Attachment_3_-_Section_M.pdf

FA3002-16-R-0004, Initial Flight Training

Attachment 3

Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive, best value, full tradeoff source selection that will be conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Defense Federal Acquisition Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.3, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315.3, and the Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures. The Offeror’s proposal shall include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L. A proposal that omits information may be excluded from further consideration.

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror: 1) who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented; 2) whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, to include receiving a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) after an Environmental Assessment (EA) (see 1.5 below); and 3) whose proposal is determined by the SSA to represent the best value to the Government. 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. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and subfactors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority, and/or overall business approach, and/or superior past performance, 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.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Firm Fixed-Price contract for the IFT program.

1.2 Discussions. IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. Offerors shall submit the required information in the format specified in Section L, Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their Price, Technical, Past Performance or Small Business Participation proposal. Exchanges conducted with regard to adverse past performance or to resolve minor or clerical errors in any of the proposal volumes will not constitute discussions, and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

1.2.1. If discussions are held, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.3 Competitive Range. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. In order to conduct discussions, a competitive range will be

Attachment 3 established based on FAR 15.306(c) procedures and this solicitation. If the SSA determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the SSA may 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. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from and price and technical standpoint. If the SSA determines that an Offeror’s proposal should no longer be included in the competitive range, the proposal will be eliminated from consideration for award. Written notice of this decision will be provided to unsuccessful Offeror(s) IAW FAR 15.503(a)(1).

1.4 Site Visits. The Government reserves the right to conduct site visits with Offerors.

The site visit team may include subject matter experts (SME) in flying training, aircraft maintenance, environmental, services, security and/or contracting. Site visits will last approximately two to three days. Offerors will be informed in writing in advance of the time and date the site visit will occur. The intent of the site visit is to allow the technical evaluation team to assess an offeror’s ability to accomplish the technical requirements in the PWS.

1.5 Environmental Assessment. This contract award is contingent upon the apparent awardee completing an Environmental Assessment (EA) which results in a Finding of No Significant impact (FONSI). As such, the government will complete an EA of the apparent awardee’s location and operations under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (Pub. Law 90-190; 42 U.S.C. § 4331 et seq.), and the Air Force Environmental Impact Analysis Process (EIAP), 32 C.F.R. §989 after the source selection is completed.

Should the apparent awardee’s location and operations not garner a FONSI, then, the apparent awardee is no longer eligible for contract award, and the government does not intend to initiate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Instead, the government intends to award this contract to the offeror whose proposal represents the next best value to the government as determined during the source selection. In such a case, the proposed location and operations of the offeror whose proposal represents the next best value to the government will also undergo an Environmental Assessment prior to contract award. Similar to the apparent awardee’s EA, this EA must also result in a FONSI for this offeror to be eligible for contract award.

1.6 Evaluation Factors for Award

Evaluation of offers will be made IAW the criteria outlined in this section. The proposals will be evaluated against the following four factors:

Volume I: Technical

Subfactor 1: Mobilization Subfactor 2: Staffing Subfactor 3: Security Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations Volume II: Past Performance

Volume III: Price

Volume IV: Small Business Participation

Attachment 3

1.7 Relevant Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical is more important than either Past Performance or Price. Past Performance is more important than Price. Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. Small Business Participation is the least significant factor.

All technical subfactors are equal in importance except for Integrated Operations which is deemed more important than the other three subfactors combined. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Full tradeoff, as defined for this acquisition, allows for a tradeoff between non-cost factors and price. The Government’s determination on how much more it will pay for a higher rated proposal with regard to technical, past performance and/or both, will be determined through a subjective assessment after consideration of the level of benefit the Government could expect as compared to the higher price. The Government is not required to pay what the Government perceives to be a substantial amount more for higher rated proposals if it is determined that it is not in the Government’s best interest to do so. The Government may trade up from an “Unknown Confidence” or from a “Satisfactory Confidence” rating. The Government will not award a contract to an Offeror that is rated as having “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence.”

2.0 Volume I: Technical

In the event site visits are conducted, the evaluation team will ensure the contractor proposed technical approach equipment, facilities, airfields, etc., meet PWS, federal, state, and local requirements, and provides a safe/secure environment for students. The site survey team will assess any current or proposed:

i. Primary and auxiliary airfields for general condition of the airfield (runways, taxiways, ramps, hangars, infield, support structures/buildings, etc.), airfield environment, and objects on and/or around the airfield that will affect safe ground and flying operations.

ii. Facilities (interior and exterior) for general condition, accessibility, and the environment around the facilities that will affect the safety and security of the students.

iii. Airspace to include airfield traffic patterns, transit routes, flying training areas, navigation training routes, flight hazards, and terrain that will affect the safety of the students.

iv. Equipment to include transportation vehicles for general/working condition, accessibility/ease of use, and proper safety features to protect the students.

2.1 Mobilization, Staffing, and Security will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis as being rated “acceptable” or “unacceptable.” Any subfactor evaluated as “unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. Explanations of the ratings are in the Technical Ratings Table 1 below.

Attachment 3

TECHNICAL RATINGS – Table 1

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.2 The Integrated Operations subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures Technical Ratings Table 2 below. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of a proposal. The Offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

A strength represents an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that exceeds the Government’s stated requirements that is considered beneficial. A weakness represents an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that may meet the Government’s requirements but is risky or ambiguous. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of minimum PWS requirements. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. This subfactor rating will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TECHNICAL RATINGS – Table 2 Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.2.1 Technical Risk Rating. The Government will make an 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, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

2.2.2 The government will evaluate risk as part of its evaluation of subfactors 1, 2, 3 in determining whether a particular technical approach for subfactor 1, 2, or 3 receives an acceptable or unacceptable technical rating. For subfactors 1, 2, or 3, if the Government determines that the proposed solution presents too much risk, subfactors may be determined unacceptable. The Government will assign a Technical Risk rating described in the Technical Risk Ratings Table 3 below, for subfactor 4, Integrated Operations. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the IFT requirement. For any identified Offeror risks, the Government will consider the Offeror’s identified risk and the Offeror’s proposed mitigation in the evaluation. Identified risks by the Offeror will be part of the Government’s assessment; Offeror’s silence on risk does not constitute the absence of risk.

Technical Risk Ratings – Table 3 Rating Description Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

2.3 Subfactor 1: Mobilization

This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s ability to successfully mobilize a flying training operation IAW with the PWS to full operations within six (6) Months. The evaluation will address the Offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 1: Mobilization Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

2.3.1 The Offeror shall describe a mobilization

strategy that will lead to full performance. The mobilization plan shall include contractor developed milestones with detailed plans that demonstrate how the Offeror plans to begin training students six months after an Environmental Assessment (EA) Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and contract award.

2.3.2 The Offeror shall include in the

The proposal for Mobilization should demonstrate the Offeror’s understanding and ability to plan, coordinate, and implement a program of this magnitude. The contractor developed milestones for mobilization will be evaluated to determine the feasibility of an Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror’s methods of acquiring airplanes, facilities, Primary/ Auxiliary fields, flying training areas and routes, supplies and equipment;

Attachment 3 mobilization a contractor developed milestones/timeline and details of when and how all the plans and publications listed in Appendix A-4 will be acquired/developed within the mobilization timeframe.

2.3.3 The Offeror shall provide a timeline and

methodology that details when and how the process of recruiting, hiring, training, and certifying required personnel will be completed within the mobilization timeframe.

2.3.4 The Offeror shall describe when and how

primary and auxiliary airfields will be acquired/developed within the mobilization timeline. The Offeror must include in their airfield descriptions a list of all agencies that must approve/coordinate on the Offeror’s airfield operation plans.

2.3.5 The Offeror shall provide a plan of when

and how flight training areas and routes will be acquired/developed to support the requirements in the PWS within the mobilization timeline.

