Attachment_3_-_Draft_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, 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, and 3) 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 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. 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 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

Attachment 3 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 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).

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.1.4. 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: Price

Volume II/Factor II: Technical

Subfactor 1: Mobilization

Subfactor 2: Staffing

Subfactor 3: Security

Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations

Volume III/Factor III: Past Performance

Volume IV/Factor IV: Small Business Participation

M.1.4.1. 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 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.1.4.2. 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

Attachment 3 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 “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.2. Volume I/Factor I – Price

M.2.1. The Government will evaluate the price proposal and Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of each proposal. The price proposal and TEP will be evaluated for affordability, 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.

M.2.2. 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, and 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) 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.2.3. Completeness. Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in

Section L, paragraph L.3.4. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an Offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete. Submission 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.

M.2.4. 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 PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.2.5. 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 the PCO determines that adequate price competition is not present, a cost analysis may be conducted. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M.2.5.1. 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

Attachment 3

Government’s evaluation of prices proposed for the 5-year Ordering Period 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.

M.3. Volume II/Factor II – 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 will assess any current or proposed capability against measureable, testable, or demonstrated performance using quality, quantity, and timeliness criteria to the training capability:

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 flight 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.

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. 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.

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.

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

Attachment 3 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 has demonstrated 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 and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M.3.2.1. 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.3.2.1.1. The Government will evaluate 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 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 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.

Attachment 3

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.3.3. Subfactor 1: Mobilization. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s ability to successfully mobilize a training operations IAW with the PWS to full operations. 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

M.3.3.1. 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 after contract award.

M.3.3.2. The Offeror shall include in the mobilization a contractor developed milestones/timeline and details of when and how all the plans and publications listed in

Appendix A-3 will be acquired/developed within the mobilization timeframe.

M.3.3.3. 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

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 the

Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror’s methods of acquiring aircraft, facilities, fuel, Primary/Auxiliary fields, flying/airdrop training areas & routes, maintenance, logistics, supplies and equipment; hiring and training personnel; and developing courseware, curriculum, and programs will be evaluated for practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness. The must demonstrate the ability to meet the mandates and requirements to obtain

USSOCOM/USASOC MFF course curriculum and instruction certification, CARB, FAA, etc.).

mobilization timeframe.

M.3.3.4. The Offeror shall describe when and how primary and auxiliary airfields/Drop

Zones/Airspace will be acquired/developed 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.

M.3.3.5. The Offeror shall provide a plan of when and how flight/airdrop training areas and routes will be acquired/developed to support the requirements in the PWS within the mobilization timeline.

M.3.3.6. The Offeror shall provide a detailed timeline and the methodology of how aircraft, facilities, equipment, fuel and supplies will be acquired/modified and ready for use within the mobilization timeframe.

M.3.3.7. The Offeror shall provide a timeline and proposed dates that they will be ready for a

USSOCOM/USASOC review and certification of the course.

Attachment 3

M.3.4. Subfactor 2: Staffing. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s overall staffing plan for full performance of the 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

M.3.4.1. 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, Lead Rigger, Logistics Lead, Chief MFF

Instructor, Physiological Technician 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 MFF Instructors, Aircrew, Key

Management, Supervisory, and Maintenance

Personnel will be encouraged to relocate (if necessary) and remain in the Offeror’s planned area of operations.

M.3.4.2. 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

(e.g. CMS with dates and student population, list of daily events in the course, and associated instructor population).

M.3.4.3. 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

M.3.4.4. 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.

M.3.4.4.1. 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.

M.3.4.4.2. Provide a plan that describes timely response and resolution of routine, urgent, and emergency discrepancy notices.

M.3.4.4.3. 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.

M.3.4.4.4. 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 and samples submitted for Offeror understanding, practicality, efficiency, and effectiveness in developing and implementing successful quality control and/or inspection procedures to meet contractual requirements for operations similar to those described in this RFP.

M.3.5. 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.

The security plan will be rated acceptable or unacceptable.

M.3.6. Subfactor 4: Integrated Operations. This subfactor assesses the Offeror’s overall

Integrated Operations for full performance of the MFF 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

M.3.6.2. MFF Training. The Offeror shall describe how the mass and flight briefings/debriefings, training room activities, academics, ground training, and the MFF training detailed in the 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 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 syllabuses.

MFF Training. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to meet the PWS MFF training requirements. 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.

M.3.6.3. Airfields and Drop Zone Operations.

