Atch_3_Eval_Criteria.pdf

Headquarters Air Combat Command

(HQ ACC)

Air Combat Command Safety Directorate, ACC/SE

Evaluation Methodology/Criteria

And

Instruction to Offerors

For

Remotely Piloted Aircraft Line Operations Safety Audit (RPA LOSA)

FA4890-16-R-0030

Attachment 3

Evaluation Methodology and Criteria

A. Evaluation Methodology. This is a best value source selection. The government will utilize the Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) evaluation method for this requirement. LPTA source selection method is a simplified best value source selection strategy that permits award to the lowest priced offeror that meets the minimum requirements identified in the PWS. The government will award a contract to the contractor whose written response is technically acceptable and the lowest price. The government will conduct the source selection evaluation as follows:

(1) Evaluation Pool. The government intends to establish an initial evaluation pool of the three lowest priced proposals, in addition to any proposals within 10% of the average of the three lowest priced proposals. The Government will evaluate technical proposals of offerors in the initial evaluation pool. Those outside the initial evaluation pool will not be evaluated, unless necessary to obtain the desired effective competition of three offers rated as “acceptable” in all technical subfactors or until all offerors have been evaluated.

The Government reserves the right to not evaluate all offerors in the evaluation pool once three (3) offers in the initial evaluation pool are determined technically acceptable.

(2) The government will evaluate an offeror’s written technical proposal to determine to what degree the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements of the PWS. Technical acceptability will be rated at the subfactor level, assigning each subfactor a rating of “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable”. An offeror’s proposal must be rated “Acceptable” in all Technical subfactors to be eligible for award. Proposals that exceed the evaluation criteria will not receive higher ratings. In assessing the acceptability of each subfactor, the Government will identify any deficiencies in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, Chapter 3, and paragraph 3.5.4 and as defined in Chapter 5 (see definition below).

Proposals that receive deficiencies in a subfactor will receive an “Unacceptable” subfactor rating.

The Government will then evaluate the Price of offerors rated “Acceptable” in all technical subfactors.

Table A-1. Technical Evaluation Descriptors

Deficiency

A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001

(3) Past performance will be evaluated based on responsibility analysis in accordance with

FAR 9.104. The standards contained within FAR 9.104-1, including having a record of satisfactory performance record and integrity and business ethics, serve as the guidelines for this determination. The offeror must be determined responsible to receive the contract.

Please provide up to three (3) samples of relevant past performance with Point of contact/Telephone Number.

(4) Award for All of the Work. The government intends to award contract as a result of this solicitation. Offers received for less than all the work reflected in the PWS will be considered ineligible for award.

(5) As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in

FAR 15.306(a), Clarifications and award without discussions). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting

Officer later determines them necessary. In the event that discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made.

(6) Factors. This LPTA source selection will result in evaluation of two factors: Technical and Price.

a. Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail that substantiates stated claims. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the government’s requirements, but rather provide convincing rationale to address how the offeror intends to meet requirements. The offerors shall assume that the government has no prior knowledge of the offeror’s capabilities. The government will base its evaluation solely on information presented in the offeror’s written

Technical Proposal. The Technical Proposal will be limited to ten (10) pages. A page is defined as one side of a standard 8-1/2" x 11' sheet, with margins no smaller than one

(1) inch. The font used shall be no smaller than Times New Roman size 12.

Qualification Summaries (RFP Attachment 4) are not included in the 10 page technical proposal page limits. A Table of Contents (ToC) and compliance matrix are not proposal requirements but can be provided at the discretion of each offeror. If an offeror chooses to provide a ToC and compliance matrix, these documents will not count toward the 10-page technical proposal page limit.

