Fairchild_Draft_Section_L_ _M_(LPTA)_17_Jan_13.pdf

L. PROPOSAL PREPARATION INSTRUCTIONS

L.1. GENERAL INFORMATION

L.1.1. To assure timely and equitable evaluation of proposals, offeror(s) must follow the instructions contained herein. Offeror(s) are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors.

Non-conformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. The response shall consist of three (3) separate volumes; Volume I - Technical Proposal, Volume II – Past Performance Information, and Volume III - Price

Proposal. The proposal receipt due date and time are shown below:

Description Proposal Receipt Due Date/Time

Volume I Technical Proposal XXFeb 2013 not later than 3:30 p.m. CST

Volume II Past Performance Information XX Feb 2013, not later than 3:30 p.m. CST

Volume III Price Proposal XX Feb 2013, not later than 3:30 p.m. CST

Offerors must deliver the proposal documents to the address in paragraph L.1.4. by the Date/Time above.

L.1.2. In accordance with FAR Subpart 4.8, "Government Contract Files," the Government will retain one copy of all unsuccessful proposals. The Government will destroy extra copies of unsuccessful proposals.

L.1.3. Submission of offers. Submit signed and dated offers to the office specified in this solicitation at or before the exact date and time specified in this solicitation. Offers shall be submitted on the Standard Form 33.

L.1.4. The Contract Specialist/Contracting Officer is the sole point of contact for this acquisition. Questions pertaining to this Request For Proposal (RFP), or any of its attachments, shall be submitted in writing, using the

Solicitation Question and Comment sheet found in Attachment XX and e-mailed to the Contract

Specialist/Contracting Officer identified below not later than XX Feb 2013. The Government will disregard questions submitted in any other format. Furthermore, due to the time required research and respond, questions received after this date may not be answered. Offerors are responsible for ensuring receipt of the communication by the designated officials and should consider obtaining an electronic confirmation receipt.

Ms. Antoinette Davis Ms. Liz Preston

Contract Specialist Contracting Officer

E-mail: antoinette.davis.1@us.af.mil and E-mail: elizabeth.preston@us.af.mil

Telephone: 210-652-3710 Telephone: 210-652-9226

L.1.5. Minimum Proposal Acceptance Period: The term “acceptance period,” as used in this provision, means the number of calendar days available to the Government to award a contract from the date specified in this solicitation for receipt of proposals. The Government requires a minimum acceptance period of 240 calendar days from the date of receipt of offers; however, offerors may specify an acceptance period exceeding the Government’s minimum requirement.

L.1.6. Exceptions to 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 sub-factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions, to include complete rationale supporting the exception that fully explains potential impacts on the performance, schedule, cost, and specific requirements of the solicitation.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/04.htm#P247_37576 mailto:antoinette.davis.1@us.af.mil mailto:elizabeth.preston@us.af.mil

L.1.7. Potential Errors: If an offeror believes requirements in these instructions contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the offeror shall immediately notify the Contracting Officer in writing with supporting rationale.

NOTE: The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306.

L.1.8. Other Information Required. Provide the name, title and telephone number of the corporate POC(s) possessing authority to contractually negotiate/obligate the offeror.

L.1.9. Non-Government Advisors will not be utilized during source selection.

L.1.10. Proposals must be submitted in both electronic and paper format as specified in L.2.

ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS. In case of conflict between paper and electronic proposal copies, the paper version will take precedence. Telegraphic or facsimile offers will not be accepted. The sealed envelope or package used to submit your proposal must show the time and date specified for receipt, the Solicitation Number, and the offeror’s POC name, address and phone number.

L.1.11. Offerors are cautioned that Randolph AFB has visitor control procedures requiring individuals not affiliated with the installation to obtain a visitor pass to gain entrance. SOME DELAY SHOULD BE ANTICIPATED WHEN

HAND CARRYING PROPOSALS. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time to obtain a visitor pass and arrive at the bid depository PRIOR to the time specified for receipt. Late proposals will be processed in accordance with FAR 52.215-1(c) “Submission, modification, revision, and withdrawal of proposals.”

