ACES_Section_M_10_Oct_19_-_Changes_highlighted.pdf

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Aircraft Maintenance Enterprise Solution (ACES)

1. General Information

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1.1. This is a competitive source selection, in which technical capability and past performance will be measured on an acceptable/unacceptable basis based on the criteria established in this Section (Section M). Those offerors whose proposals are deemed acceptable in both technical capability and past performance will be awarded an Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract on the Multiple Award Contract (MAC). All MAC IDIQ contractors will compete for individual task orders.

By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Proposals addressing only a subset of the Air Force requirements, such as a specific location or type of aircraft, may be deemed incomplete and ineligible for award.

1.1.2. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.2.1. Award will be made to all responsible Offerors in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, whose proposals are technically acceptable, have acceptable past performance and conform to all solicitation requirements.

1.3. Discussions

1.3.1. The Government intends to award contracts without discussions and without the opportunity for proposal revision. Offerors shall submit sufficient information according to the format specified in the proposal preparation instructions to permit a meaningful assessment of proposals. Communications and/or exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions.

1.3.2. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision Requests (FPRR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P7_489 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/09.htm#P7_489

1.4. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.4.1. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

1.4.2. Accounting System. An adequate accounting system is not an evaluation criterion. However, a contract may only be awarded to an Offeror with a DFARS 252.242-7006 compliant accounting system determined by DCAA, the cognizant DCMA Administrative Contracting Officer (ACO) or independent CPA. Note:

Acceptability of the Independent CPA review is contingent on Contracting Officer approval.

1.4.3. Pre-award Survey. A contract may only be awarded to an Offeror who is determined responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1.

2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors for Award

2.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Cost/Price will not be evaluated at the MAC level but will be evaluated at each individual Task Order level.

2.2. Award will be made to the offerors whose proposal is determined to be acceptable based upon evaluation of factors and subfactors described below:

a. Factor 1 – Technical Capability

b. Factor 2 – Past Performance

2.3. Factor 1 – Technical Capability

2.3.1. Technical Rating: Offerors’ proposals shall demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the nature and scope of work required. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirements. The term “technical” as used herein, refers to factors other than past performance. The Government will not search for data to solve problems or address inconsistencies in an Offeror’s proposal. There are four (4) subfactors under the Technical Capability evaluation factor: 1) Aircraft Maintenance,

2) Human Resources, 3) Program Management, and 4) Small Business. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals as “Acceptable/ Unacceptable” at the Subfactor level. IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures (SSP) Table C-1, the Government will use Table M.2-1, DoD SSP:

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, to assess the Contractor’s technical acceptability. Each subfactor will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” based on whether the proposal meets the basic PWS requirements and standards along with meeting the evaluation criteria standards. In assessing the acceptability of each subfactor, any deficiency will be noted IAW the definitions located in FAR Subpart 15.001, Contracting by Negotiation – Definitions, and Chapter

5 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each the Technical Capability Subfactors. An overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. A finding of “Unacceptable” in any subfactor will render the proposal Technically Unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

Table M.2-1 - DoD SSP: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical Capability Subfactors

2.3.2. Subfactor 1. Aircraft Maintenance

2.3.2.1. Aspect I: Aircraft Maintenance Functions: The standard is met when the proposed approach:

2.3.2.1.1. Element 1a) provides specific, comprehensive processes demonstrating the capability to perform Organizational-level aircraft maintenance: sortie launch and recovery; scheduled and unscheduled maintenance; repair; Crashed, Damaged, or Disabled Aircraft Recovery (CDDAR); and aircraft inspection management to ensure sufficient mission capable primary and spare aircraft (where applicable) are available to meet daily, weekly, and monthly flying schedules.

2.3.2.1.2. Element 1b) provides specific, comprehensive processes demonstrating the capability to perform Intermediate-level aircraft maintenance: back shop support to ensure sufficient mission capable primary and spare aircraft (where applicable) are available to meet daily, weekly, and monthly flying schedules.

2.3.2.1.3. Element 1c) provides specific, comprehensive processes demonstrating the capability to perform aircraft and equipment Maintenance Support Activities: Maintenance Operations Center (MOC); Maintenance Recovery Team (MRT); Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE); Munitions Management and Storage; and Transient Alert (TA) Services to ensure sufficient mission capable primary and spare aircraft (where applicable) are available to meet daily, weekly, and monthly flying schedules.