A determination will be rendered as to whether the technical proposal is evaluated as

Acceptable or Unacceptable as follows:

Table A-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

b. Price Proposal. Please submit price proposals on a Firm Fixed Price basis. Travel is cost reimbursable. The government estimates travel on this contract as $30K annually, not to exceed $90Kover the life of the contract. When preparing the Price Proposal, offerors shall apply a travel handling rate (G&A), as appropriate, to the estimated travel and submit as part of the Price Proposal. The offeror is responsible for proposing pricing for all task associated with the PWS requirement. Price proposal will be limited to three (3) pages. The CLIN Structure will be as follow: FFP for Labor (unit of issue, LOT) and Cost Reimbursable for Travel (unit of issue, LOT).

Tradeoffs are not permitted and no evaluation credit is given to aspects of an offeror’s proposal that exceed acceptability standards. This acquisition will result in a firm fixed price contract, with cost reimbursable line item for travel as specified in the PWS.

B. Evaluation Criteria - Evaluation criteria consist of factors and subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated using two evaluation factors: Technical and Price.

(1) Factor 1–Technical: In the evaluation of the technical proposals, the following criteria will be used:

a. Sub-Factor 1- Knowledge, Skills and Abilities (KSA): The offeror’s proposal shall provide a clear and easily understood summary of qualifications for proposed candidates with, at a minimum, knowledge, skills, abilities and qualifications reflected in PWS paragraphs 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5 (use KSA template included in RFP

Attachment 4).

Criteria–The offeror’s proposal adequately describes proposed candidate qualifications through applicable education, certification, and experience meeting minimum requirements of the KSAs outlined in PWS paragraphs 4.5.1, 4.5.2, 4.5.

b. Sub-Factor 2 – Observer Training Plan, Curriculum and Oversight: The offeror’s proposal shall describe the offeror’s proposed LOSA observer training curriculum, training plan and Observer Oversight Management.

Criteria–The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate their ability to develop and manage a customized Observer Curriculum and training plan to ensure that military observers, with no previous LOSA experience, are fully qualified by completion of the contractor provided observer training. Additionally, the offeror’s proposal will fully describe their management plan to ensure real-time observer oversight is conducted as well as planned corrective measures.

c. Sub-Factor 3 – Threat and Error Management (TEM) Methodology and

Analysis: The offeror’s proposal shall describe and demonstrate ability to develop customized threat and error methodology based on the MQ-9 operations.

Criteria – The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate their ability to develop TEM

Methodology to observe and document threats and errors during preflight, flight and post-flight operations. The offeror’s proposal will also fully demonstrate their ability to analyze the LOSA data to develop written narratives documenting the threats, errors, undesired aircraft states, crew resource management, crew coordination, and subjective aircrew comments and surveys.

d. Sub-Factor 4 – LOSA Data Collection and Analysis Solution. The offeror’s proposal shall describe and demonstrate ability to create an end-to-end solution

(hardware, software, network-connectivity) for LOSA data collection and analysis.

Criteria - The offeror’s proposal will fully address their capability to develop and employ a Contractor- provided, end-to-end LOSA software solution (hardware, software, network connectivity) that manages original raw data observations, supports LOSA analysis and provides archiving of previous aircrew and aircraft analysis for comparison with future LOSA observations and subsequent trending.

The offeror’s proposal will also fully demonstrate their ability to create a solution to efficiently and methodically collect, analyze, store and search/query collected data.

(2) Factor 2–Price: This source selection is conducted with the expectation of adequate price competition and will rely on market forces and the price analysis to ensure awarded prices are reasonable.

a. Comparison of proposed prices received in response to this solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. The techniques and procedures described under

FAR Subpart 15.404.1 will be the primary means of assessing price submission reasonableness as prescribed in FAR 16.505(b)(3). An offer may be determined un-awardable if its price is evaluated as unfair or unreasonable.

b. Total evaluated price will consist of the sum of all proposed labor, end-to-end solution (hardware, software, network-connectivity), LOSA analysis, observer training and cost reimbursable travel for the base period and all option periods. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price proposal meeting the minimum technically acceptable criteria in accordance with PWS.