L.2. ORGANIZATION/DISTRIBUTION/NUMBER OF COPIES/PAGE LIMITS

L.2.1. Proposals shall be submitted as follows:

Volume Title Hard Copies CD/DVD Page Limit Due Date

I Technical Original + 4 1 75* See Block 9 of SF 33

II Past Performance Original + 2 1 See para L.3.2 See Block 9 of SF 33

III Price Original + 1 1 See para L.3.3 See Block 9 of SF 33

* Pages exceeding the page limitations in this Section L, will not be read or evaluated and will be destroyed as soon as practicable. The page count does not include the transmittal letter, cover pages, tab-divider pages, title pages, table of contents, lists of tables and drawings, glossary of acronyms, cross reference matrix, position qualifications or manpower matrix. Double-sided printed sheets will be counted as 2 pages.

Mark original hard copy as “Original”, and all others as “Copy”. Narrative documentation shall be submitted in

Microsoft Word (version Office 2007 or higher). The “Original” copy shall have two holes punched at top of each page. The contents, instructions and formats of each proposal volume are described in the Instruction to offeror(s)

L.3. subparagraphs.

L.2.2. Mail hard copies and an electronic copy on CD or DVD of each volume to the following:

Ms. Antoinette Davis

Or Ms. Michelle Spencer

AETC CONS/LGCK

2021 First St West

Randolph AFB, TX 78150-4525

L.2.3. Binding and Labeling: All hard copies proposal volumes shall be submitted in separate three ring binders.

The Original unbound proposal shall also include a standard (5 ½ inch spaced) two-hole punch applied to the top center of each page when viewed in portrait orientation (for Government filing). Volumes I, II, and III shall not be http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P289_46239 submitted together within the same binding. A cover sheet should be placed at the beginning of each volume start, clearly marked as to whether it is the original or copy, volume number, title, solicitation identification, and the offeror's name. Be sure to apply all appropriate markings including those prescribed in accordance with FAR

52.215-1(e), "Restriction on Disclosure and Use of Data.”

L.2.4. Page Format Restrictions and Limitations:

L.2.4.1. Page Format: Proposals will be printed on 8.5” x 11” paper except for fold-outs used for charts, tables, diagrams, or provided attachments, which may not exceed 11” x 17” (11” x 17” paper will be counted as one page).

Typing shall be single spaced, 12 font size, Times New Roman font style. Smaller font size may be used in tables, drawings, charts, graphs, and diagrams, but shall not be less than 8 font size, Times New Roman. Margins on all four edges of each sheet will be at least one inch. Proprietary statements, security markings, and page numbers may fall within the defined margin area. Pages shall be numbered sequentially by volume. These page format restrictions shall apply to responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) as well as to the initial proposal.

L.2.4.2. Indexing: Each volume shall contain a detailed table of contents which delineates subparagraphs within the volume. Tab indexing shall be used to identify sections.

L.2.5. Documents submitted in response to this RFP must be fully responsive to and consistent with the following:

L.2.5.1. Requirements of the RFP (including Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) and Performance Work

Statement (PWS)) and Government standards and regulations pertaining to the PWS

L.2.5.2. Evaluation Factors for Award detailed in Section M of this RFP.

L.2.5.3. NOTE: Elaborate formats, bindings or color presentations are neither desired nor required.

L.3. SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS

L.3.1. Volume I – Technical Proposal (Factor1): Volume I shall be prepared in accordance with these instructions and Paragraph L.2. of this Section L. Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the Section M evaluation criteria. The Government will assess risk associated with the proposed approach as a component of technical acceptability. Risks assessed to have potential to disrupt schedule, increase costs, degrade performance, increase need for Government oversight, or increase likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance will be identified as

“unacceptable risk.” An “unacceptable” rating in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall unacceptable rating for the technical evaluation. Each offeror shall submit information for the following sub-factors:

L.3.1.1. Subfactor 1 – Management Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s plan to sustain effective and compliant mission support with a trained workforce. The offeror shall:

L.3.1.1.1. Present an internal Quality Control (QC) approach to assess maintenance quality issue identification, documentation, and deficiency correction procedures as follows:

L.3.1.1.1.1. Provide methodology to identify, track, document trends and analyze corrective action effectiveness.

