F-5 Repair and Return Section M Draft.docx

CUI

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award for the F-5 Parts Repair and Return Draft 8 March 23

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 Cost/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 cost 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 multiple Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for repair and/or overhaul of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) F-5 parts; however, the Government reserves the right to award one (1) or no contract at all depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and/or funds available. Individual IDIQ contracts will be awarded for single or multiple CLINs for the awardee based on the CLINs proposed.

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 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: Qualified Repair Source Subfactor 2: Technical Ability Subfactor 3: Ramp-up Timeline/Schedule Subfactor 4: Supply Discrepancy Reporting Process

2) Factor 2: Cost/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 (Cost/Price). However, Factor 2 (Cost/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 four (4) subfactors comprise the Factor 1 (Technical):

Subfactor 1: Subfactor 1: Qualified Repair Source Subfactor 2: Technical Ability Subfactor 3: Ramp-up Timeline/Schedule Subfactor 4: Supply Discrepancy Reporting Process The Government will evaluate Subfactors 1, 2, 3 and 4 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, 3 and 4 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 2, 3, and 4 will each receive one of the technical ratings described in Table 3.1 below. Subfactor 1 will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement.

TABLE 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 costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

2) Subfactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 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 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: Qualified Repair Source This subfactor is met when the offeror provides evidence of current or previous USG contract repair and/or overhaul of the identified part. A proposal that receives an unacceptable rating for subfactor 1 will not be awardable. The government will evaluate the offeror based on the following criteria:

Period of performance The offeror’s evidence includes USG contract number(s) and period of performance.

Subcontractors If the offeror is utilizing a subcontractor, partner or teaming agreement to meet these requirements, the offeror must demonstrate how these agreements show current or previous USG contract repair and/or overhaul of the identified part, including USG contract number(s) and period of performance.

Subfactor 2: Ramp-up Timeline/Schedule The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed ramp-up timeline and repair schedule for the length of time, after contract award, to begin Teardown Test & Evaluation (TT&E) of the first inducted part IAW PWS para 1.2.2. This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets the USG target. The offeror may receive a more favorable rating for exceeding the target. Offers that do not meet the target may be considered awardable with a higher technical risk rating.

The offeror’s schedule shall also be evaluated on the degree to which it identifies potential risks to achieving the desired target and includes a narrative description for mitigation of those identified risks.

Subfactor 3: Technical Ability This subfactor evaluates the degree to which the offeror’s narrative demonstrates the completeness and appropriateness of their TT&E, Overhaul, Repair, Testing and Quality activities associated with each part in their proposal.

Teardown Test & Evaluation The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of the depth of their TT&E process for each part included in their proposal. At a minimum, the offeror’s proposed approach will be evaluated on the completeness and maturity of their TT&E process and procedures for the specified part. The offeror may include a description of common or typical failures identified in TT&E for the proposed or similar parts.

The offeror’s description of their troubleshooting methodology, equipment and tests performed will be evaluated for thoroughness and completeness.

The narrative description of the proposed approach will also be evaluated on the thoroughness of their TT&E to develop a comprehensive report listing repair requirements and components.

Overhaul The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of their process of identifying parts requiring overhaul and the completeness of their overhaul process, when applicable, for each part included in their proposal. The proposed approach for overhaul will also be evaluated on the narrative description of their identification of and compliance with the applicable overhaul technical order (TO).

Repair The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of the extensiveness of their capability to accomplish all repairs required to return the part to serviceable condition. The offeror will be evaluated on their comprehensive narrative description of their repair process including historical examples when appropriate.

Testing The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description for maturity and comprehensiveness of their acceptance or functional test methodology for each part included in their proposal. The proposed methodology will also be evaluated on completeness of the offeror’s identification of appropriate ATP or other functional test procedures for each part included in their proposal.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative description of their test facility and equipment and determine if the offeror has, or has access to, the required test equipment to successfully accomplish the testing methodology.

The offeror’s narrative description of their ability to successfully accomplish the acceptance or functional test methodology, including documentation of results, will be evaluated for completeness and thoroughness.

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 AS9110 or equivalent certificate or the detailed narrative description of the comprehensiveness and adequacy of their quality management system for repair and overhaul.

Subfactor 4: 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.

FACTOR 2: Cost/Price The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Realism (on portions of the volume as detailed below), 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 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.

Cost Realism For each offeror's proposed CLINs, the Government will perform a cost realism analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). No cost realism analysis will be conducted on any of the remaining CLINs. The cost realism analysis will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal. Note that unrealistically low proposed costs, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement.

The Government will develop a probable cost estimate as part of the cost realism analysis. Probable cost for CLINs will be developed by adjusting the offeror's proposed cost estimate, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the realism analysis. IAW Section L, if the offeror does not, in the Government's judgment, substantiate its cost proposal in part, or as a whole, the Government may consider other data and the judgment of the members of the source selection evaluation team in determining the probable cost. The Government is not limited to accomplishing any probable cost adjustments at the lowest possible level of granularity; rather, the Government will accomplish any probable cost adjustments at the level it deems appropriate, given the nature of its cost realism analysis, the fidelity of relevant historical data, and subject matter expert opinion.

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 cost of components, material, parts, and effort budgeted for advance procurement shall be relatively low compared to the remaining portion of the end item's cost. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Options There are no options in connection with this award.

Approved Accounting System The government will evaluate the provided evidence for an approved Accounting System and all identified changes to the accounting system. In the absence of this information, or the information is determined to be inadequate, an accounting system review will be initiated and either a Government-approved accounting system or an approved plan must be completed before award to the system certified.

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.

image1.png