Attachment_3_-_BA_MFF_Section_M.pdf

FA3002-16-R-0023, Battlefield Airman Military Freefall

Attachment 3

Section M, Evaluation Factors For Award

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

M. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive, best value, subjective 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, Environmental Impact Analysis Process – Statement of Assurance, 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, 3) whose

Environmental Impact Analysis Process – Statement of Assurance certifies that proposed locations to be used to conduct specified activities do not present unique environmental circumstances identified in 32 CFR§ 989, Appendix B, A2.2, 4) whose proposal is technically acceptable in Technical subfactors 1, 2, and 3 with a Technical Rating of Outstanding, Good, or

Acceptable in subfactor 4, have a price determined fair, reasonable and balanced, a Performance

Confidence Assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence or Neutral

Confidence, provides an acceptable small business participation plan and 5) whose proposal is determined by the Source Selection Authority (SSA) to represent the best value to the

Government.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) 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.

M.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to award one Indefinite

Delivery Indefinite Quantity IDIQ) Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract for the BA MFF program.

M.1.1. 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. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

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 Technical, Past Performance, Price or Small Business Participation proposal.

Attachment 3

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 Procurement

Contracting Officer (PCO) reserves the right to award a contract without granting an opportunity to revise the original proposal.

M.1.1.1. 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the

Offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

M.1.2. 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 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 a 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).

M.1.3. Site Visits. The Government reserves the right to conduct site visits with Offerors. The site visit team may include subject matter experts (SME) in ground, flight and jump operations, 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.

M.2. 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/Factor I: Technical

Subfactor 1: Mobilization

Subfactor 2: Staffing

Subfactor 3: Security

Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations

Volume II/Factor II: Past Performance

Volume III/Factor III: Price

Volume IV/Factor IV: Small Business Participation

M.2.1. 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 equal to 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

Attachment 3 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.

M.2.2. Subjective 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 Technical Rating in Subfactor 4 of “Acceptable” or “Good” if the proposal is otherwise determined to be acceptable. The Government may trade up from a “Neutral 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.”

M.3. Volume I/Factor I – Technical. In the event site visits are conducted, the evaluation team will ensure the contractor proposed technical approach for performance of activities in regards to equipment, facilities, airfields, instructors, logistics, etc., meet PWS, federal, state, and local requirements, and provides a safe/secure/effective/healthy training environment for students.

The site survey team may assess any current or proposed capability against the requirements in this contract to include, but not limited to the items listed below:

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 and materiel.

iii. Airspace to include airfield traffic patterns, transit routes, para-drop and training areas, 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.

v. Scheduling approach and time required to conduct daily student activities relative to facility capability.

vi. Environmental capacity and Environmental Protection compliance.

vii. Logistics and maintenance capability.

M.3.1. 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. 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 meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.2. 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 RATING METHOD – Table 2

Color

Rating

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M.3.3. Technical Risk Rating. The Government will make an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es) and considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.3.3.1. The Government will consider risk as part of its evaluation of subfactors 1, 2 and 3 in determining whether a particular technical approach for subfactor 1, 2, or 3 receives an

Attachment 3 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.

M.3.3.2. The Government will assign a Technical Risk rating described in the Technical

Risk Ratings Table 3 below, only for subfactor 4, Integrated Operations. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the requirement. For any identified Offeror risks, the Government will consider the Offeror’s identified risk and the

Offeror’s proposed mitigation in the evaluation. The Government will consider the identified risk and ratings of those risks identified by the contractor, but the Government will ultimately determine risk IAW the standards established in Table 3 below; an Offeror’s silence on risk does not constitute the absence of risk.

Technical Risk Ratings – Table 3

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M.3.4. Subfactor 1: Mobilization. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s ability to successfully mobilize training operations IAW the PWS to full operations. In order to receive an

“Acceptable” rating for this Subfactor, the Offeror’s proposal must, at a minimum, meet the requirement 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):

Technical – Subfactor 1: Mobilization

Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.6.1. The Offeror shall provide a mobilization plan that includes a contractor developed milestones/timeline with details of when and how all the plans per PWS paragraphs 1.3.1 and 2.1 will be provided

The Offeror’s plan to perform Mobilization articulates an understanding and demonstrates the capability of planning, coordinating, and implementing a program of this magnitude.

The contractor developed milestones allow

Attachment 3 within the mobilization timeframe.

sufficient time to provide the required plans within the mobilization period.

L.3.6.2. The Offeror shall provide a timeline and methodology that details when and how the process of recruiting, hiring, training, replacing, certifying and re-certifying required personnel will be completed within the mobilization timeframe.

The Offeror’s timeline and methodology demonstrates sufficient time and processes to successfully recruit, hire, train, replace, certify and re-certify required personnel within the mobilization timeframe.

L.3.6.3. The Offeror shall describe when and how primary and auxiliary airfields/Drop

Zones/Airspace will be provided within the mobilization timeline. The Offeror must include in their airfield and Drop Zone descriptions (or surveys if already surveyed) a list of all agencies that must approve/coordinate on the Offeror’s airfield operation plans as described IAW paragraph

2.9.7. of the PWS.

The Offeror provided acceptable plans that articulate how primary and auxiliary airfields/Drop Zones/Airspace will be provided within the mobilization timeline.

L.3.6.4. The Offeror shall provide a plan of when and how flight/airdrop training areas and routes will be provided to support the requirements in the PWS within the mobilization timeline.

The Offeror‘s proposal provides an acceptable plan for when and how training areas and routes will be provided within the mobilization timeline.

L.3.6.5. The Offeror shall provide a detailed timeline and the methodology of how aircraft, facilities, equipment, fuel and supplies will be available and ready for use within the mobilization timeframe.

The Offeror’s timeline and methodology demonstrates the systems required and the logistics approach required to ensure they are ready for use within the mobilization timeframe.

L.3.6.6. The Offeror shall provide a timeline with proposed dates that the training curriculum will be ready for a USSOCOM review and certification of the course, IAW

PWS paragraph 1.3.1., Mobilization.

The Offeror’s timeline with proposed dates demonstrate that the training curriculum will be ready for a USSOCOM review and certification of the course within the mobilization timeframe.

M.3.5. Subfactor 2: Staffing. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s overall staffing plan for full performance of the requirement. In order to receive an “Acceptable” rating for this Subfactor, the Offeror’s proposal must at a minimum, meet the requirement outlined in the right-hand

Attachment 3 column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Technical – Subfactor 2: Staffing

Instructions to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.7. The Offeror shall describe the methods and policies that will be used to sustain a work force that will perform the requirements in the PWS.

The Offeror’s methods and policies clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s capability to sustain a work force that will perform the requirements in the PWS.

L.3.7.1. 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, Lead Rigger, Logistics

Lead, Chief MFF Instructor, Physiological

Technician and any other position(s) the

Offeror deems key). The Offeror shall describe the proposed level of experience, background, skill levels and training of key personnel and associated labor category for the personnel.

The Offeror’s plan demonstrates their ability to provide adequate staffing, train personnel, and to retain their work force needed to meet the PWS requirements.

L.3.7.2. The Offeror shall describe a plan for 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 instructors proposed for student production (from minimum to maximum) as required by the PWS, and PWS Appendix A-

1.

The Offeror’s plan for back filling, surge plan, and cross utilization demonstrates a realistic approach for continuing operations without disruption of services. The plan will be assessed for rationale, feasibility, and effectiveness.

L.3.7.3. 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 Offeror’s plan for interface with home office or corporate headquarters demonstrates practices that are not likely to negatively affect ongoing contract performance.

L.3.7.4. 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)

The Offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) is sound and covers all services in the PWS.

The QCP identifies the title of the position responsible for quality control, proposed skill levels, experience and training of the individual(s) responsible for quality control and clearly indicates that the Offeror and not the Government is responsible for quality

Attachment 3 responsibility. Address the proposed skill levels, experience and training of the quality control personnel in relation to the required work disciplines.

control of the contract.

L.3.7.4.1. 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.

The proposed tasks listed in the QCP per inspector demonstrate an adequate method for identifying and documenting performance problems concerning subcontractors and/or in-house personnel.

L.3.7.4.2. Provide a plan that describes timely response and resolution of routine, urgent, and emergency discrepancy notices.

The Offeror’s QCP demonstrates the ability to provide a timely response and resolution of routine, urgent, and emergency discrepancy notices

L.3.7.4.3. Describe how interface with

Government Contracting Officer

Representatives (COR) and Military Liaison

Officer (MLO) will be accomplished. Define on-site contractor and sub-contractor (if used) staff’s responsibilities for timely response to notifications of Quality Assurance (QA) discrepancies.

The Offeror’s QCP adequately explains how they intend to interface with the COR and

MLO and how they respond in a timely manner to notifications of Quality Assurance

(QA) discrepancies.

