Evaluation Criteria.docx
DOCX document 19 KB Posted
- Attached to
- F-16 Canopy Actuated Release Bolt
- Solicitation number
- FA821326R3021
About this file
This is an Evaluation Criteria document for a federal solicitation regarding F-16 Canopy Actuated Release Bolt (CARB) production. The Air Force Materiel Command Lifecycle Management Center at Hill Air Force Base is seeking qualified vendors to manufacture this Critical Safety Item, which is essential for aircrew survival on F-16 aircraft.
Award will be made based on a combination of technical and price factors, with non-cost factors being significantly more important than price. The evaluation comprises two primary factors: Technical (divided into Qualified Vendor status and Schedule) and Price Reasonableness. Under the Technical factor, offerors must demonstrate qualified vendor status per specified justification requirements and submit a detailed project schedule in Microsoft Project or Excel format not exceeding five pages. The schedule must include a hierarchical Work Breakdown Structure identifying major phases and deliverables, clearly defined milestones with completion criteria, and realistic task durations with supporting rationale. The schedule will receive a color-coded rating from Blue (Outstanding) to Red (Unacceptable) based on demonstrated understanding of scope requirements and execution approach. The Price factor requires submission of unit and total prices for specified Contract Line Items with sufficient cost data to support price reasonableness determinations per FAR standards. Award will be made to the qualified vendor with a reasonable price and the best schedule rating, with the Government conducting price-cost tradeoff analysis in its evaluation.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| CDRLs.pdf | ||
| Item Description.pdf | ||
| SPI.pdf | ||
| ADC SOW.docx | DOCX document | |
| ES7034.pdf | ||
| JFQR.pdf | ||
| REPSHIP.doc | DOC document | |
| SOW Packaging.pdf | ||
| FA821326R3021.pdf | ||
| CADPAD Item Marking Instruction - Ver 1.6.pdf | ||
| EDLs.pdf | ||
| Subcontractor_List.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Air_Specs.docx | DOCX document |
Show all 13
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD
Award will be made on the basis of price and other factors. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. The Government will conduct a tradeoff, evaluating proposals based on schedule merit and cost considerations.
INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS
FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL
Subfactor 1: Qualified Vendor The contractor must be a qualified vendor prior to contract award in order to be considered. See the Justification for Qualification Requirements referenced in Section J of the solicitation.
Subfactor 2: Schedule Offerors must submit a project schedule demonstrating a clear understanding of project scope requirements, and a reasonable approach to contract execution. The schedule should strive for detail and completeness commensurate with the proposal stage, acknowledging that some level of refinement will occur during contract execution. The schedule shall include the following:
| • | Work Breakdown Structure (WBS): A WBS shall be provided, breaking down the contract into manageable work packages. The WBS should be sufficiently hierarchical to provide insight into the major phases and key activities of the contract. The WBS should clearly identify the major deliverables and work. |
| • | Milestones: Clearly defined milestones with specific completion criteria shall be identified for the major phases and key deliverables. Reference Statement of Objectives. |
| • | Task Durations: Realistic durations should be assigned to the identified tasks and work packages. Offerors should provide a basis for the estimated durations, such as historical data, industry best practices, or expert judgment. Detailed justifications for each individual task duration are not required at this stage, but a general rationale for the overall project timeline should be. |
FACTOR 2: PRICE PROPOSAL
Offeror shall submit a unit price and total price for CLIN(s) _____ per the provided solicitation.
CLIN ________
IAW FAR 15.403-l(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required within this volume to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided IAW FAR 15.403-5. If, after proposal receipt, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to make this determination and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data. Offers shall be sufficiently detailed to demonstrate they meet all cost and price criteria specified in evaluation criteria, where applicable. If only one offer is received, the Government will follow procedures found in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.371-3.
EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD
FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL
Subfactor 1: Qualified Vendor The contractor is determined to be a qualified vendor prior to contract award in accordance with the Justification for Qualification Requirements referenced in Section J of the solicitation.
Subfactor 2: Schedule This subfactor will be evaluated on the degree to which the schedule submitted by the contractor demonstrates a clear understanding of project scope requirements, a reasonable approach to project execution, and detail and completeness commensurate with the proposal stage.
The schedule must include a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) which will be evaluated for the degree to which it shows manageable work packages, provides insight into major phases and key activities, and identifies major deliverables.
The schedule must include clearly defined milestones which will be evaluated for the degree to which it shows the major phases, key deliverables and logical progression of work.
The schedule must include task duration which will be evaluated for the degree to which it shows realistic durations for identified task and work packages.
The submission must be readable by Microsoft Project or Excel format and contain no more than 5 pages.
The schedule will be assigned a rating per the chart below.
| 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. |
FACTOR 2: Price Reasonableness The offeror's cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, 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. Reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i), or through price and cost analysis.
Award Selection The award will go to the company whom is qualified, has a reasonable price, and includes the best assigned rating for schedule.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .