EVALUATION_CRITERIA_-_SMALL_BUSINESS_POOL--Section_M.docx

SMALL BUSINESS SET-ASIDE POOL

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Rotary Wing Maintenance Contract Consolidation

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive source selection using Subjective Tradeoff, in which technical acceptability and past performance, when combined, are 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 sub factors.

If the lowest priced technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” performance rating and the offeror is determined to be responsible, that offer represents the best value for the government. The evaluation process will continue with the next lowest offer and so forth, until up to 5 offerors with “Substantial Confidence” have been evaluated. It is within the government’s discretion to make award to offerors with lower price and less than substantial performance confidence when the Source Selection Authority’s (SSA) integrated assessment indicates that it is the best value to the government.

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.

The term “adequate” is used several times in this document. An adequate response is defined as meeting the requirements of the PWS and applicable instructions or technical data referenced in the PWS (see Attachment 12-Cross Reference Matrix as a reference). If a response is in conflict with these documents then it will be considered inadequate.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to 10 (up to 5 Full and Open Competition contractors and up to 5 Small Business Set Aside contractors) multiple award indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (ID/IQ) contracts for the Rotary Wing Maintenance Contract Consolidation program.

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

The Government intends to eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP) through price adjustments or cost assessments.

1.4 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions. Offerors shall submit sufficient information and in 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.

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. 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 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

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 sub factors. 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.

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Sub factors for Award

The following evaluation factors and sub factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offerors whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub factors described below:

3.0 Factor 1 – Technical

The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable /unacceptable basis assigning one of the ratings described below for the technical subfactor. To be eligible for award, offerors are required to receive an “Acceptable” rating in each Technical Subfactor. If an offeror’s proposal has an “Unacceptable” rating for any Technical Subfactor, this proposal will be unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The term “technical” as used herein, refers to non-price factors other than past performance. The purpose of the technical factor is to assess whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the government’s minimum requirements. IAW DOD Source Selection Procedures Table C-1, the Government will use the following table to assess the contractor’s technical acceptability:

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Sub factor 1: Aircraft Maintenance

This sub-factor assesses the offeror’s over-arching strategy to effectively manage and execute the aircraft maintenance mission. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Sub factor 1: Aircraft Maintenance

Aircraft Maintenance Functions: Provide detailed procedure to perform the following:

1a) Ensure sufficient mission capable primary and spare aircraft are available to meet daily, weekly, and monthly flying schedules.

1b) Execute off-station recovery of aircraft in a timely manner while maintaining aircraft availability to meet the daily mission flying schedule.

1c) Ensure processes for data integrity are maintained for data systems and forms documentation (e.g., Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS), Aircraft Forms, Vital Records, etc.)...

Aircraft Maintenance Functions: The standard is met when the proposed procedure provides:

1a) Adequate processes to ensure sufficient mission capable primary and spare aircraft are available to meet daily, weekly, and monthly flying schedules.

1b) Adequate processes to execute off-station recovery of aircraft in a timely manner while maintaining aircraft availability to meet the daily mission flying schedule.

1c) Adequate processes to maintain data integrity for data systems and forms documentation (e.g., Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS), Aircraft Forms, Vital Records, etc.) in accordance with the PWS.

Organizational Structure (Workforce and Staffing): Present an organizational structure to meet the FAIRCHILD AFB PWS ANNEX (ATTACHMENT 1A) requirements while complying with Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) limitations/mandates that:

1d) Provides detailed descriptions of the proposed roles and responsibilities for each organizational element (e.g. work center or shop)

1e) Provides a completed Staffing/Skill (job classification)/Shift Summary Matrix (ref: RFP, Section J, Attachment) for the base period and each option period 1f) Provides a chart that demonstrates how “one-deep” positions are backed up with fully trained and certified personnel 1g) Provides a detailed and adequate strategy to recruit, train and retain an experienced labor pool. In addition, strategy ensures employees (e.g. maintenance, aircrew and Aircrew Flight Equipment personnel) are fully qualified, with training, certifications and qualifications remaining current for the duration of the contract.

1h) Provides a process for staffing Tacoma Command Post Requirements at Cusick WA IAW the Fairchild PWS Annex.

Organizational Structure (Workforce and Staffing): The standard is met when the proposed process demonstrates a thorough understanding of workforce size, roles, and qualifications required to meet the FAIRCHILD AFB PWS ANNEX (ATTACHMENT 1A) requirements while complying with Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) limitations and mandates and the proposal provides:

1d) Adequate descriptions of the proposed roles and responsibilities for each organizational element 1e) A complete and adequate Staffing/Skill (job classification)/Shift Summary Matrix (ref: RFP, Section J, Attachment) for the base period and each option period 1f) A complete and adequate chart depicting a realistic process that demonstrates how “one-deep” positions are backed up with fully trained and certified personnel 1g) Detailed and adequate strategy to recruit, train and retain an experienced labor pool. In addition, strategy ensures employees (e.g. maintenance, aircrew and Aircrew Flight Equipment personnel) are fully qualified, with training, certifications and qualifications remaining current for the duration of the contract.