L.3.7.4.4. Provide an example(s) that demonstrates past experience with developing and implementing successful quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet procedures for operations similar to those described in this RFP.

The Offeror adequately demonstrates their experience with implementing quality control that is relevant.

M.3.6. Subfactor 3: Security. All references for sections L and M governing security can be found in PWS Appendix A-3 and A-7 as well as accessed through separate secured packages attached to the RFP posted for BA MFF on Federal Business Opportunities (FBO) www.fbo.gov.

M.3.7. Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s overall

Integrated Operations for full performance of the MFF requirement. In order to receive an

“Acceptable” or better rating for this Subfactor, the Offeror’s proposal must at a minimum, meet the requirement 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):

Technical – Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations

Instruction to Offerors Evaluation Criteria

L.3.9. The offeror shall describe how all of the elements of this subfactor, when combined, provide an overall best value to the

Government.

The Offeror provides plans that express specific, appropriate and relevant approaches to the overall effort.

http://www.fbo.gov/

Attachment 3

L.3.9.1. MFF Training. The Offeror shall describe how the operational and flight safety briefings, academics, ground training, and the

MFF training detailed in the PWS will be conducted at the best estimated quantity level.

The Offeror shall demonstrate the measures that will be utilized to increase from minimum class size to maximum student load and how their plans will meet the requirements defined in PWS, Appendix A-1 and A-3 governing documents (e.g. AFI 11-

410 and SOCOM Manual 350-3). Include in the description a workflow/process chart that details how required academic, simulation, ground, and MFF training requirements will be integrated to fulfill the requirements of the

PWS.

The Offeror’s approach demonstrates their ability to plan to scale their effort to support the MFF course, which includes how they plan to scale up from minimum to maximum class sizes based on schedule, feasibility, practicality, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness. Flow-chart provided accurately depicts a viable approach to implement MFF training and clearly shows that the Offeror understands the requirement.

L.3.9.2. Airfields and Drop Zone Operations.

The offeror shall describe their approach and processes involved in securing, and operating their aircraft and parachuting operations in the proposed training areas.

The Offeror’s approach demonstrates their ability to adequately secure and operate their aircraft and perform parachute operations in proposed training areas.

L.3.9.2.1. Training Areas and Routes. The

Offeror shall describe proposed MFF training areas, airspace, routes, flight hazards and terrain. The Offeror shall submit their strategy/concept of operations for MFF 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. If not already surveyed by DoD the offeror shall provide all data required to conduct and coordinate survey of the proposed training area.

The Offeror’s proposed MFF training areas, airspace, routes, flight hazards and terrain demonstrate the feasibility of operational performance. Agencies required for coordination are clearly identified and data required for non-surveyed training areas is provided.

L.3.9.2.2. The Offeror shall submit 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 MFF training;

e.g., cloud ceiling and visibility (% or number of days better than 5000’ AGL/3NM as it compares to the proposed master schedule, as described in the PWS paragraph 2.9.7.), wind

(% less than maximum MFF training limits

The Offeror’s historical weather data for the location(s) proposed, averaged over a 5 year period demonstrates the ability to provide sufficient training days to meet production requirements.

Attachment 3 described in AFI 13-217 for proposed MFF flight 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 training days to meet production requirements.

L.3.9.2.3. The Offeror shall describe the airfield’s operating procedures that will be used in training students IAW PWS and

Federal Aviation Regulations; capacity of the airfield to accommodate 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, lodging etc.); existing airfields’ construction plans, refurbishments, and/or traffic growth that could impact student production; and a plan to mitigate the impact of these projects on the

MFF 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/Drop

Zone agency/owner for airfields not owned by the Offeror.

The Offeror’s strategy/concept of operations clearly demonstrates their ability to perform training requirements in the PWS and completed letter(s) of agreement (if required) are submitted.

L.3.9.2.4. 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 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

The Offeror’s plan describes emergency response services currently available at the airfields or planned that demonstrates the ability to meet the Emergency, Fire, Crash, Rescue and Medical Requirements IAW PWS paragraph 2.7.

Attachment 3 not normally available at the airfields of intended use, the Offeror shall describe the plan to provide these services at the airfields.

L.3.9.3. Management Plan. 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.

The Offeror’s Management Plan demonstrates a comprehensive perspective of all scheduling, the ability to accommodate performance at best estimated quantity and with maximum student load and ensures the

Offeror has an adequate understanding of the requirement.

