Draft_RFP_Section_M_20190829.pdf

Draft FA489019RA021 – Section M

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1 BASIS FOR AWARD

A tradeoff source selection process will obtain best value in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures effective 31 Mar 2016.

The Government will award one contract from this solicitation to the responsible (IAW FAR Part 9) Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered.

An award can be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror if the Source Selection Authority determines that it is in the best interest of the Government to do so.

Should the Government determine that discussions are necessary, a competitive range determination will be made prior to conducting. This range will be comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of all tradeoff factors.

The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors in writing when their proposals are excluded from the competitive range or otherwise eliminated from the competition. That notice shall state the basis for the determination and that a proposal revision will not be considered.

Evaluation Notices (EN) will be issued to Offerors in the competitive range. Formal responses to ENs and final proposal revisions will be considered in making the source selection decision for award.

Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be submitted by each Offeror in the competitive range at the conclusion of discussions. Unexplained, or inadequately explained, revisions or exceptions to terms and conditions may significantly impact evaluation of the Offeror's proposal. Significant departures from previous proposal submissions may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTORS AND METHODOLOGY

All proposals will be evaluated using five factors:

1. Management Capability (3 equal subfactors:)

A. Program Management B. Quality Management System C. Logistics Management

2. Past Performance

3. Small Business

4. Transition Plan

5. Price

The evaluation will be a two-step process.

Step 1 – Prerequisite (Reference: Section L-4.1) AS9110 certification is required from the Prime Offeror. If a certificate is not provided, the Offeror’s proposal will NOT be evaluated.

Step 2 – Tradeoff Criteria

All factors will be evaluated using a tradeoff process. The relative importance of these tradeoff factors are listed in order:

1. Management Capability (Factor 1) is the most important non-price factor with its three subfactors of equal importance to one another.

Subfactor A Program Management

= Subfactor B Quality Management System = Subfactor C Logistics Management

2. Past Performance (Factor 2) is the second most important non-price factor.

3. Small Business (Factor 3) is third in order of importance of non-price factors.

4. Transition plan (Factor 4) is the least important of the non-price factors.

All factors above, when combined, are significantly more important than price. However, as proposals become more equal amongst these non-price tradeoff factors, the evaluated price becomes more important.

M-3 EVALUATING FACTOR 1, MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY

(Reference Section L-4.2)

Proposals will be evaluated on how well they provide the following for each subfactor:

Subfactor A, Program Management.

An effective integrated management approach that demonstrates an organizational structure that consists of an appropriate leadership hierarchy, manning levels and skill sets by position, skill sets by position, shop or function, and shift, assigned roles and responsibilities, lines of authority, and cohesive functional relationships to meet provided workload data and execute all PWS requirements.

A comprehensive communication approach that consists of effective lines of communication, reporting, progress checkpoints, and interfaces between management, technical staff, subcontractors/teaming partners, and the Government to ensure continuity and mission success.

An effective integrated approach to attract, train, and retain qualified management and technical personnel by job category/position to execute all PWS requirements.

Subfactor B, Quality Management System (QMS).

An effective approach for continuous pro-active preventative-based monitoring, measurement, and analysis program in compliance with AS9110 that uses quantifiable metrics and focuses on conformance to all PWS requirements and company QMS.

Subfactor C, Logistics Management.

An effective methodology to plan, execute, manage, and control the life-cycle for Government Furnished Property.

An effective approach to properly use and positively influence Air Force supply chain operations at retail and wholesale levels from acquisition of supplies materials and equipment to include demand planning, grounded weapon system mitigation, retrograde of line item replacement units and disposition.

FACTOR 1 RATINGS

Each subfactor above will be assigned a technical and risk rating from the following charts. The ratings from each of the subfactors will contribute to the overall evaluation rating of Factor 1.

All subfactors must have a final technical evaluation rating of at least Acceptable (Green) and a risk rating no worse than moderate in order to receive contract award.

Technical Ratings for Factor 1 Color Adjective 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 meets requirements and indicates 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 of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and is unawardable.

Risk Ratings for Factor 1 Adjective Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost, 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, increased cost, 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-4 EVALUATING FACTOR 2, PAST PERFORMANCE

(Reference Section L-4.3 and DoD Source Selection Guided dated March 31, 2016)

A Performance Confidence Rating will be assigned to each Offeror based on three aspects of past performance evaluation. Past performance information determined non recent or not relevant will not be further evaluated or used in the performance confidence assessment.