2.3.6 The Offeror shall provide a detailed

timeline and the methodology of how aircraft, facilities, equipment, and supplies will be acquired/modified and ready for use within the mobilization timeframe.

hiring and training personnel; and developing courseware, curriculum, and programs will be evaluated for practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness.

2.4 Subfactor 2: Staffing

This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s overall staffing plan for full performance of the IFT requirement. The evaluation will address the Offeror’s response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 2: Staffing Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

2.4.1 The Offeror shall provide staffing, training, and retention plans for all personnel needed to meet the PWS requirements.

Include with the plans a detailed organizational chart that covers all manpower positions and identifies key personnel positions (program manager, chief pilot, chief of maintenance, and any other position(s) the Offeror deems key).

Describe the proposed level of experience, background, skill levels and training of key personnel. The Offeror shall specifically address how sufficient numbers of qualified Certified Flight Instructors (CFI), key management, supervisory, and maintenance personnel will be encouraged to relocate (if necessary) and remain in the Offeror’s planned area of operations.

2.4.2 The Offeror shall describe a plan for

surges, back-filling personnel on leave or unforeseen short/long term absences, and provide a plan to back up “one deep” positions.

The plan shall also describe any cross utilization of employees. The Offeror shall describe the number of CFIs proposed for student production from minimum to maximum flight hours as required by the PWS Appendix A-1.

2.4.3 Support/Interface With Organizational

Structure. The Offeror shall define interface with home office or corporate headquarters for such aspects as management, technical, and financial support.

The proposal for Staffing should demonstrate the Offeror’s proposed personnel structure and administration of their labor force. The Government will evaluate whether or not the Offeror’s proposed methods to recruit, train, and retain a qualified labor force meet the PWS requirements. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposed labor mix, back filling plan, surge plan, and cross utilization to assess rationale and feasibility.

Attachment 3

2.4.4 Quality Control Plan. The Offeror shall

provide a Quality Control Plan that describes how they will ensure that the contract requirements are met while maintaining safety.

The plan must describe inspector and/or superintendent assignment controls and clearly demonstrate that quality is the contractor’s (not the Government’s) responsibility. Address the proposed skill levels, experience and training of the quality control personnel in relation to the required work disciplines.

Quality Control Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s quality control plan (QCP) to assess the Offeror’s ability to identify and prevent deficiencies in the quality of services performed before the level of performance becomes unacceptable. The QCP must clearly identify that it is the contractor and not the Government that is responsible for quality control. The Government will evaluate proposals to ensure Offeror has a clear understanding of the primary areas of importance pertaining to quality control located in the PWS Services Summary section. Key evaluation areas include: areas of inspection, inspection process and frequency;

identification, notification and resolution of deficiencies; response to routine, urgent and emergency discrepancy notices; timely response and resolution of corrective action;

and follow-up process to ensure non-recurrence.

2.4.4.1 Describe number of tasks planned per

inspector, frequency, and a plan, including tools and methods, for identifying and documenting performance problems concerning subcontractors and/or in-house personnel.

2.4.4.2 Provide a plan that describes timely

response and resolution of routine, urgent, and emergency discrepancy notices.

2.4.4.3 Describe how interface with Government

Contracting Officer Representatives (COR) will be accomplished. Define on-site management staff’s responsibilities for timely response to notifications of quality assurance (QA) discrepancies.

2.4.4.4 Provide an example(s) that demonstrates

past experience with developing and implementing successful quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contractual requirements for operations similar to those described in this RFP.

The Government will evaluate the proposed quality control program for Offeror understanding, practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Example(s) were provided that adequately demonstrates that the Offeror has experience with implementing quality control to meet contractual requirements.

2.5 Subfactor 3: Security

All information for sections L and M for security can be accessed through separate secured packages attached to the RFP post for IFT on FBO.Gov.