2.3.2.1.4. Element 1d) provides specific, comprehensive processes demonstrating the capability to maintain data integrity for data systems and forms documentation (e.g., approved Maintenance Information Systems, aircraft forms, vital records, manpower expended, etc.) and demonstrates an understanding of the criticality of accurate and precise maintenance documentation.

2.3.3. Subfactor 2. Human Resources:

2.3.3.1. Aspect I: Workforce and Staffing: The standard is met when the proposed process provides:

2.3.3.1.1. Element 2a) a Staffing Plan identifying all key positions, which demonstrates a detailed strategy to recruit and retain a qualified labor pool capable of performing aircraft maintenance and related activities IAW the PWS.

2.3.3.2. Aspect II: Training. The standard is met when the proposed process demonstrates a thorough understanding of complexities and issues involved with providing a trained, qualified, and certified workforce throughout the life of the contract; and the proposal provides:

2.3.3.2.1. Element 2b) a comprehensive Training Plan and management process that demonstrates an effective strategy for formal training, classroom training, on-the-job training (OJT), and training documentation.

2.3.3.2.2. Element 2c) a comprehensive strategy that considers local, regional and/or national educational institutions to provide a workforce capable of performing aircraft maintenance services.

2.3.3.2.3. Element 2d) a comprehensive management strategy to ensure all new hires and entry-level employees obtain the applicable professional certifications/recertifications to meet PWS requirements.

2.3.4. Subfactor 3. Program Management.

2.3.4.1. Aspect I: Fleet Management. The standard is met when the proposal describes a comprehensive strategy for fleet aircraft maintenance management that minimizes impacts to aircraft availability due to conflicts associated with maintenance scheduling. The proposal also demonstrates:

2.3.4.1.1. Element 3a) A specific strategy to manage:

2.3.4.1.1.1. A smaller fleet of aircraft to meet higher

performance standards IAW the PWS (for example a fleet of 10-25 aircraft with multiple Mission Design Series (MDS) and a ~98% departure reliability rate). The focus is not on the actual size of the fleet, but the strategy to manage the complexities and dynamics associated with a smaller number of aircraft without an established flying hour schedule;

and/or,

2.3.4.1.1.2. A larger fleet of aircraft to meet moderate

performance standards IAW the PWS (for example a 70 - 80% mission capable rate). The focus is not on the actual size of the fleet, but the strategy to manage the complexities and dynamics associated with a larger number of aircraft to meet an established flying hour program.

2.3.4.1.1.3. Offerors proposing to both strategies described

above (Paragraphs 2.3.4.1.1.1 and 2.3.4.1.1.2), will be evaluated on both strategies, and must be deemed acceptable for both strategies in order to be rated Technically Acceptable overall.

2.3.4.1.2. Element 3b) a strategy to effectively utilize personnel during periods of reduced flying hour requirements, examples of which are:

expanded employee training/certification events, reduction in hanger queens, process improvements, etc.

2.3.4.2. Aspect II: Quality Management System (QMS). The standard is met when the proposed independent, contractor oriented QMS process IAW AS 9110, Quality Management Systems – Requirements for Aviation Maintenance Organizations, assures high quality maintenance with unbiased/independent internal inspection procedures; and the proposal provides:

2.3.4.2.1. Element 3c) a comprehensive Quality Control organizational structure showing clear lines of authorities and responsibilities.

2.3.4.2.2. Element 3d) a detailed method to identify discrepancies;

assess risk; analyze root causes; devise, implement, track and close corrective actions; and document discrepancy trends.

2.3.4.2.3. Element 3e) a detailed method to record, compute, assess, identify trends, and report performance measurement data (metrics).

2.3.4.2.4. Element 3f) a management structure that fosters a culture of continuous process improvement, risk management, and compliance with contractual requirements, regulatory/technical guidance, and technical data.

2.3.4.3. Aspect III: Parts Supply Management. The standard is met when the proposed strategy provides:

2.3.4.3.1. Element 3g) a comprehensive parts supply management process (forecasting, ordering, issuing and turn in) to maintain aircraft, Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE), and tools and support equipment at established levels.