Describe methods to continually improve quality, airworthiness, workmanship, and customer support.

L.3.1.1.1.2. Provide methodology to ensure performance complies with the PWS and applies corrective actions to immediately correct identified compliance discrepancies.

L.3.1.1.1.3. Explain how trend and risk analysis will be effectively applied to prevent problem relapse.

L.3.1.1.1.4. Describe a system for recording, computing/assessing performance measurement data, and monitoring corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P2_52 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P2_52

L.3.1.1.2. Present an approach to ensure thorough data capture, documentation accuracy, completeness and reporting integrity is maintained for data systems and forms documentation required in the PWS, including, but not limited to: Maintenance Information System (MIS), Integrated Maintenance Data System Central Database (IMDS

CDB), Aircraft Forms, Vital Records, etc.

L.3.1.1.3. Present a methodology to ensure employee training, certification, and qualification currency.

L.3.1.1.4. Present a methodology to procure non-Government provided aircraft parts or other consumables in a cost effective manner that meets technical order threshold standards.

L.3.1.1.5. Identify number, type and capacity (or utility) of proposed vehicles required to support this mission.

L.3.1.1.6. Present a procedure to respond within 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to meet the National

Search and Rescue mission.

L.3.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Technical Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s over-arching strategy to perform the aircraft maintenance mission. The offeror shall:

L.3.1.2.1. Present a methodology for small fleet aircraft maintenance management which delivers scheduled and unscheduled repair at Fairchild AFB and Cusick operating locations. As a minimum, the proposed methodology shall describe:

L.3.1.2.1.1. Scenario Response: Detail procedures to expedite recovery from multiple concurrent grounded aircraft situations (caused by factors other than a lack of parts or equipment) to meet flying schedule commitments. NOTE:

Proposal should provide focused details on expedited recovery from grounding condition at Cusick operating location.

L.3.1.2.1.2. Detail procedures to meet aircraft availability requirements that prevents depot, phase, and major scheduled aircraft maintenance from creating aircraft availability conflicts.

L.3.1.2.2. Present a methodology to ensure eTools are accessible to employees with detailed steps that ensure eTools will be maintained with current, accurate, and complete data required by the PWS.

L.3.1.2.3. Present a methodology to implement and manage tool control at Fairchild AFB and Cusick operationg location.

L.3.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Staffing and Workforce Plan: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s proposed aircraft maintenance organizational staffing plan. The offeror shall:

L.3.1.3.1. Present an organizational structure with rationale for the proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for each organizational element, work center, or shop. Provide a resume for the proposed site (lead) manager which details the individual’s experience/background leading helicopter maintenance operations in a small fleet dynamic environment. The organizational chart(s) shall provide a complete Staffing/Skill (job classification)/Shift Summary

Matrix for the base period and each option.

L.3.1.3.2. To the extent cross-utilization of personnel is proposed, provide methodology used to assign cross-utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout the work center. Specifically, provide detailed structure of workforce that will be cross-utilized while ensuring required skill mix and staffing levels to execute

PWS.

L.3.1.3.3. Explain approach to ensure adequate backup capability for “one-deep” positions with fully trained and certified personnel. Include chart detailing backup position plans for each affected position.

L.3.1.3.4. Provide manpower determination process to include:

L.3.1.3.4.1. Man-hour availability factors or Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs). Include breakout of productive and non-productive hour computations for the base period and each option.

L.3.1.3.4.2. Methodology used to determine workforce by work center (office, shop, work area), skill (job classification), and shift(s) to include weekends, Cusick deployments and rescue mission coverage.

L.3.1.3.4.3. Methodology used to determine projected overtime man-hours to include number of hours proposed and percentages above productive hours.

L.3.1.3.4.4. Strategy to recruit and retain an experienced, motivated labor pool for the life of the contract.

L.3.2. Volume II - Past Performance (Factor 2): Volume II shall be prepared in accordance with these instructions and Paragraph L.2. of this Section L. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M. Volume II shall contain the following:

L.3.2.1. Table of Contents.