L.3.9.3.1. The Offeror shall provide a concept of operations and outline of all plans and programs. (e.g., transportation, FOD, flying and ground safety, mid-air collision avoidance, FCIF, noise abatement, etc.).

The Offeror’s concept of operations and plans demonstrates their ability to conduct MFF training IAW paragraph 2.1.1., 2.2., 2.22., 2.30., 2.31. and 2.34. of the PWS. The concept will be assessed for rationale, feasibility, and effectiveness.

L.3.9.3.2. 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.

The Offeror’s concept for weekly, monthly, and annual schedules demonstrates sufficient time to accomplish training requirements.

L.3.9.3.3. The Offeror shall describe a plan that anticipates and addresses short term fluctuations in student load, long term operations at maximum student load, and

“get-well” options when class graduation dates may not be met.

The Offeror’s plan demonstrates their ability to adapt to fluctuations in student load. The plan will be assessed for rationale, feasibility, and effectiveness.

L.3.9.3.4. The Offeror shall describe previous experience with scheduling operations that demonstrate the Offerors ability to accomplish PWS requirements.

The Offeror’s previous experience with scheduling operations demonstrates their ability to meet the requirements IAW PWS paragraph 2.19.

L.3.9.4.1. Aircraft Description. The Offeror shall describe in detail the aircraft proposed for MFF. The Offeror shall ensure that proposed aircraft meet the PWS requirements at paragraph 2.15. The Offeror shall provide aircraft performance overview, number of O2 and Equipment rigged students supported per airframe used in the course. The Offeror shall explain why those aircraft were chosen and explain any additional information the Offeror

The Offeror’s aircraft proposed for MFF aircraft and explanation for selection adequately supports how the Aircraft will successfully meet the requirements in PWS paragraph 2.15.

Attachment 3 deems pertinent to the aircraft’s performance and suitability for MFF program. 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.

L.3.9.4.2. Aircraft Maintenance. The Offeror shall provide a plan that describes the proposed maintenance plan required to maintain CARB certification. The plan shall detail the Offeror’s daily expectations for each aircraft while taking into consideration the training syllabus, and how aircraft maintenance will impact the training mission.

The Offeror’s maintenance plan demonstrates the offeror’s ability to maintain CARB certification and ensure maintenance does not negatively impact training.

L.3.9.4.3. 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 daily sortie count, including seasonal fluctuations (if necessary), and allow for normal scheduled maintenance, required inspections, and occasional unplanned maintenance.

The Offeror’s rationale for the proposed fleet size clearly articulates how the offeror will be able to meet the PWS requirements.

L.3.9.4.4. 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.

The Offeror adequately describes 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.

L.3.9.5. Training Facilities and Equipment.

The Offeror shall describe the number and size of packing areas/rooms, classrooms and the equipment anticipated for the projected student load. The Offeror shall describe how the student will be separated from civilian students, if necessary, IAW PWS paragraph

1.3. Standards. This plan shall include the

training equipment necessary to present the courseware.

The Offeror’s plan for Training Facilities and

Equipment demonstrates adequate number and size of packing areas/rooms, classrooms and equipment needed for the projected student load. The plan demonstrates a feasible method to separate civilian students, if necessary.

L.3.9.5.1. Facilities and Equipment. The

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

The Offeror’s proposed facilities and equipment (to include vehicles) are adequate to successfully perform the requirement.

L.3.9.5.2. General Facilities and Equipment The Offeror’s plan adequately outlines how

Attachment 3

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, safety, hygiene, health and climate control.

all training and other associated facilities and equipment will meet best commercial practices for the following: maintenance, repair, cleanliness, safety, hygiene, health and climate control.

L.3.9.5.3. GFP Accountability. The Offeror shall describe their planned methodology and facilities that will ensure accountability and maintenance of the GFP. Offeror shall describe their repair and replacement plan to include the estimated schedule for repairs.

The Offeror’s planned methodology for GFP accountability clearly demonstrates the ability to ensure accountability, maintenance, repair and replacement of the GFP to ensure no interruptions in performance.

L.3.9.5.4. Training materials. The Offeror shall describe their planned methodology to address any material needs beyond the GFP provided. Training aids and materials are referenced in PWS paragraph 2. MFF Scope of Work/Requirements.

The Offeror’s plan to address any material needs beyond the GFP provided demonstrates the ability to successfully meet the training needs defined in the PWS.