1h) Adequate process for staffing Tacoma Command Post Requirements at Cusick WA IAW the Fairchild PWS Annex.

Manpower Calculations:

1i) Provide CBA compliant manpower determination process/rationale with supporting mathematical computations for determining all proposed staffing IAW THE FAIRCHILD AFB PWS ANNEX (ATTACHMENT 1A). NOTE: Include mathematical calculations used to determine manning assignments for ALL full-time and part-time staff during each performance period. The manpower determination documentation must include:

Productive man-year calculations broken down by productive work hours (“on equipment” direct support) and non-productive work hours to include projections for each performance period.

Process used to assign staff to shift(s) and skills (classification/level).

Explanation, to include supporting calculations, of all upward or downward manning adjustments planned after full performance begins, for each performance period and for each organizational element impacted.

Manpower Calculations:

1i) The standard is met when the proposed manpower demonstrates adequate staffing IAW THE KIRTLAND AFB PWS ANNEX (ATTACHMENT 1B), in a CBA compliant manner, and is supported by logical mathematical calculations used to determine ALL full-time and part-time manning assignments during each option period to include productive and non-productive hours.

Demonstrates adequate productive man-year calculations broken down by productive work hours (“on equipment” direct support) and non-productive work hours to include projections for each performance period.

Demonstrates the process used to assign staff to shift(s) and skills (classification/level).

Provides adequate explanation, to include supporting calculations, of all upward or downward manning adjustments planned after full performance begins, for each performance period and for each organizational element impacted.

Sub factor 2: Aircrew Services: This sub-factor assesses the offeror’s strategy to sustain adequate and compliant mission support with trained and qualified aircrews. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Sub factor 2: Aircrew Services

Conducting Ground Flight Operations: Present a strategy to:

2a) Establish and sustain safe ground and flight operations that comply with DCMA INST 8210.1C, “Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations,”

2b) Ensure successful completion of all aircrew services to meet Basic PWS requirements Conducting Ground Flight Operations: The standard is met when the proposed strategy provides:

2a) Adequate strategy to establish and sustain safe ground and flight operations that comply with DCMA INST 8210.1C, “Contractor’s Flight and Ground Operations,”

2b) Adequate strategy to ensure successful completion of all aircrew services to meet Basic PWS requirements

Sub factor 3: Program Management: This sub-factor assesses the offeror’s plan to sustain adequate and compliant mission support with a trained workforce in an environment that identifies and corrects deficiencies. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Sub factor 3: Program Management

Fleet Management: Present a strategy for fleet aircraft maintenance management that minimizes depot, phase, aircraft support and major maintenance from creating aircraft availability conflicts.

The proposal shall include a strategy to:

3a) Manage a fleet of one to ten (1-10) aircraft to meet minimum aircraft availability and mission capable rate standards IAW THE FAIRCHILD AFB PWS ANNEX (ATTACHMENT 1A).

Fleet Management. The standard is met when the proposed strategy describes a detailed process for managing maintenance on a fleet of aircraft that minimizes depot, phase, aircraft support and major maintenance from creating aircraft availability conflicts, and the proposal includes:

3a) An adequate strategy to manage a fleet of one to ten (1-10) aircraft to meet minimum aircraft availability and mission capable rate standards IAW THE FAIRCHILD AFB PWS ANNEX (ATTACHMENT 1A).

Quality Management System (QMS). Provide a detailed QMS process that assures high quality maintenance with unbiased/independent internal inspection procedures. The proposed process shall include, but is not limited to:

3b) Complete Quality Control organizational chart with a supporting narrative identifying precise lines of authority and responsibilities (include augmentees, if applicable).

3c) Methods to identify and track discrepancies, analyze root causes, and document discrepancy trends.

3d) Corrective action strategy to include implementation, follow-up, monitoring and timely closure of identified discrepancies.

3e) System to record, compute, assess and report performance measurement data.

3f) Link QMS trends/results into training program focus areas.

Quality Management System (QMS). The standard is met when the proposed QMS process assures high quality maintenance by providing effective unbiased/independent internal inspection procedures; and the proposal provides:

3b) An adequate Quality Control organizational structure that identifies precise lines of authorities and responsibilities.

3c) Adequate methods to identify and track discrepancies, analyze root causes, and document discrepancy trends.

3d) An adequate corrective action strategy that includes: implementation, follow-up, monitoring, and timely closure of identified discrepancies.

3e) An Adequate system to record, compute, assess, and report performance measurement data.

3f) An adequate link between QMS trends/results and training program focus areas.

Training. Provide a detailed training program that ensures a trained, qualified, and certified workforce throughout the life of the contract. The program shall address/include, but is not limited to:

3g) Overarching training management process that provides a strategy for formal classroom training, on-the-job training (OJT), and training documentation. Additionally, address cross-utilization and remedial training programs.

3h) Processes for certification/recertification of all employees, and provides a strategy for new hires and entry level employees.

3i) Processes for qualifying all employees. Please specifically address Aircrew Flight Equipment.

