subfactor 1.1 – Procurement Standard

2.5.4 Subfactor 1.2 – Requisition Process

2.6 Factor 2: Price

2.6.1 Completeness

2.6.2 Reasonableness

2.6.3 Total Evaluated Price

2.7 Contract Documentation

file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408700 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408701 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408702 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408703 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408702 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408703 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408703 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408704 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408705 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408706 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408707 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408708 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408712 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408713 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408709 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408714 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408715 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408716 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408717 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408710 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408714 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408715 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408716 file://52zhtv-fs-604v/AFLCMC_WK/TANKER-DIR/KCX-EVAL2/1%20FOG/1-2%20Contracting/00_KT_Files/09_KTRs_TBD_KC46_Spares/3_Market_Research_Results/Draft%20RFP/Draft_Section%20L_v5.docx#_Toc67408711

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This source selection is a best value tradeoff considering Technical Approach, Technical Risk, and Price, conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the United States Government Acquisition website, http://acquisition.gov.

The Government will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each Offeror. Up to twenty (20) individual contracts may be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with 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 Section L of this solicitation), and are judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. In order to be considered awardable, Offerors must first meet the two (2) entry gates, FAA Certification Capability and DDTC Certification as described in paragraph 2.4 below.

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror(s) who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the requirements in a way that will be most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to higher rated, higher priced Offeror(s) where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced Offeror(s) outweighs the price difference. The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Approach, Technical Risk, and Price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award no more than twenty (20) contracts for the KIS effort as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award to less than twenty (20) Offerors or none at all.

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

http://acquisition.gov/

A sound Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternative II, DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) and AFFARS 5319.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements are required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business Offeror can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented. Award cannot be made to an Offeror deemed not responsible by the CO.

1.4 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government 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.

1.5 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. 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.

1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 General

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

Entry Gates:

Entry Gate 1: FAA Certification Capability Entry Gate 2: DDTC Certification

Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1.1: Procurement Standard Subfactor 1.2: Requisition Process

Factor 2: Price

2.2 Relative Importance

Among the evaluation factors, Technical, which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating, is significantly more important than Price.

Subfactor 1.1 is significantly more important than Subfactor 1.2.

2.3 Initial Evaluation

Each Offeror will be evaluated for their ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation, and each Offeror’s proposal not considered grossly deficient (see paragraph 1.4) or not eliminated at the outset for efficiency purposes, will be further evaluated. Those Offerors proposals considered grossly deficient for failing to meet the requirements of the solicitation or eliminated for not meeting the two (2) entry gates are ineligible for award. All ineligible Offerors will receive notice of the basis for this determination from the CO. Subsequent notices of ineligibility may be provided at later stages of the source selection, as applicable.

2.4 Entry Gates

2.4.1 FAA Certification Capability

The Government will review the Offeror’s initial proposal for documentation which validates that the Offeror is capable of providing FAA certified parts with an 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag. Any proposal received that does not meet this requirement will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award. (Reference SOW Para 3.2)

2.4.2 DDTC Certification

The Government will review the Offeror’s initial proposal for documentation which validates the vendor is registered with the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) at time of submission. Any proposal received that does not meet this requirement will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award. (Reference SOW Para 2.3)

2.5 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Evaluation provides for two (2) distinct and related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating.

2.5.1 Technical Rating

The evaluation of the technical factor provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Technical Rating will be assessed at the subfactor level, using the Measures of Merit (MoM) set forth below. Subfactor 1.1 will be evaluated using Table 1 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable). Subfactor 1.2 will be evaluated using Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Color Rating) and Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings.

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.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (COLOR RATING)

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.5.2 Technical Risk Rating

Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. It considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 1.2 will receive one of the technical risk ratings described in Table 3 – Technical Risk Rating, as shown below.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.5.3 Subfactor 1.1 - Procurement Standard

Description: This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide parts from the eligible parts list (FA8609-22-D-XXXX, Section J, Attachment 2).

2.5.3.1 Measure of Merit 1:

This factor is deemed acceptable when the Offeror provides documented lead times (delivery after receipt of offer) for at least 90 of the eligible parts list that shows the Offeror is able to deliver while still meeting all the requirements as detailed in paragraph 3 of the SOW.

2.5.4 Subfactor 1.2 - Requisition Process

Description: This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to linking the USG Requisition Numbers and Contractor Acquired Part (CAP) order numbers through a system that integrates with the destination organization’s inventory control system.

2.5.4.1 Measure of Merit 1:

This Measure of Merit is met when the Offeror provides a sound approach to provide a list of items (NSN/Part numbers) and delivery dates. A sound approach to process offline requisition numbers, provided by the government, into an order management system. A sound approach to describe how the order management system will track and enable the receipt of the parts by the Air Force supply system.

2.5.4.1.1 Subfactor 1.2 Measure of Merit 1 Strengths:

A strength is available for Offerors who are able to substantiate their ability for their order management system to directly interface with Integrated Logistics Support System (ILS-S), the primary enterprise tool used by the Air Force supply system.

A second strength is available for Offerors who are able to describe how their order management system can minimize the effort for the destination organization to receive the items into the Air Force supply system.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess one or multiple strengths to an Offeror’s proposal that exceeds the requirements in Subfactor 1.2, Requisition Process. The strengths that may be assessed by the Government are identified in Subfactors 1.2.

Strengths will be contractually binding upon contract award. To incorporate strengths, the Offeror shall make recommendations in the appropriate contractual document(s) to include Section J Attachments with change bars. The Government reserves the right to determine the final contract language to incorporate these strengths into the contract.

2.6 Factor 2: Price

The Price Volume will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

2.6.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.6.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price Volume may 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 Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition. For additional information see FAR 15.404-1.

2.6.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will evaluate for best value as described in paragraph 1.0 above.

2.7 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.