L.3.2.2. Summary Page describing the role of the offeror and each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner for whom the offeror is required to provide Past Performance Information Sheets in accordance with paragraph L.3.2.3.

L.3.2.3. Past Performance Information Sheets. Each offeror shall complete and submit, as part of their proposal, a

Past Performance Information Sheet in accordance with the format contained in Attachment XX, on no more than five (5) contracts total (including proposed major subcontractors, teaming partners, joint venture partners) that you consider relevant consistent with the definitions in Section M in demonstrating your ability to perform the proposed effort. The offeror shall submit Past Performance Information Sheets identifying active or completed contracts -either Government or commercial - for each prime, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner (within the same division or cost center) and for a subcontractor performing meaningful work determined to be critical to overall successful performance. Each relevant contract must also meet the recency requirements of Section M, that is, each proposed effort must have been performed during the last three (3) years of the date of issuance of this solicitation and includes at least three (3) months performance prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. The following may be provided as part of the Past Performance Information Sheet(s): Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts

Completed in the past three (3) Years, e.g. letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc., which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant aircraft maintenance contracts. The Past Performance Information Sheet for each contract, including letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc., is limited to five (5) pages total. The Government intends to collect additional references from other sources during the evaluation of past performance.

L.3.2.4. Specific Content. Offerors may include a discussion of efforts accomplished by the offeror to resolve problems encountered on prior contracts as well as past efforts to identify and manage program risk. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to an “Unacceptable” rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. The offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions employed in overcoming problems and the effects of those actions, in terms of improvements achieved or problems rectified. In addition, explain corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc.

L.3.2.5. Subcontractor Letters of Consent and Client Authorization Letters.

L.3.2.5.1. Subcontractor Letters of Consent. Past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor cannot be disclosed to the prime offeror without the subcontractor’s consent. Provide with the proposal a letter in Attachment

XX from all subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement, consenting to the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor. Consent Letters are executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing the release of past performance information so the offeror can respond to such information.

L.3.2.5.2. Client Authorization Letters. If applicable, offerors must also include Client Authorization Letters for each identified effort performed for a commercial customer, authorizing release to the Government of requested information on the offeror’s performance.

L.3.2.6. Organization Structure Change History. Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized their divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant present or past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, include in this proposal volume a “roadmap” describing all such changes in the organization of your company. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts you identify for past performance acceptability assessment. Since the Government intends to consider present and past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the offerors, your “roadmap” should be both, specifically applicable to the efforts you identify and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

L.3.2.7. Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs). The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror's performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this RFP. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess

Acceptable/Unacceptable past performance. Offerors are requested to complete the information in Section 1of the

Past Performance Questionnaire in Attachment XX in both paper and electronic format. The Government will send out a PPQ to each of the Points of Contact (POC) identified in the Past Performance Information Sheets. Ensure the

POC provided is available and knowledgeable of the service provided under that contract. The POC will be asked to submit completed questionnaires directly to the Government. Once the PPQ is completed by the POC and submitted to the Contracting Officer for this acquisition, the information contained therein shall be considered sensitive and shall not be released to the offeror.

L.3.2.8. Recency and Relevancy Rating for Contracts Completed: For Past Performance to be determined recent, it shall have taken place within the last three (3) years from issuance of the RFP and begun no less than three (3) months from issuance of the RFP. Relevant present/past performance efforts shall involve similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. See Section M, paragraph M.4.2.2. for further description of relevancy evaluation.

L.3.3. Volume III – Price Proposal (Factor 3): The Price Proposal shall be prepared according to these instructions and will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP for the Price

Factor. Compliance with these requirements is mandatory and failure to comply may render the proposal unawardable. Data submitted beyond that required by this instruction shall not be considered or evaluated. The

Volume III shall contain the following:

L.3.3.1. The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition for this acquisition per FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data are not required per FAR 15.403-

1(b)(1). In order to evaluate competing approaches and ensure each offeror understands the Government’s requirements, the offeror will be required to submit data other than certified cost or pricing data per FAR 15.402 and

15.403-3 as specified below. If at any time during this competition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists or that price reasonableness cannot be determined, offerors may be required to submit certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, for the

Contracting Officer to determine price reasonableness. The proposed prices shall be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal (Volume I) and the Government’s Performance Work

Statement (PWS) requirements Section J, Attachment XX of this RFP.