The offeror shall their approach and processes involved to secure, and operate their operations in the proposed training areas.

M.3.6.3.1. 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

Airfields and Drop Zone Operations. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s concept of operations for utilizing proposed primary and auxiliary airfields/ Drop Zones as well as flight training areas, airspace 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/drop zone environment, and objects on and/or around the airfield that will affect safe ground, MFF and http://www.fbo.gov/

Attachment 3 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.

M.3.6.3.2. 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

MFF training; e.g., cloud ceiling and visibility

(% or # of days better than 5000’ AGL/3NM as it compares to the proposed master schedule), wind (% less than maximum MFF training limits 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.

M.3.6.3.3. 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 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 flying operations.

The Government will evaluate the 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.

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 and completed letter(s) of agreement from the appropriate airfield/Drop Zone agency/owner for airfields not owned by the Offeror.

M.3.6.3.4. 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 MFF 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.

M.3.6.3.5. FCC Assigned Frequencies. The offeror shall describe any approved frequencies allocated or authorized for air to ground operational use.

M.3.6.3.6. Controlled Cryptographic Item

Security. The offeror shall describe their facility and personnel ability to handle, store and use the controlled cryptographic items

(CCI) provided by the government.

M.3.6.4. Management Plan.

M.3.6.4.1. 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.

M.3.6.4.2. The Offeror shall provide a concept of operations and outline of all plans and programs. (e.g., transportation, FOD, Go–No

Go, flying and ground safety, mid-air collision avoidance, FCIF, noise abatement, etc.).

M.3.6.4.3. 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.

M.3.6.4.4. 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.

M.3.6.4.5. 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, instructor manning, and support plans will be evaluated for rationale, feasibility, practicality, safety, innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

M.3.6.5. Aircraft Description and

Maintenance.

M.3.6.5.1. 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

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 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 maintain a library of applicable reference items required for safe operations of the aircraft as required by FAA and CARB (e.g. 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 information the Offeror 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.

M.3.6.5.2. 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 and take into consideration the syllabus will require.

M.3.6.5.3. 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.

M.3.6.5.4. 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 ability to meet and maintain CARB certification. The Government will assess how well proposed aircraft will maintain CARB certification as well as the offers sortie generation plans ability to meet student training requirements for MFF. The Offeror’s concept of maintenance will be evaluated for rationale, feasibility, practicality, safety innovation, efficiency, and effectiveness.

M.3.6.6. Training Facilities and Equipment.

M.3.6.6.1. 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, in order to create a MFF training environment. This plan shall include the training equipment necessary to present the courseware.

M.3.6.6.2. Facilities and Equipment. The

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

M.3.6.6.3. 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, safety, hygiene, health and climate control.

M.3.6.6.4. 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 for GFP items.

M.3.6.6.5. Training materials. The Offeror shall describe their planned methodology to address any material needs beyond the GFP provided.

Training Facilities and Equipment, GFP accountability, and training materials. The

Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan/ methodology to support all training activities.

Additionally, 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.

M.3.6.7. Logistic support.

M.3.6.7.1. Lodging. The Offeror shall describe their planned methodology and facilities to house students while they attend

MFF, including the amenities anticipated for each student, and individual climate control

(PWS paragraph 2.9., 2.12, and 2.13.). The

Offeror shall describe how proposed lodging will meet commercial standards. The rooms

Logistics, Lodging, Food Service. The proposed plans/methodologies 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 logistics, accountability lodging and food service concepts will have on security, student scheduling, transportation, etc.

Attachment 3 shall meet best commercial practices for cleanliness and service. Describe the method to accept arriving students and to handle departing students.

M.3.6.7.2. 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, 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/ weather day meal service and how it might differ from normal weekday meal service. The plan shall describe how the students will be provided with a clean, safe and nutritious meals sufficient for their unique dietary needs. 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 that accommodates transport between training locations.

M.4. Volume III/Factor III – 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.

Attachment 3

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 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 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: Staffing and 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: CARB and Integrated Flying Operation Services includes MFF Training Program and

Aircraft Maintenance. Past performance shall describe how previous activities correlate with 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.

5: Training Curriculum Development. Past performance shall describe how previous activities correlate with the ability to design and document curriculum to meet USSOCOM Manual 350-

3 requirements.

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, 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.

M.4.3.2. 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.

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.

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.

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 awarded 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 IV/Factor IV – Small Business Participation

M.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.

M.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.

TABLE 5 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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…