Att_4_-_52.212-2_Evaluation_(Commercial).pdf

52.212-2, Evaluation--Commercial Items (Oct 2014)

(a) The government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the government, price and other factors considered. The following factors will be used to evaluate offers:

(1) Technical

(2) Past Performance

(3) Price

Past Performance and Technical “acceptability” combined are significantly more important than price.

(b) Options. The government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the option prices are significantly unbalanced. Evaluation of options will not obligate the government to exercise the option(s).

(c) A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer, mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, will result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer's specified expiration time, the government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation - Commercial Items

The following is inserted as new paragraph (d) of the provision:

“(d) BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive Limited Tradeoff (LTO) best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Parts

12 and 15, Department of Defense (DoD) FAR Supplement Procedures, Guidance and

Information Subpart 215.3, and Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedure

(MP) 5315.3 in which competing offerors’ combined past performance information and technical

“acceptability” will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price. 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. All technically acceptable offers will be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP), if the difference in the Past

Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the Past Performance Confidence Rating. The evaluation process will include the following:

file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b522122

(1) Technical Acceptability Factor. The government will evaluate technical proposals on a pass/fail basis and assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating as described in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Technical Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals will be evaluated against the following subfactor(s):

(a) Subfactor 1, Technical Equipment

The subfactor is met when the offeror provides technical reports and/or written declarations as outlined below that meet the PWS requirements. The offeror must include the list of equipment he/she proposes to use during the life of the contract. The list shall include as a minimum: the planned number and type of aircraft (see #1); the aircraft performance (see #2); aircraft fuel burn consumption (see #3); technical characteristics and specifications (see #4).

1. All contract aircraft and flight equipment used for performance under this contract must be certified, operated, and maintained in accordance with applicable FAA regulations and directives.

Offerors will provide FAA certification and a written declaration affirming aircraft compliance with FAA regulations for operation and maintenance. (PWS para 1.3.1)

2. Aircraft used for the performance under this contract must meet the following aircraft performance characteristics PWS para 1.3. Offerors will provide aircraft-specific technical charts/performance data that demonstrates ability to perform the following requirements:

Minimum service ceiling of FL 230 Pressurized and capable of maintaining a cabin altitude of less than 10,000 MSL while at service ceiling Aircraft must have a stall speed (clean configuration) of not greater than 110 KIAS At ISA +10C, 15,000 ft MSL while carrying 750 lbs useful load plus required fuel: a minimum speed of 230 KTAS At ISA +10C, 15,000 ft MSL while carrying 750 lbs useful load plus required fuel: a minimum range of 800 nm At ISA +10C, 15,000 ft MSL while carrying 750 lbs useful load plus required fuel: capable of 60 degree bank level turns

3. Offerors will submit an average aircraft fuel burn consumption in gallons per hour in Attachment 1, Total Evaluated Price Worksheet.

4. Each aircraft used for the performance under this contract must meet the aircraft technical characteristics and mission specific requirements as outlined in the PWS Para 1.4. Offerors will provide technical documentation to prove their aircraft have or will have the capacity to install the following equipment/capabilities. If unable to produce technical documentation, offeror will make a written declaration affirming its capability to accomplish the below requirements:

Transmit & receive on the UHF radio frequency band (225 MHz to 399.975 MHz) to include simultaneous monitoring of 2.43.0 MHz (guard).

Transmit/receive on FAA VHF frequency bands, (118.000 MHz to 136.950 MHz). This radio must be approved for IFR flight at altitudes up to and including the aircraft service ceiling

VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR)/Distance Measuring Equipment (DME) Radar transponder with 4096 code capability Encoding altimeter Instrument Landing System (ILS) receiver Area navigation system Capable of providing traffic positioning and targeting data for aircraft within a 20 NM radius o Capable of operating in a decentered mode and provide bearing/range data to traffic based on a common point (bulls eye) Provide the Data Link Subsystem (DLS) antenna(s), cabling, and aircraft power connections

[Airborne Tracking Instrumentation System (ATIS) mission support aircraft only] Aircraft shall have a minimum of four (4) forward-facing seats. One (1) seat for the pilot and an additional three (3) seats for students and/or instructors. (PWS para 1.4.9.1)

(b) Subfactor 2, Technical Program Management

1. Organizational Structure: Provide an acceptable organizational chart showing staffing positions with a title and location for each position. Describe the process to recruit, hire, and retain personnel necessary to meet PWS requirements. Describes the way the offerors structure will interface with the Government.