2.6 Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations

This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s overall Integrated Operations for full performance of the IFT requirement. The evaluation will address the Offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

2.6.1 Flight Training. The Offeror shall

describe how the mass and flight briefings/debriefings, flight room activities, academics, ground training, and the flying training detailed in the IFT Syllabuses and PWS will be conducted at the best estimated quantity level. The Offeror shall demonstrate the measures that will be utilized to increase from BEQ to maximum student load and how their plans will replicate an undergraduate flying training (UFT)-like environment. Include in the description a flow-chart that details how required academic, ground, and flying training models will be integrated to fulfill the requirements of the syllabuses.

Flight Training. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet the PWS flight training requirements in a UFT-like environment. The proposal must also demonstrate effective measures for handling fluctuations in student loads. The Government will assess the Offeror’s approach based on feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness. Flow-chart provided accurately depicts a viable concept to implement academic, ground and flying training models and clearly shows that the Offeror understands the requirement.

2.6.2 Airfields and Operations

2.6.2.1 Flying Training Areas and Routes Usage.

The Offeror shall describe proposed flying training areas, and routes, flight hazards and terrain. The Offeror shall submit their strategy/concept of operations for flying training areas and routes. The Offeror shall identify all agencies that must be coordinated with to develop the proposed flying areas and routes and any known issues that may restrict development of the areas and routes.

2.6.2.2 The Offeror shall submit US Government

historical weather data for the location(s) proposed, averaged over a 5 year period as part of their proposal. The weather package must include weather phenomena that may affect the Offeror’s ability to conduct flying training; e.g., cloud ceiling and visibility (% or # of days better than 1500/3), Airfields and Operations. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s concept of operations for utilizing proposed primary and auxiliary airfields as well as flight training areas and routes to include validation of the completed letters of agreement.

Further, the Government will evaluate primary and auxiliary airfields for general condition of the airfield (runways, taxiways, ramps, hangars, infield, support structures/buildings, etc.), airfield environment, and objects on and/or around the airfield that will affect safe ground and flying operations.

The Government will evaluate the airspace to include airfield traffic patterns, transit routes, flying training areas, navigation training

Attachment 3 wind (% less than student/airplane (whichever is lowest) wind limits or average wind for proposed flying periods), thunderstorm and hurricane occurrence (% of time or # days/year flying would be affected), snow accumulation (% or number of days of appreciable snow accumulation), freezing temperatures (% or number of days temp below freezing), etc. to support their solution for providing sufficient flying days to meet production requirements at maximum student load.

2.6.2.3 The Offeror shall describe the airfields’

operating procedures that will be used in training students IAW with PWS and Federal Aviation Regulations; capacity of the airfield to accommodate IFT training; general condition of the airfield; airfield environment; objects on and/or around the airfield; any other current tenants that can be expected to compete for capacity; flight support facilities, services, and equipment (such as tower, rapcon, navigation aids, runway/taxiway lighting, fuel contractors, crash & rescue, dining facilities, security patrols, etc.); existing airfields’ construction plans, refurbishments, and/or traffic growth that could impact IFT production; and a plan to mitigate the impact of these projects on the IFT program. The Offeror shall submit their strategy/concept of operations for the airfields they intend to use and completed letter(s) of agreement from the appropriate airfield agency/owner for airfields not owned by the Offeror.

2.6.2.4 Emergency Support Services. The Offeror

shall describe what emergency response services (fire, ambulance, and crash and rescue) are currently available at the airfields of intended use.

The Offeror’s plan shall describe the emergency response assets and the number of personnel on the airfields available to respond to fires, aircraft accidents, and accidental injury to IFT personnel and students. If ambulance service is not available on the airfields, detail where an ambulance would come from and how long it would take to get to the proposed training facilities. If emergency response services are not normally available at the airfields of intended use, the Offeror shall describe the plan to provide these services at the airfields.

routes, flight hazards, and terrain that will affect the safety of the students.