L.3.3.1.1. Section B: The offeror shall propose and insert a fully burdened unit price, rounded to two decimal places, for Firm-Fixed-Price CLIN X001 of the Base Period and each Option Period in the Section B Price Schedule of the RFP. The total extended amount for FFP CLIN X001 must equal the fully burdened unit price multiplied by the quantity of units. The proposed prices in Section B must be based on the offeror’s own technical approach submitted in the Technical Proposal and the Government’s PWS requirements as set forth herein. Additionally, FAR

52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, will be incorporated into the contract, and upon exercise, will extend the terms and conditions of the contract period being extended; the evaluation of all options is included in the initial evaluation of the proposal (includes base year and all option periods).

L.3.3.2. Contract Forms: Designate on the volume cover which proposal package contains the original, executed copy of the RFP. Include on each proposal cover letter or proposal cover page: name, office phone and fax number

(and, if applicable, cell phone number), and e-mail address for each proposal point of contact. The offeror must complete the following and include in Volume III:

L.3.3.2.1. Standard Form 33, Blocks 13-18, of the RFP: In completing these blocks, the offeror accedes to the contract terms and conditions as written in the RFP Sections A through K.

L.3.3.2.2. All necessary clause fill-ins in Sections I through K. Ensure compliance with RFP requirements if using the annual representations and certifications electronically via the Government controlled Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) website at http://orca.bpn.gov . Ensure the Tax Identification Number (TIN) is loaded in ORCA or provided for in the proposal submission. If the CO is unable to access the ORCA website to retrieve an offeror’s annual representations and certifications, that offeror may, upon request by the CO, be required to submit a hard copy of their annual representations and certifications. This request will not be construed as communications or discussions with an offeror as defined by FAR 15.306.

L.3.3.2.3. Submit a letter, signed at the vice-president level or equivalent or higher, that identifies the individual(s) with the authority to obligate or otherwise bind your company to the resulting contract and, if necessary, future contract modifications.

L.3.3.2.4. STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE SERVICE CONTRACT ACT (SCA). The SCA Wage

Determination (WD) provided at Attachment XX is applicable to this requirement. The offeror shall provide a statement acknowledging that: a) they are in compliance with the requirements of the SCA WD; b) the prices proposed for labor covered by the SCA WD were formulated using the rates specified in the document as required for covered contractor personnel; c) the wage and benefit rates specified in the SCA WD are not escalated beyond the basic period of performance (FAR 52.222-43(a) and (b)); and d) they verified the proposed prices for each

CLIN demonstrate a logical correlation to the staffing (e.g., Full-Time Employees’ man-years, man-hours, labor categories, skill mix) proposed in the Technical Proposal at Volume I.

L.4. Other Contracting Considerations:

L.4.1. Responsibility Determination: To assist in determining contractor responsibility in accordance with FAR Part

9.104-3(a), the offeror shall explain how they plan to maintain adequate financial resources for a contract of this magnitude and length. Offeror(s) shall address fiscal plan for covering mobilization, unexpected or emergency situations, and initial performance costs prior to recoupment in the form of monthly invoice payments. Offeror(s) must provide complete financial statements for one (1) fiscal year and year-to-date financial information through the last quarter available. The year-end financial statements must be certified by an independent accounting firm. If the offeror intends to rely on internally available working/operation capital, evidence of availability must be submitted.

If the offeror plans to rely on financial support from other sources, evidence of availability and the maximum lines of credit that may be available must be identified and must be based upon the inclusion of this contract effort. Evidence of external funding must be provided in the form of a dated letter from the external source. Documentation to support the amounts must also be included.

L.4.2. Organization: The above information shall be provided for the prime and all subcontractors expected to perform critical aspects of the effort.