2. Staffing Plan: Provide an acceptable staffing plan, with proposed workforce resumes to meet following requirements below:

i. All contractor employees shall have the following current and valid professional certifications before starting work under the contract:

a. Maintenance Supervisor: FAA Airframe and Propulsion (A&P) License (PWS para

4.1.2.2.1)

b. Pilots: Commercial Pilot License with instrument ratings. (PWS para 4.1.2.2.2)

c. Pilots; A minimum of one (1) Certified Flight Instructor to support internal/contractor pilot training

ii. All contractor employess shall have the following:

a. Certified in accordance with the applicable FAA directives for their respective duties

(PWS Para 4.1.3.1.1)

b. Able to operate aircraft within FAA, USAF, and host unit regulations (PWS para

4.1.3.1.2)

c. Able to operate aircraft within FAA flight time and crew duty time limitations (PWS para 4.1.3.1.3)

d. Pilots: A minium of one (1) year experience in a fighter type aircraft, flight line operations, and Battle Management Command and Control (BMC2) procuedures (PWS para 4.1.3)

e. Mainenance Personnel: Training and experience in aircraft towing, refueling/defueling (PWS para 4.1.3.)

iii. Executing tactical air-to-air and air-to-surface mission planning, briefing, mission execution, and debriefing requirements to include:

a. Executing tactical intercepts, tactical formations, and mutual support philosophies.

b. Understand the intercept phases of an air-to-air mission from the air weapons officer/weapons director perspective.

c. Executing up to 2v3 non-maneuvering/maneuvering launch and decide and launch and leave live mission using general aviation aircraft.

d. Applying positive identification (PID) and collateral damage estimation (CDE) ROE constraints in the execution of live, simulated air-to-surface mission execution.

(c) Subfactor 3, Quality Control

The subfactor is met when the offeror provides an effective approach that adequately addresses quality control and transition plan requirements as outlined in the PWS.

Provide a Quality Assurance Plan in accordance with FAA regulations for all services and materials rendered in addition to the following criteria: (PWS para 4.16)

a. Flight and ground safety program (PWS para 4.16.2)

b. Training program for aircrew and ground crew (PWS para 4.16.3)

c. Maintenance procedures and inspection schedule (PWS para 4.16.5)

d. Emergency procedures (PWS para 4.16.6)

A rating of unacceptable in one or more of the technical sub-factors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation.

(d) Subfactor 4, Transition Plan

The subfactor is met when the offeror provides an effective approach that adequately addresses the transition plan requirements as outlined in the PWS.

1. Provide a Transition Plan and describe how the transition plan meets the objective of becoming one hundred per cent self-sufficient by contract start date (PWS para 1.13.4.1).

(2) Price Evaluation Factor. The government will rank all offers by price, including all option prices. The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the total evaluated price (TEP). In addition, each offeror’s separately priced line items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

The government reserves the right to perform price realism analysis.

Total Evaluated Price: A TEP will be computed for each offer in order to meet the requirements of FAR Parts 6 and 17. The price of a six-month extension authorized by 52.217-8, Option to

Extend Services, will be added to the proposed price for each potential contract performance period.

The TEP is a two-part computation. First, the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Worksheet

(Attachment 1) will be used to calculate unit price, limited to two decimal places, for each

Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), fuel consumption rate and finally a NTE Transition Phase.

The information from the worksheet will be transferred to the Pricing Schedule (SF 1449, continutation of blocks 19 -24) for each CLIN; the sum of all extended amounts will be the offeror’s total proposed price. Second, the total proposed price (total amount for CLINs xxxx -

xxxx) plus the sum of Option to Extend Services clause 52.217-8 formula (shown below) will constitute the TEP.

The formula for the Option to Extend Service

Option Year 4 = CLIN Unit Amount * 6 mths

Evaluating the Option CLINs does not obligate the government to exercise the Options.

(3) Past Performance Factor. The government will evaluate recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (i) the references provided by the offeror, and

(ii) any past performance information obtained from survey/questionnaires (Attachment X), and

(iii) any data independently obtained by the government. If a reference identified by the offeror in accordance with 52.212-1(m)B.4(c), does not submit a survey/questionnaire, the government will follow up with the reference POC, but it is not responsible for the failure of a reference POC to provide a survey/questionnaire.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies of the offeror and/or subcontractors, key personnel, and subcontractors that will perform aspects of the requirement, if applicable (see

52.212-1(m)B.4(d)), will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror.

(A) Recent past performance information includes contracts performed and/or being performed for any customer within the last five (5) years prior to the issuance date of the solicitation.

(B) Relevant contracts performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexities to that required by this solicitation. The government will assess relevancy for each contract and assign a rating as described in Table 2 below:

Table 2. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as the effort 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.

(C) Performance Quality Assessment: For each of the recent past performance information reviewed, the performance quality of work will be assessed based on the (i) Quality Assessment

Criteria evaluated under Section 4C of Past Performance Questionnaire (Solicitation Attachment

2) and (ii) the evaluation ratings in the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS), if available.

(D) The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the

Government has in the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory

Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Neutral Confidence. Offerors with no recent past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will receive the rating “Unknown

Confidence,” meaning the offeror is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral). As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments, offerors will receive an integrated past performance confidence assessment rating as described in Table 3 below:

TABLE 3. Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

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 effort.

SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In evaluating past performance, the government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in this solicitation.

(4) The government intends to award a contract without discussions with respective offerors.

The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

(5) Integrated Assessment. In order to be considered for award, the offeror’s technical proposal must be rated as “Acceptable.” The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest price offer if the difference in the Past Performance Confidence Rating of another offeror justifies the higher price premium. In that event, the Source Selection

Authority will make an integrated assessment best value award decision using the TEP and the

Past Performance Confidence Rating.”