The emergency response services at each of the proposed airfields will also be evaluated. The Government will evaluate the proposed concepts and emergency response for rationale, feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, effectiveness and safety.

Attachment 3

2.6.3 Management Plan

2.6.3.1 The Offeror shall provide the concept of a

comprehensive schedule of all operations. The concept shall include describing in detail a daily schedule that accommodates performance at best estimated quantity and with maximum student load.

The schedule must show every ground and flight operation, maintenance actions (including aircraft launch, recovery, refueling, regeneration, inspections, scheduled maintenance, etc.) academic courses, ground training, required transportation, etc.

2.6.3.2 The Offeror shall provide a concept of

operations and outline of all plans and programs.

(e.g., transportation, tool control, FOD, SOF, Go– No Go, flying and ground safety, mid-air collision avoidance, FCIF, noise abatement, etc.).

2.6.3.3 The Offeror shall provide the concept for

weekly, monthly, and annual schedules that include, in general terms, the operations mentioned above, as well as class flow (student reporting and departures), holidays, weather days, etc.

2.6.3.4 The Offeror shall describe a plan that

anticipates and addresses short term surges in student load, long term operations at maximum student load, and “get-well” options when class graduation dates may not be met.

2.6.3.5 The Offeror shall describe previous

experience with scheduling operations that demonstrate the Offerors ability to accomplish PWS requirements.

Management Plan. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed concept and comprehensive scheduling of all requirements of the PWS to ensure the Offeror has an adequate understanding of the requirement. The Offeror’s concept of comprehensive schedules for all operations, fleet size, CFI manning, and surge plans will be evaluated for rationale, feasibility, practicality, safety, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

2.6.4 Aircraft Description and Maintenance

2.6.4.1 Aircraft Description. The Offeror shall

describe in detail the aircraft proposed for IFT. The Offeror shall ensure that proposed aircraft meet the PWS requirements at paragraph 1.2.2. The Offeror shall provide aircraft performance charts/data from the proposed aircraft's pilot operations handbook/flight manual/aircraft performance charts/etc. The Offeror shall explain why those aircraft were chosen and explain any additional

Aircraft Description. The aircraft proposed must meet all minimum aircraft specifications described in the PWS. Any features on a proposed aircraft that exceed the Governments requirement will be evaluated for rationale, feasibility, practicality, safety, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Attachment 3 information the Offeror deems pertinent to the aircraft’s performance and suitability for IFT program use. Additional information could include documentation of aircraft capabilities that exceed PWS requirements, an outstanding reliability and safety record, excellent handling characteristics, ease of performing maintenance, engine performance and safety history, manufacturer support, etc.

2.6.4.2 Aircraft Maintenance. The Offeror shall

provide a plan that describes the proposed daily aircraft maintenance and sortie generation. The plan shall detail the Offeror’s daily expectations for each aircraft and take into consideration the large daily sortie count (to include seasonal surges) the IFT syllabus will require.

2.6.4.3 The Offeror shall provide complete

rationale for the proposed fleet size (to include spare aircraft) to meet PWS requirements. The fleet must be of sufficient size to fly the high daily sortie count, including seasonal surges, and allow for normal scheduled maintenance, required inspections, and occasional unplanned maintenance.

2.6.4.4 Spare Aircraft. The Offeror shall describe

how spare aircraft will be used and how the Offeror plans to accomplish scheduled aircraft inspections and unscheduled maintenance while maintaining the required daily sortie count.

Aircraft Maintenance. The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ maintenance of aircraft and sortie generation plan. The Government will assess how well proposed aircraft and maintenance/ sortie generation plans are able to meet student training requirements and ensure that the fleet size is adequate to meet requirements for IFT. The Offeror’s concept of maintenance will be evaluated for rationale, feasibility, practicality, safety innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

2.6.5 Training Facilities and Equipment

2.6.5.1 The Offeror shall describe the number and

size of flight rooms/classrooms and the equipment anticipated for the projected student load. The Offeror shall describe how the student flight rooms will be separated from civilian students, if necessary, in order to replicate an undergraduate flying training (UFT) environment. This plan shall include the training equipment necessary to present the courseware.