L.3.9.6.1. Lodging. The Offeror shall describe their planned methodology and facilities to house students while they attend

BA MFF training, including the amenities provided for each student IAWPWS paragraph 2.12., and Appendix A-5. The

Offeror shall describe how proposed lodging will meet commercial standards. Describe the method to accept arriving students and to handle departing students.

The Offeror’s planned methodology and facilities to house students meet commercial standards and the requirements of PWS 2.12 and Appendix A-5. Method for handling arriving and departing students is reasonable.

L.3.9.6.2. 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, and for the duration of their presence in the course, including access to a sufficient hydration and nutrition during the training and non-training days. Describe weekend meal service and how it may differ from normal weekday meal service. The plan shall describe how the students will be provided with a variety of well-balanced, nutritious meals sufficient in quantities and calories to meet the Battle Field Airmen nutritional performance needs. (as described in PWS paragraph 2.13. MFF Food Service).

The plan shall provide varying nutritious meals from day to day, and flexible hours that will allow all students time to eat breakfast, The Offeror’s planned methodology and facilities for student dining demonstrate the ability to meet the nutritional performance needs of students IAW PWS 2.13.

Attachment 3 lunch and dinner that accommodates transport between training locations.

L.3.9.6.3. Fitness Capability. The Offeror shall describe their plan to provide access to fitness facilities IAW PWS paragraph

2.9.12..

The Offeror’s plan meets the requirement to provide access to fitness facilities IAW PWS paragraph 2.9.12.

M.4. Volume II/Factor II – Past Performance. 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:

M.4.1. 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

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.

M.4.1.1. 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.

M.4.1.2. 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.

M.4.2. 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.

M.4.2.1. 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

Attachment 3 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.

M.4.2.2. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an 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.

M.4.2.2.1. 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 and assigned individual relevancy ratings.

M.4.2.2.2. 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.

M.4.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, somewhat relevant, relevant, and very 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.

M.4.3.1. 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 adverse past performance information for which they have not previously had an opportunity to address.

TABLE 4 – RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

VERY RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and 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

M.4.3.2. The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts.

M.4.4. 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 "Neutral 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 "Neutral Confidence" rating. A Limited or No Confidence rating will be assigned if the Government has a low or no expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.4.4.1. 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.

M.5. Volume III/Factor III – Price

TABLE 5 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the

Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the Offeror will be able to

Attachment 3

M.5.1. The Government will 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. Proper Wage Determinations (WD) and Collective

Bargaining Agreements (CBA) rates shall be paid to any non-exempt employee. The payment of these required WD and CBA rates must be accounted for and included within the proposed prices when the Offerors submit their proposals. The Government will not increase payment if the Offeror does not account for such payments when the Offeror submits its unit CLIN/ELIN prices or fails to include the correct WD and CBA rates.

The source selection will be conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition IAW

FAR 15.403-1(c)(1); therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. However, data other than certified cost or pricing data is required to be submitted per Section L of the RFP and will be evaluated IAW the criteria contained herein for price fair and reasonableness and balance pursuant to one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 based on the Offeror’s proposed approach. If the PCO determines that adequate price competition IAW

FAR 15.403-1(c)(1) no longer exists, or that price fair and reasonableness and balance cannot be determined, the PCO may request and evaluate certified cost or pricing data or additional data other than certified cost or pricing data, as appropriate, to make a determination of price fair and reasonableness and balance.

M.5.2. Total Evaluated Price. The total evaluated price (TEP) will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The sum total of all

FFP CLINs, including mobilization, for the 5-year Ordering Period, will form the Offeror’s TEP.

For CLIN 0001, which requires pricing for multiple numbers of students through Exhibit Line

Item Numbers (ELINs), the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) ELIN from each pricing period 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 be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness.

M.5.3. Completeness. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in

Section L.5. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an

Offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete. Submission of an incomplete

Pricing 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.

M.5.4. Balanced Pricing. The Government will analyze each Offeror’s proposed CLIN and

ELIN unit prices IAW FAR 15.404 to determine whether they are mathematically and materially balanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs/ELINs appears to be significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price or cost analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in the payment of unreasonably high prices. Therefore, an offer may be rejected and ineligible for award if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.5.5. Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s prices and data submitted in the Volume III Price Proposal, as required by Section L, for price fair and reasonableness, Attachment 3 pursuant to one or more of the proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404 based upon each Offeror’s proposed approach.