L.4.3. Teaming Arrangements and/or Letters of Intent: If a teaming arrangement is contemplated, provide complete, verifiable information as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent Past Performance Information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. Submit information relative to the formation, organization and operation of the business unit. Additional information that should be submitted shall include cost and revenue http://orca.bpn.gov/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P22_3269 sharing agreements and any other information which describes the business arrangement. Disclose existing or planned agreements between and among the principals, each company’s responsibility for financial management of the venture, the business systems contemplated for use by the entity and their location. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement must provide a list of relevant contracts.

L.4.4. If applicable, provide a copy of the letter from the Small Business Administration showing proof of Section

8(a) status.

L.4.5. An incomplete proposal may be considered to indicate lack of understanding of the requirement and may result in the entire proposal being determined “unacceptable” and eliminated from further consideration.

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) best value source selection. Award will be made to the lowest reasonable evaluated priced offeror that is determined technically acceptable with an acceptable past performance rating. By submission of 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. Only offers that demonstrate acceptable submission to the Government of all items in Section L of this solicitation (or amendment thereof) will be considered for award. Offeror(s) must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

M.2. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Evaluation of all offers will be made in accordance with the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following three (3) factors:

Factor 1 – Technical (See paragraph M.3)

Factor 2 – Past Performance (See paragraph M.4)

Factor 3 – Price (See paragraph M.5)

Proposals will be evaluated for acceptability, but will not be ranked using non-price factors/subfactors.

M.3. Factor 1 – TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of three (3) technical subfactors below, M.3.1.1., M.3.1.2.

and M.3.1.3. as they apply to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions section (Section L) of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the

Government will assign a rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as depicted in Table 1 below. The

Government will assess risk associated with the proposed approach as a component of technical acceptability. Risks that have the potential to disrupt schedule, increase costs, degrade performance, increase need for Government oversight, or increase likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance will be identified as “unacceptable risk”. A rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more technical subfactor will constitute an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the technical evaluation.

Table 1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.1. Description of Technical Subfactors: Proposals shall be evaluated against the below subfactors:

M.3.1.1. Subfactor 1: Management Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s plan to sustain effective and compliant mission support with a trained workforce. The standard has been met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.3.1.1.1. Offeror’s internal QC approach adequately assesses maintenance quality issue identification, documentation, and deficiency correction procedures as evidenced in the following:

M.3.1.1.1.1. QC approach methodology accurately identifies, tracks, documents trends, and analyzes corrective action effectiveness. Procedures continually improve quality, airworthiness, workmanship, and customer support.

M.3.1.1.1.2. QC approach methodology ensures performance complies with PWS and immediately applies effective corrective actions to identified deficiencies.

M.3.1.1.1.3. QC approach methodology applies trend and risk analysis to effectively prevent recurring problems.

M.3.1.1.1.4. QC approach delivers system to record, compute/assess performance measurement data, and monitor corrective actions to ensure successful and timely problem resolution.

M.3.1.1.2. Approach ensures thorough data capture, documentation accuracy, completeness and reporting integrity are maintained for data systems and forms documentation required in the PWS, including, but not limited to:

Maintenance Information System (MIS), Integrated Maintenance Data System Central Database (IMDS CDB), Aircraft Forms, Vital Records, etc.

M.3.1.1.3. Methodology ensures employee training, certification, and qualification currency.

M.3.1.1.4. Procurement strategy for non-Government provided aircraft parts or other consumables ensures cost-effective purchases that meet technical order threshold standards.

M.3.1.1.5. Vehicle strategy identifies appropriate number, type and utility of vehicles required to support this mission.

M.3.1.1.6. National Search and Rescue response approach delivers ability to provide response within 30 minutes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

M.3.1.2. Subfactor 2 - Technical Approach: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s over-arching strategy to execute the aircraft maintenance mission. The standard has been met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.3.1.2.1. Small Fleet Aircraft Maintenance management strategy that effectively delivers scheduled and unscheduled repair at Fairchild AFB and Cusick operating locations. The proposed strategy shall clearly articulate:

M.3.1.2.1.1. Scenario Response: Procedures to expedite recovery from concurrent multiple grounded aircraft situations (not caused by lack of parts or equipment) to meet flying schedule commitments. NOTE: Proposal should provide focused details on expedited recovery from grounding condition at Cusick operating location.