2.6.5.2 Facilities and Equipment. The Offeror shall

describe all facilities and equipment (to include vehicles) required for performance.

Training Facilities and Equipment. The Government will evaluate the Offerors’ plan to provide facilities and equipment (to include vehicles) to support their proposed operations concept. The proposed plan will be assessed according to PWS and commercial standards for rationale, feasibility, practicality, safety, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

Attachment 3

2.6.5.3 General Facilities and Equipment

Maintenance and Appearance. The Offeror shall describe how all training and other associated facilities and equipment will meet best commercial practices for the following: maintenance, repair, cleanliness, hygiene and climate control.

2.6.6 Lodging and Food Service

2.6.6.1 Lodging. The Offeror shall describe their

planned methodology and facilities to house students while they attend IFT, including the amenities anticipated for each student, and individual climate control (PWS paragraph 1.2.14 and 1.2.15). The Offeror shall describe how proposed lodging will meet commercial standards.

The rooms shall meet best commercial practices for cleanliness and service. Describe the method to accept arriving students and to handle departing students.

2.6.6.2 Food Service. The Offeror shall describe

their planned methodology and facilities for student dining. As a minimum, the plan shall describe a method to feed students during the training day, including access to a mid-day meal. Describe weekend meal service and how it might differ from normal weekday meal service. The plan shall describe how the students will be provided with a dining area. The plan shall provide varying nutritious meals from day to day, and flexible hours that will allow all students time to eat breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Lodging and Food Service. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan/ methodology to house and feed students. The proposed plan/ methodology will be assessed according to PWS and commercial standards for rationale, feasibility, practicality, safety innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness. The Government will also consider the perceived impact that lodging and food service concepts will have on security, student scheduling, transportation, etc.

3.0 Volume II: Past Performance

3.1 The Government will evaluate past performance to assess how well the Offeror performed work relevant to the requirement described in the solicitation as an indicator of an Offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The Government will use the following procedures in evaluating past performance:

3.1.1 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance for services the solicitation requires and the quality of performance on the past/present efforts. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government. Other sources include are but not limited to: Past Performance

Attachment 3

Questionnaire (PPQ), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and commercial sources.

3.1.2 The past performance evaluation will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel, or subcontractors that are proposed to perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to this acquisition.

3.1.3 The past performance evaluation may 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 the 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 the instant acquisition.

3.2 The Offeror’s past performance efforts will be assessed for: Recency, Relevancy and Quality of Service. The Government will only evaluate Quality of Service on past efforts that are determined to be both recent and relevant. Each proposal will receive an overall integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on the aggregate of all the following elements: Recency, Relevancy and Quality of Service.

3.2.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must have been performed within the five (5) years preceding the date of issuance of this RFP, to include at least six months of documented performance during the (5) five-year period. Contract performance that meets these criteria will be evaluated in their entirety, regardless of the total length of the contract.

Contract performance that does not meet these criteria will not be evaluated.

3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the scope, magnitude and complexity of efforts described in this solicitation.

In determining relevancy, the Government will consider the Offeror’s role in the effort accomplished by the prime, subcontractor, and/or teaming partner on previous/current contracts compared to this solicitation. The submitted combination of contracts will be evaluated as an aggregate and result in one overall relevancy rating for each Offeror’s past performance proposal. The Government anticipates that this combination of contracts would cover all of the Primary Evaluation Areas identified below. Failure to address any of the Primary Evaluation Areas will result in a lower rating.

Primary Evaluation Areas

1: Mobilization. Past performance shall demonstrate ability to plan, coordinate, and implement programs relevant to this requirement.

2: Management of Instructor Personnel. Past performance shall demonstrate the ability to recruit, train, and retain a qualified labor force relevant to this requirement.