2.3.5. Subfactor 4. Small Business Participation Commitment

Table M.2-2 – Small Business Subcontracting Goals

Small Business 12% of total contract dollars Small Disadvantaged Business 5% of total subcontracting dollars Woman Owned Small Business 5% of total subcontracting dollars

HUBZone Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business 3% of total subcontracting dollars

2.3.5.1. Aspect I: The Government will evaluate IAW DFARS 215.304 and PGI 215.304 (c)(i)(A) the extent to which offerors identify and commit to small businesses in performance of the contract. The requirements of the factor/subfactor are met when:

2.3.5.1.1. Element 4a): The proposal demonstrates the offeror’s understanding of a valid corporate commitment in providing small business participation performance under the contract.

Table M.2-3 – DoD SSP, Small Business Technical Acceptable/ Unacceptable Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

2.4. Factor 2. Past Performance.

2.4.1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/joint venture members and if applicable, the major subcontractor(s) demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the Contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the Offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2.4.2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government employs several approaches, including:

2.4.2.1. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(2)(ii), Proposal Evaluation, the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Contract Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS).

The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

2.4.2.2. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, joint venture member and/or major subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), the overall work record and the extent to which small business goals were met or not met. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.4.2.3. Major Subcontractors: The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members present/past performance will include the present/past performance of major subcontractor(s).

2.4.2.4. Key Personnel: The evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s/joint venture firms present/past performance and NOT on the key personnel of the Offeror’s/joint venture firm.

2.4.3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering-type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order).

Therefore, IAW Section L Paragraph 4.2.4, if the contract being submitted is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR Subpart 16.5, Indefinite-Delivery Contracts), the Offeror should also have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government will use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) under one Ordering Contract to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and performance acceptability for that Ordering Contract.

2.4.3.1. Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the Offeror should have provided the total dollar value and total period of performance for each order in the series. All orders (task or delivery) associated with a basic ordering shall be counted as one contract for the purposes of evaluation.

2.4.3.1.1. The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

2.4.3.1.2. The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation. Only orders that meet the Recency definition in Section M Paragraph 2.4.5 will be evaluated.

2.4.3.1.3. The Total Dollar Value and Total Period of Performance for the submitted effort’s series of orders, as well as the technical complexities and programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the total effort.

2.4.3.1.4. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the Offeror Points of Contact, to verify the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

2.4.3.2. Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders:

The Total Dollar Value and Total Period of Performance of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 2.4.6.2 below.

2.4.4. Small Business Subfactor: The Subfactor is met when the proposal demonstrates compliance with the requirements of FAR Subpart 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, including the extent to which small business performance objectives/requirements were met for the contracts that required submission of a Small Business Participation Commitment Document. Each offeror shall submit past performance information to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of FAR Subpart 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DEVIATIONS 2018-O0018 and 2019-O0005), including extent to which applicable goals and other small business performance objectives/requirements were met for the contracts submitted to demonstrate compliance. For past performance efforts where minimum quantitative requirements and/or goals were not met, explanation of efforts to resolve the issue(s) must be provided.

2.4.5. Recency Definition: For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as at least 12 months of the effort’s period of performance must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Recently awarded contracts must include at least 12 months of performance.

2.4.6. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the submitted contracts (no more than six (6); which can include up to three (3) complete contracts for the Prime Contractor and up to three (3) complete contracts for major subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners) that have been determined to meet the recency criteria. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each contract, or group of orders per Section M Paragraph 2.4.3.1.3, identified in Offeror’s Volume II of its proposal:

a. RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires, as described in the PWS and the Sections L and M Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

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

2.4.6.1. Note: The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the ACES program. They are as follows:

2.4.6.2. Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

2.4.6.2.1. Duration of Time: At least 12 months.

2.4.6.2.2. Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the Offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against an annual value greater than $30,000,000.00.

2.4.7. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The past performance evaluation team will review this past performance information and determine the Government’s reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. Based on the Government’s evaluation, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures (see Table M.2-4), will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Table M.2-4: DoD Source Selection Procedures, Past Performance Acceptable/ Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown (See Section M Paragraph 2.4.7.1 below).

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.4.7.1. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance [see FAR Subpart 15.305(a)(2)(iv)]. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance [see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)].

In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.