Draft_ACES_Section_M_20_May_19.docx

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 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, will 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. The Government intends to award up to eleven (11) IDIQ contracts for the ACES MAC. However, if more than eleven (11) offerors are deemed acceptable, the Government reserves the right to award more than eleven (11) contracts.

1.3. Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP)

1.3.1. For Task Orders, the Government intends to eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP through price adjustments or cost assessments.

1.4. Discussions

1.4.1. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. 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 and the government reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.4.2. 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.

1.5. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.5.1. 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.

2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors for Award

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

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical Capability

2.2.1. 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. In Accordance With (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 element 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 element, any weakness or deficiency will be noted IAW the definitions located in FAR Part 15.001 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 element of each Technical Subfactor. An overall factor-level rating will not be assigned. A finding of “Unacceptable” in any subfactor, or element thereof, will render the proposal Technically Unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Award will be made to all responsible Offerors whose proposals are technically acceptable, have acceptable past performance and conform to all solicitation requirements.

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

Technical Capability Subfactors

2.2.2. Subfactor 1. Aircraft Maintenance

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

2.2.2.1.1. Element 1a) demonstrates specific, Operational-level aircraft maintenance processes, to include but not limited to: sortie launch and recovery, maintenance, repair, 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.

2.2.2.1.2. Element 1b) demonstrates specific, Intermediate-level aircraft maintenance processes, to include but not limited to: back shop support to ensure sufficient mission capable primary and spare aircraft (where applicable) are available to meet daily, weekly, and monthly flying schedules.

2.2.2.1.3. Element 1c) demonstrates capability to perform all aspects of aircraft and equipment Maintenance Support Activities, to include but not limited to: Maintenance Operations Control (MOC), Maintenance Recovery Team (MRT), Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE), Munitions Management and Storage, Transient Alert (TA) Services, and Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) to ensure sufficient mission capable primary and spare aircraft (where applicable) are available to meet daily, weekly, and monthly flying schedules.

2.2.2.1.4. Element 1d) provides adequate processes to maintain data integrity for data systems and forms documentation (e.g., approved Maintenance Information Systems, aircraft forms, vital records, manpower expended, etc.).

2.2.3. Subfactor 2. Human Resources:

2.2.3.1. Aspect I: Workforce and Staffing: The standard is met when the proposed process demonstrates:

2.2.3.1.1. Element 2a) a Staffing Plan identifying key personnel and positions, which provides a detailed strategy to recruit and retain an experienced labor pool, and which complies with Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) limitations and mandates, where applicable. The Staffing Plan shall also address cross-utilization plans, if applicable.

2.2.3.2. 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:

2.2.3.2.1. Element 2b) a Training Plan and management process that provides an effective strategy for formal training, classroom training, on-the-job training (OJT), and training documentation. The Training Plan shall also address cross-utilization and remedial training programs.

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

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

2.2.4. Subfactor 3. Program Management.

2.2.4.1. Aspect I: Fleet Management. The standard is met when the proposal describes a strategy for fleet aircraft maintenance management that optimizes aircraft availability by effectively utilizing available resources to accomplish operational requirements. The proposal also provides:

2.2.4.1.1. Element 3a) a specific strategy to manage a small fleet of one to forty (1-40) aircraft to meet high (~98%) departure reliability rate standards IAW the PWS. The focus is not on the actual size of the fleet, but the strategy to manage a small number of aircraft to meet a high departure reliability rate without an established flying hour schedule.

2.2.4.1.2. Element 3b) a specific strategy to manage a large fleet of over forty (40) aircraft to meet moderate (70-80%) mission capable rate standards IAW the PWS. The focus is not on the actual size of the fleet, but the strategy to manage a number of aircraft to meet an established flying hour program.

2.2.4.2. Aspect II: Quality Management System (QMS). The standard is met when the proposed independent, contractor oriented QMS process assures high quality maintenance with unbiased/independent internal inspection procedures; and the proposal provides:

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

2.2.4.2.2. Element 3d) a method to identify discrepancies; analyze root causes; devise, implement, track and close corrective actions; and document discrepancy trends.

2.2.4.2.3. Element 3e) a method to record, compute, assess, and report performance measurement data (metrics).

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

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

2.2.4.3.1. Element 3g) a 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.

2.2.5. Subfactor 4. Small Business Participation.

2.2.5.1. Small Business Participation Commitment Document: Per DFARS 215.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures, the Government will evaluate the Offerors’ Small Business Participation Commitment Document on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the criteria in Table M.2-3.

2.2.5.2. Aspect I: For Large Business Prime Offerors ONLY: The Subfactor is met when the Small Business Subcontracting Plan and proposal:

2.2.5.2.1. Element 4a): Demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of a valid corporate commitment between all parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, and Service Disabled Veteran-owned Small Business.

2.2.5.2.2. Element 4b): Provides a Small Business Subcontracting Plan IAW FAR 19.7 (basic contract requirement) and a narrative demonstrating the prime's corporate commitment to the following goals. The narrative must provide a clear description of how the Offeror intends to provide maximum practicable opportunity (goals) to the following small businesses as set below.

Table M.2.2 – Small Business Participation Goals

2.2.5.2.3. Element 4c): Demonstrates the maximum practicable opportunity for achievement of total awarded subcontracting dollars for each socio-economic small business category listed above.

2.2.5.2.4. Element 4d): Provides goals and adheres to requirements listed in FAR 52.219-9 with its Alternate II, DFARS 52.219-7003 and AFFARS 5319.704 to meet contract requirements. The Offeror’s subcontracting plan meets the requirements of FAR 19.7. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted by the Offeror, is not evaluated as part of the Subfactor, it is a basic contract requirement.

2.2.5.3. Aspect II: For Small Business Prime Offerors ONLY. Per DFARS 215.3 and DoD Source Selection Procedures. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document. The requirements of the Subfactor are met when:

2.2.5.3.1. Element 4e) the Offeror provides a Small Business Participation Commitment Document that adequately addresses the requirements of FAR 52.219-8.

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

2.3. Factor 2. Past Performance.

2.3.1. 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 critical 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.

2.3.2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government may employ several approaches, including:

2.3.2.1. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), 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 Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). 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.

2.3.2.2. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, joint venture member and/or critical 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), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.3.2.3. Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members present/past performance will include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s).

2.3.2.4. 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.

2.3.3. 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 16.5), 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) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

2.3.3.1. 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.

2.3.3.1.1. 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.

2.3.3.1.2. 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 2.3.4 will be evaluated.

2.3.3.1.3. 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.

2.3.3.1.4. 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.

2.3.3.2. 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 2.3.5.2 below.

2.3.4. 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 and include at least 12 months of performance.

2.3.5. 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 recent six (6) submitted contracts 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 2.3.3. 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.

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

2.3.5.1. 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:

2.3.5.2. Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

2.3.5.2.1. Duration of Time: At least 12 months.

2.3.5.2.2. 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 of between $30,000,000 and $80,000,000.

2.3.6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

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

2.3.6.1. 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 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”.