FA564120R0003_-_JTAC_CAS_-_Addendum_to_Section_M.pdf

M-1 EVALUATION OF OFFERS

A. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection (FAR 15.101-2) conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 01 April 2016, and Air Force

Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 25 May 2018. The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the addendum to Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to which demonstrates acceptable technical capability and acceptable past performance. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Evaluation Process. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Step 1 (Price/Contract Documentation Evaluation) – The Government will first evaluate the pricing of all responsive proposals. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award. The Government will rank the offerors from lowest to highest total evaluated price

(TEP). TEP is defined as the sum total of pricing on:

(1) All FFP CLINs for the base and all option periods,

(2) 115 additional flying hours in the base period (3 additional months of service), and

(3) Half the total flying hours in each option period (6 additional months of service).

The latter two amounts are included to evaluate potential future use of the Option to Extend services

IAW the clause at 52.217-8 (a requirement for future utilization of the clause at any stage of the contract's life).

Step 2 (Technical Evaluation) - After evaluating the pricing of all responsive proposals, the Government will then evaluate the lowest TEP proposal for Technical acceptability. If that offeror's technical proposal is

“Unacceptable”, the Government will evaluate the next lowest TEP offeror's technical proposal, continuing this process until an “Acceptable” technical proposal is identified. The Government will evaluate three factors for

Technical:

Factor 1: Phase-In Plan

Factor 2: Technical

Capability Factor 3: Past

Experience

Factor 1: Phase-In Plan - The standard is met when the offeror's technical proposal clearly documents a thorough understanding of the tasks required for a successful phase-in and documents acceptable processes that lead to the successful and timely start of performance. Acceptable processes are defined as those tasks and procedures that will ensure a timely and successful phase-in. Failure to fully address the required information may render the plan “Unacceptable”.

Factor 2: Technical Capability - The standard is met at the factor level when the offeror's technical proposal is “Acceptable” on each individual subfactor. The standard for Subfactor 1 is met when the offeror's proposed required aircraft clearly demonstrate the offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the PWS. The standard for Subfactor 2 is met when the offeror's proposed required equipment clearly demonstrates the offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the PWS. The standard for Subfactor 3 is met when the resume provided clearly meets all pilot/aircrew capability requirements under PWS section 1.2.4.

Factor 3 - Past Experience - The standard is met at the factor level when the offeror's technical proposal is “Acceptable” on each individual subfactor. The Government will first assess recency and relevancy of the past experience. Recent is defined as efforts that are ongoing or have been performed for any period of time during the previous three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Relevant is defined as flying training support services similar in scope to the tasks outlined under PWS section 1.2, at a magnitude in excess of 100 flight hours per calendar year. The standard is met for Subfactor 1 when the offeror provides at least one (1) completed citation with all required information that is recent and relevant. The standard is met for Subfactor 2 when the combined total of documented past experience shows recent experience performing all required tasks of the PWS noted in the matrix in Section L. The government is not bound by an offerors' opinion of a project's relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

Proposals must be rated “Acceptable” for all technical factors and subfactors, in order to be determined technically “Acceptable.” Once a technically acceptable offer is identified, the Government intends to evaluate the next lowest-priced offeror for technical acceptability via the process noted above. This evaluation will be utilized solely to substantiate the presence of adequate competition as part of the Government's overall determination of price fairness and reasonableness, and once two technically acceptable offers are identified, technical evaluations will conclude.

Step 3 (Past Performance Evaluation) - Past Performance is a required evaluation criteria IAW DFARS

215.304(c)(3)(i)(B). The lowest priced, technically acceptable offer's Past Performance will be evaluated on an

"Acceptable/Unacceptable" basis. The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's likelihood of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of

“Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

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.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror's performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror's Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Past and Present Performance Questionnaires

(PPQs, a template will be included with the solicitation); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the

Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

Past performance regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be rated as highly as past performance information for the principal offeror. The past performance information provided in the proposal, PPQs and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

If the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror's past performance is determined to be “Acceptable,” the evaluation process will stop and the award made to that offeror IAW the definition of best value noted above.

If the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror's past performance is determined to be “Unacceptable,” the

Government will evaluate the next technical proposal in order of TEP. This process will continue, as needed, until an offeror is rated “Acceptable” for Past Performance.

C. Discussions. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. 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 (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.