F-4 Parts Section M.docx

CUI

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award For Unclassified F-4 Parts Procurement supporting Foreign Military Sales

20 November 2023

CUI

Contents

i

Source Selection Basis for Contract Award This is a competitive, best-value source selection conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 1 April 2016, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR site, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Approach/Technical Risk and Price. The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR 9.104-1, 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 is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors and IAW the criteria set forth below, 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 technical and/or overall approach of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team 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.

Number of Contracts to Be Awarded The Government intends to award one Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Foreign Military Sales (FMS) F-4 parts procurement. However, the Government reserves the right to award additional or no contract at all depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and/or funds available.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions By submitting its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including 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's terms and conditions can result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Discussions Each initial offer should contain the offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint; Government intends to make award(s) without discussions. If, however, the Government engages in discussions following the conclusion of these discussions, the offeror's Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be evaluated in making the source selection decision. If the offeror's proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce deficiencies or risk such that the offeror's proposal may be downgraded or determined to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Evaluation Factors Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The award will be made to the offeror proposing the best value solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

1) Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Procurement Method Subfactor 2: Supply Discrepancy Reporting Process Subfactor 3: Quality Requirements

2) Factor 2: Price Relative importance of Factors and Subfactors The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Price). However, Factor 2 (Price) will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

Factor 1: Technical The technical evaluation will provide an assessment of the quality of the offeror's technical approach and the risk associated with the technical approach for meeting the Government's requirements. The offeror's technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into a single rating for Factor 1 (Technical).

Technical Subfactors The following three (3) subfactors comprise Factor 1 (Technical):

Subfactor 1: Procurement Method Subfactor 2: Supply Deficiency Reporting Process Subfactor 3: Quality Requirements The Government will evaluate Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 IAW paragraph 3.1.2.1, of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, DOD DFARS PGI Subpart 215.3 August 20, 2022, Methodology 1: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process. This provides for two (2) distinct, but related, assessments: Technical and Technical Risk.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies The evaluation of strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies for Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 are defined as follows:

· Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

· Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

· Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Aspects of the offeror's proposal that receive a strength may be incorporated into the contract.

Technical Ratings Subfactors 1, 2 and 3 will each receive one of the technical ratings described in Table 3.1 below. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement.

TABLE 3.1 Technical Ratings

Technical Risk Rating

1) Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased price, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

2) Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will each receive one of the technical risk ratings described in Table 3.2. below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

Table 3.2 Technical Risk Ratings

Technical Subfactors The technical proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor criteria, including the Performance Work Statement (PWS).

Subfactor 1: Procurement Method Completeness (% of parts on the list they can procure) The government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror can procure the complete list of Unclassified F-4 Parts. A sourcing matrix is provided (Attachment 1) to facilitate consolidation of sourcing information.

Method of Procurement The government will evaluate the ability of the offeror to procure parts adhering to the USG preferred methods as described in the PWS paragraph 1.3.

The government will evaluate the degree to which the contractor minimum order quantity (MOQ) aligns with the initial requirement quantity, identified in PWS Attachment 1, without exceeding the quantity required.

1a: Manufacturing Sources The government will evaluate the robustness and completeness of the offeror’s acceptance or functional test methodology and reporting.

If the part is a source-controlled part, the government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s proposed method for ensuring the source is a qualified manufacturer.

1b: Aftermarket Parts The government will evaluate the degree to which the offeror adheres to the identified USG preferred aftermarket condition codes when identifying an aftermarket procurement source.

If the offeror recommends alternate aftermarket condition codes, the government will evaluate the offeror’s recommendation and assess the increased risk, additional price or savings and impact to schedule associated with procuring the alternate condition code.

The government will evaluate the completeness and appropriateness of the offeror’s method validating the condition code and performing a visual inspection of aftermarket parts. The government will evaluate the completeness of the offeror’s methodology for collecting and verifying traceability documentation or the appropriateness and adequacy of their proposed alternative product conformance documentation package.

1c: New Manufacturing Source The government will evaluate the effectiveness and appropriateness of the offeror’s methodology for verifying new manufacturing sources are competent in the production of the required part and the adequacy of the acceptance or functional testing of the manufactured part.

For parts identified as source-controlled, the government will evaluate the completeness of the offeror’s process for completing a Source Approval Request (SAR), when necessary.

1d: Parts with No Known Source The government will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s approach to identify new sources and the completeness of their assessment of additional risk and price associated with new procurement approaches for parts with no known source.

The government will assess the offeror’s willingness to collaborate with the government program office in developing alternative procurement methods and the completeness of their description of past collaborative efforts.

Subfactor 2: Supply Discrepancy Reporting Process The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of their Supply Discrepancy Reporting (SDR) process for completeness and ability to adhere to the target SDR submission timeframe of one year. An offeror’s proposal that does not adhere to the target submission timeframe will be evaluated on the timeframe provided and their detailed justification for deviation.

Subfactor 3: Quality The Government will evaluate the completeness of the offeror’s submission of their ISO 9000 certification or the detailed narrative description of the comprehensiveness and adequacy of their quality control program.

The government will also evaluate the completeness of the offeror’s submission of their AS9100 or equivalent certificate or the detailed narrative description of the comprehensiveness and adequacy of their quality management system.

FACTOR 2: Price The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP), including all prime and major subcontractors. The TEP will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff award decision. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) prices and rates proposed in the Labor Rate Matrices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding. Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs will not be evaluated and are for funding purposes only.

Reasonableness The offeror's 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 analysis.

Unbalanced Pricing The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced IAW FAR 15.404-1. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, one or more of the proposed prices is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. If the offeror proposes any advance procurement IAW Section L, paragraph 4.5, the Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to advance procurement. When advance procurement is part of the program, the price of components, material, parts, and effort budgeted for advance procurement shall be relatively low compared to the remaining portion of the end item's price. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Total Evaluated Price The TEP will consist of the cumulative value for all proposed CLINS.

Options There are no options in connection with this award.

Government Furnished Property The Government will not provide any Government Furnished Property (GFP) to the offeror for completion of this requirement.

5. Appendix A ACRONYMS The acronyms listed in Table 5.1 are used in this document.

Table 5.1: Acronyms

image1.png