1. Recency: Each PPI must be determined recent in order to be considered relevant. Recent is an active contract performance (minimum of 12 months) during the last three years as of the release date of this solicitation. Contracts that were started prior to this time, but still in effect with active performance (minimum of 12 months) as of three years from the date of this solicitation, will be considered recent.

2. Relevancy: The following criteria will be used to determine the relevancy of each recent PPI submitted:

Relevancy Ratings for Factor 2 Rating Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved organizational and intermediate-level aircraft maintenance services contract for AF fighter or fighter trainer aircraft maintained IAW AFI 21-101, applying an AS9110 quality management system, with a total contract value greater than $100M on a multiple year, fixed price contract. Demonstrated experience working with unionized workforce in past efforts.

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved organizational or intermediate-level aircraft maintenance services contract for military fighter or fighter trainer aircraft maintained IAW technical directives, applying an AS9110 quality management system, with a total contract value greater than $70M on a multiple year cost or fixed price contract. Demonstrated experience working with unionized workforce in past efforts.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved organizational or intermediate-level aircraft maintenance services contract with military aircraft maintained IAW technical directives on a multiple year cost or fixed price contract.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort, and complexities this solicitation requires.

3. Quality: The Government will review all recent and relevant past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. A separate quality assessment rating will not be assigned, but rather the Offeror's overall record of performance quality will be used to assign a confidence rating.

Each offeror will receive one overall performance confidence rating, as follows:

Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation subfactor; or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised).

The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b)(4), communications must be held with any Offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings for Factor 2 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 record 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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors without a record of relevant and recent past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably nor unfavorably, and as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for this factor.

M-4 EVALUATING FACTOR 3, SMALL BUSINESS

(Reference Section L-4.4)

Proposals will be evaluated on the extent of commitment to small business in the performance of the contract. The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) for the following to determine if it meets or exceeds the requirement.

a. list of small businesses, by name, and the products/services they will provide with NAICS code;

b. the type and complexity of supplies/services to be provided by small business;

c. the extent of commitment (e.g. letters of intent, teaming agreements, mentor protégé, etc.);

d. how the Offeror will meet the total small business minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of

30% of total contract value; and

e. both percentage and dollar breakouts of total small business participation by socio-economic category.

Proposals will also be evaluated on how well their past performance complies with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

Large business Offerors will be evaluated on how well their subcontracting plan follows FAR 52.219-9 Alt II.

Small Business Ratings for Factor 3 Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives..

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M-5 EVALUATING FACTOR 4, TRANSITION PLAN

(Reference: Section L-4.5)

Proposals will be evaluated on how well their transition plan addresses the following:

a) Realistic milestones to execute transition tasks in the mandated timeframe, to include interfacing with the incumbent contractor in support of transition tasks.

b) Effective approach to hire incumbent personnel and/or fill incumbent vacancies with trained/qualified personnel to perform contract tasks and responsibilities at contract start.

c) Effective process to acquire and integrate open actions (work orders, requisitions etc.) at contract start to ensure continuity and timely completion of open items.

FACTOR 4 RATINGS

The factor above will be assigned a technical and risk rating from the following charts. This factor must have a final technical evaluation rating of at least Acceptable (Green) and a risk rating no worse than moderate in order to receive contract award.

Technical Ratings for Factor 4 Color Adjective 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 meets requirements and indicates 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 of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and is unawardable.

Risk Ratings for Factor 4 Adjective Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost, 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, increased cost, 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-6 EVALUATING FACTOR 5, PRICE

(Reference Section L-4.6)

Price proposals will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the Government receives a fair, reasonable, and balanced price. The basis for a fair and reasonable determination will be the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). In the event that reasonableness cannot be determined based on competition and the comparison to the Government’s IGCE, other than cost and pricing data shall be used.

TEP consists of the Offeror’s pricing for the firm-fixed-price (FFP) contract line items (CLINs):

X001 – Nellis Aircraft Maintenance and Mission Support Services (base and all option years) X002 – Falcon (F-16) Aircraft Maintenance Unit (AMU) (base and all option years) X003 – Thunder (A-10) AMU (optional base year and all option years) 0099 – 100-day Transition Support

As well as the Government provided amounts for the award fee and cost reimbursable CLINs:

X005 – Performance Incentive / Award Fee X006 – TDY Support and Government Directed Travel

X007 – Reimbursable Expenses

The Government will evaluate all options and the provision FAR 52.217-5, Evaluation of Options, is included in this solicitation. This does not obligate the Government to exercise any options during performance of the contract.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s proposal (reasonableness and completeness).