M.3.1.2.1.2. Aircraft maintenance scheduling procedures that prevent depot, phase, and major maintenance from creating aircraft availability conflicts.

M.3.1.2.2. An effective approach to utilizing “eTools” that ensures accessibility to employees and details steps to sustain “eTools” with current, accurate, and complete data required by the PWS.

M.3.1.2.3. Identifies effective tool control implementation and management methodology at Fairchild AFB and

Cusick operationg location.

M.3.1.3. Subfactor 3 - Staffing and Workforce Plan: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s proposed aircraft maintenance organizational staffing plan. The standard has been met when the offeror’s proposal meets all of the following requirements:

M.3.1.3.1. An overarching organizational structure delivers sufficient rationale for proposed roles, responsibilities, and relationships for each organizational element, work center, or shop. Must include organizational chart(s) illustrating complete Staffing/Skill (job classification)/Shift Summary Matrix that facilitates mission coverage for the base and each option period. Site manager resume must meet the following thresholds: at least two years experience managing fixed-wing or rotary-wing aircraft maintenance; at least two years experience managing a small fleet (3-10 aircraft); at least two years experience developing, implementing and sustaining an aircraft quality program.

M.3.1.3.2. To the extent personnel cross-utilization is proposed, methodology demonstrates effective cross-utilization of personnel within each functional area throughout work centers. NOTE: Proposal must detail percentage of workforce that will be cross-utilized, while maintaining required skill mix and staffing levels.

M.3.1.3.3. Ensures backup capability for “one-deep” positions with fully trained and certified personnel. NOTE:

Proposal must include chart detailing backup position plans for each affected position.

M.3.1.3.4. Provides suitable manpower determination process to ensure necessary support coverage. As a minimum include:

M.3.1.3.4.1. Man-hour availability factors (or Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs)) to include breakout of productive and non-productive hour computations for the basic and all option years.

M.3.1.3.4.2. Adequate methodology to determine workforce by work center (office, shop, work area), skill (job classification), and shift(s) to include weekends, Cusick deployments and rescue mission coverage.

M.3.1.3.4.3. Adequate methodology to determine projected overtime man-hours to include number of hours proposed and percentages above productive hours.

M.3.1.3.4.4. Adequate strategy to recruit and retain an experienced, motivated labor pool for the life of the contract.

M.4. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate past performance to assess the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements.

M.4.1. Attributes of Past Performance Evaluation: This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent and relevant past performance information that pertain to the services outlined in the solicitation requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: 1) determining whether the offeror’s recent past performance is relevant or not relevant to this effort; and 2) determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts determined to be relevant to this effort. The past performance evaluation performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and/or history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts. Rather, it gathers information from customers to enable the evaluators to assess how well the offeror performed on those contracts.

M.4.2. Past Performance Evaluation Procedures

M.4.2.1. The Government will seek relevant performance information from: (i) past and present efforts provided by the Offeror (using questionnaires, which are forwarded by the contracting officer to the contractor's selected sources and (ii) data independently obtained from other Government and commercial sources. The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. The past performance evaluation may also consider the past performance of affiliated companies or operating divisions within the parent company or joint ventures of the parent company when it is reasonable to attribute the experience of these past efforts to the proposed effort and when the proposal clearly demonstrates the resources (e.g. financial resources, overall oversight and management or other resources) of the parent or affiliated division will meaningfully affect performance of this acquisition. The past performance of teaming partners or subcontractors who are not proposed to perform meaningful or critical aspects of the work may not be evaluated.

M.4.2.2. Recency: Recent contracts are those in which the offeror has performed within the previous three years of the date of this solicitation. In order to be considered “recent” for the purpose of this evaluation, current programs must have at least three months of completed performance from issuance of this RFP. If the evaluated contract meets the definition of recency, the entire contract will be evaluated.

M.4.2.3. Relevancy: The Government will evaluate relevance of offeror’s past performance and assign ratings of

“Relevant” or “Not Relevant.” Evaluators will determine relevance of the offeror’s recent past performance by comparing those efforts to the current requirement with respect to scope, magnitude, and complexity. Specifically, evaluators will review: type of service provided, total contract value, duration of contract, and contract type of the contracts reviewed. Evaluators will review performance by the offeror, as well as proposed teaming partner(s), or subcontractor(s) in order to make a consolidated relevancy assessment. Relevancy will be determined as indicated in

Table 2 below.