3: Integrated Ancillary Operation Services includes Security, Lodging, Food Service and Transportation. Past performance shall demonstrate the ability to provide physical security systems, provide lodging, food and transportation services.

4: Integrated Flying Operation Services includes Flying Training Program and Aircraft Maintenance. Past performance shall demonstrate the ability to design, coordinate, and safely use multiple flying areas/ routes, maintain complex flying and maintenance schedules, and maintain a fleet of aircraft relevant to this requirement.

3.2.3 The relevancy rating will be integrated in the overall Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Relevancy will be assigned ratings of Very Relevant, Relevant, Somewhat Relevant, and Not Relevant as defined in Table 4.

Performance Quality Assessment.

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets basic contract PWS requirements, the assessment will also consider aspects such as the Offeror’s adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction.

The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may reveal positive or adverse past performance information. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to

TABLE 4 – RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

Rating Definition

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Attachment 3 adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

The quality assessment performed in support of this source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts;

rather, it gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. The following ratings will be used to define the quality of submitted past performance.

PERFORMANCE

/ QUALITY

RATING

DEFINITION

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some requirements to the Government’s benefit. The performance of the element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory

Performance meets contractual requirements. The performance of the element being assessed contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal

Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The performance of the element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance does not meet most requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The performance of the element being assessed contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score. Performance in this area is not applicable to the effort assessed.

3.2.4 Performance Confidence Assessment. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessment of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating. Offerors with no recent/relevant performance history or whose performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). A Satisfactory or Substantial Confidence record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

3.2.4.1 The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

4.0 Volume III: Price

4.1 The Government shall evaluate the price proposal and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of each proposal. The price proposal and TEP will be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness. The Wage Determinations (WD) and Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) submitted based on the proposed location(s) will be reviewed to determine that the correct WDs and CBAs for the proposed location(s) were submitted with the proposal.

4.2 Total Evaluated Price. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The sum total of all CLINs (except AVGAS and Off-Site support), for mobilization, the Base Period, Option Period 1 and Option Period 2 will form the Offeror’s total evaluated price (TEP). For the CLIN (X001) that requires pricing for multiple levels of service through Exhibit Line Item Numbers (ELINs), the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) will be used for the purposes of establishing the TEP. The proposed price for each ELIN other than the BEQ will not be used in establishing the TEP. Each of these ELINs will, however, be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness.

4.3 Completeness. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, paragraph 4.5. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an Offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete. Submission

TABLE 5 PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors’ recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors’ recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors’ recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offerors’ recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offerors’ performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Attachment 3 of an incomplete Price Model as set forth in Section L, or including pricing information/data elsewhere in the proposal will cause the Offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of this solicitation and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

4.4 Balanced Pricing. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items IAW FAR 15.404- 1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.5 Reasonableness. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness. If adequate price competition has been determined by the PCO not to be present, a cost analysis may be conducted. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

The contract will include FAR Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services, with the potential to extend the contract an additional six months beyond the awarded contract performance period.

In the event the Government requires continued performance, the Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the base and Option Period 1 and Option Period 2 will suffice to be the Government’s evaluation of prices under the extension of services (ref. 52.217-8). Should an extension of services be required, rates will be adjusted only as result of revisions to applicable prevailing Department of Labor wage rates.

5.0 Volume IV: Small Business Participation

5.1 IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the extent of participation of small businesses will be evaluated on a best effort basis and rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Contracting Officer will evaluate the extent to which Offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract, whether as a joint venture, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor.

The requirements of this factor are met when the Offeror adequately illustrates efforts taken to identify sources and opportunities, or provides adequate justification that sources or opportunities do not exist.

5.2 Applicability for Small Business Offerors.

Small business Offerors may include their own efforts when addressing the names, products and/or services and estimated total dollars planned to be provided by small business concerns.