Table 2: Relevancy Description

ASSESSMENT DESCRIPTION

Relevant / Not Relevant

Recent past performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity.

To be considered Relevant, in a single contract or in a combination of up to five

(5) contracts, past performance must demonstrate all of the following minimum experiences:

a. Past/current small fixed-wing or rotary-wing fleet (3 – 10 a/c) aircraft maintenance experience in a contract;

b. Past/current experience developing, implementing and sustaining an internal aircraft quality program in a contract;

c. Past/current experience managing a contract valued at least $1M per year;

d. Past/current experience managing a contract exceeding 3 years;

e. Past/current experience managing a firm-fixed-price contract

M.4.2.3.1. Performance that does not meet all of the minimum criteria listed in Table 2 will be considered “Not

Relevant”.

M.4.2.4. Past Performance Ratings: The Government will assign “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” past performance ratings based on the evaluators’ assessments of the offeror’s past performance data, as depicted in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown*.

Unacceptable

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

* In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

M.4.3. Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation: Sources of past performance information for evaluation will be: (a) offeror’s Attachment XX to Section L "Past Performance Information” for each contract submitted; and (b) information obtained from any source available to the Government to include, but not limited to, http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P273_41602 the Past Performance Information Retrieval System, the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information

System, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee-Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency. The past performance evaluation team will review all past performance information as it applies to the requirements of this solicitation. See FAR 15.101-2(b)(1) for treatment of past performance relative to small business. Failure to receive an “Acceptable” past performance rating will result in the entire proposal being eliminated from the competition.

M.5. PRICE EVALUATION

The Government will evaluate the price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal as described below.

Any other data provided by the offeror with their price proposal that is not required by Section L will not be considered or evaluated.

M.5.1. Price Reasonableness: The price information submitted in each offeror’s price proposal, as required by

Section L, will be evaluated to determine if proposed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404

(which may include, but not limited to, one or more of the following proposal analysis techniques listed below) based on each offeror’s proposed approach. A contract will not be awarded to an offeror whose price is not determined to be fair and reasonable. The price proposed should correspond to efforts described in the technical proposal;

therefore, a very low price or a price of zero may be considered unreasonable.

M.5.1.1. The Government may use any of the following price analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(b) to determine price reasonableness: comparison of proposed prices received, comparison of previously proposed prices and previous Government and commercial contract prices, use of parametric estimating/rough yardsticks, comparison with competitive published price lists or market prices, comparison with Independent Government Cost

Estimates, comparison with market research, and analysis of pricing information provided by the offeror.

M.5.1.2. The Government may also use cost and/or technical analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404(c) and (e), respectively, to determine price reasonableness.

M.5.1.3. In addition, proposed unit prices may be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-

1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line item(s) appear to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.5.1.4. If the proposal analysis techniques listed above are insufficient to make a determination of price reasonableness or, if the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, the

Contracting Officer may request submission of certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, and/or may use other proposal analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404, to the extent necessary, in order to make a determination of price reasonableness.

M.5.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): A TEP will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for award decision purposes. The offeror’s TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in the Section B Price

Schedule of the RFP by the offeror’s proposed unit price for each FFP CLIN for the base and all option periods and then added together to calculate the TEP. The TEP will not include the Not-To-Exceed cost reimbursable CLINs.

When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed TEP.

M.6. After initial evaluation of each offeror’s technical and price proposals, and assessment of each offeror’s past performance, if the lowest reasonably priced technically acceptable offer (by TEP) is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104, and has acceptable past performance, award may be made to that offeror without entering into discussions as this represents the best value to the Government.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P17_2192 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P429_79027 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P1187_205056

M.7. The Government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offeror(s). Offeror(s) shall submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Proposal Preparation Instructions in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (e.g., the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M.8. The Government does reserve the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Government elects to hold discussions, a competitive range may be established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to further limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If the

Contracting Officer determines that an offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for…