Training. The standard is met when the proposed training program ensures a trained, qualified, and certified workforce throughout the life of the contract; and the proposal provides:

3g) An adequate training management process that provides a strategy for formal classroom training, on-the-job training (OJT), and training documentation. Additionally, it addresses cross-utilization and remedial training programs.

3h) Adequate processes for certification/recertification of all employees that provides an effective strategy for new hires and entry-level employees

3i) Adequate processes for qualifying all employees and specifically address Aircrew Flight Equipment.

Sub factor 4: Phase-In/Mobilization: This subfactor assesses the offeror’s procedure to facilitate full performance at the completion of the mobilization period. The evaluation will address the offerors response as outlined in the right-hand column (the “Instructions to Offerors” column on the left is verbatim from Section L and is provided here for reference only):

Sub factor 4: Phase In/Mobilization

Mobilization: Provide a detailed procedure, with timelines (to include start and completion dates for all elements listed below) to facilitate full performance at the completion of the mobilization period. The procedure must address, but is not limited to:

4a) Methodology to obtain required security clearances for employees.

4b) Transfer of Government furnished equipment, tools and facilities (e.g., inventory of tools, equipment, facilities and acceptance of those items).

Mobilization: The standard is met when the proposed mobilization procedure and timelines are clear and realistic to achieve full performance at the completion of the mobilization period. The procedure needs to thoroughly address transition activities and ensure the offeror will fully comply with PWS requirements while facilitating transition; and the proposal provides:

4a) Adequate methodology to obtain required security clearances for employees.

4b) Adequate procedures to transfer Government furnished equipment, tools and facilities.

4.0 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The Contracting Officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all offerors based on (1) the references provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources (PPIRS, CPARS, etc.). Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

a) Relevant present/past performance is defined as effort involving a similar scope and similar magnitude of effort and complexity as the PWS requires. The government may review information on higher priced technically acceptable offerors if none of the lower priced offerors receive a “Substantial Confidence” performance assessment rating. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to assess the degree of confidence the Government has in the offeror’s ability to supply UH-1N Helicopter/AFE/Weapons Maintenance Services that meet the requirements of the PWS, based on the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited Confidence, or No Confidence as defined in the table below. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating, since the problems encountered may have been on a more complex program, or an Offeror may have subsequently demonstrated the ability to overcome the problems encountered. Clearly demonstrating management actions employed in overcoming problems allow the Offeror to be considered a higher confidence candidate. For example, submittal of quality performance indicators or other management indicators that clearly support an Offeror has overcome past problems. Offerors with no relevant past or present performance history or the offeror’s performance record is so limited that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating “Neutral Confidence”, meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably. Performance Confidence will be evaluated in accordance with the following Table:

successfully perform the required effort.

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.

successfully perform the required effort.

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. Relevancy will be evaluated in accordance with the following table:

b. Offerors shall provide recent past performance information. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation or have been performing the effort for at least 12 months from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

5.0 Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s price proposal for Reasonableness, Completeness, and Balance. Unreasonable, incomplete, or unbalanced pricing, either initially or after discussions (if conducted), may cause a proposal to be determined non-compliant and/or un-awardable.

Price analysis will be conducted utilizing the information provided in the Offeror’s Attachment 13A “Fairchild Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Matrix”. The “TEP Summary” worksheet will present the final TEP submitted by the Offeror in response to the TEP Matrix, inclusive of the price for all anticipated Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLIN periods, including the Mobilization period, Post Award conference, Base Year, four (4) Option Years, and the potential six (6) month Extension period. Cost CLINs are included in the Fairchild Task Order, and are subject to Not to Exceed ceiling values established by the Government. Therefore, they will not be evaluated in Attachment 13A “Fairchild TEP Pricing Matrix”. Evaluation of option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

5.1 Price Reasonableness

Overall, the proposal is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. A determination of an unreasonably high TEP may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition.

Adequate price competition, in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1, is anticipated to determine price reasonableness.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), the Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price. Some of those techniques include, but are not limited to, a comparison of the proposed TEPs amongst all Offerors, as well as a comparison of the proposed TEPs with the Independent Government Estimate.

5.2 Completeness

A proposal is complete when all pricing data required under Section L of the RFP is provided in the format prescribed and the Offeror has complied with all designated “shall” statements. Further, all orange cells within Attachment 13A “Fairchild TEP Matrix” are completed, as applicable, and the TEP is correct and rounded to the nearest dollar.

5.3 Balanced Pricing

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including Option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. Per FAR 15.404-1(g) the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items.

A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.4 Small Business Basic Award/Fairchild AFB Task Order Evaluation

As a result of this Small Business competition and Subjective Trade-Off evaluation, up to the top five (5) Small Business Offerors will be included in the “Small Business Set-Aside” basic award competition pool. Successful Offerors will be awarded a basic contract, a Task Order for $2,000 for a Post-Award Orientation, and provided the opportunity to compete for future Small Business Set-Aside Rotary Maintenance Task Orders under this contract. A Task Order for Rotary Maintenance work at Fairchild AFB has been designated as a Small Business Set-Aside and will be awarded to the best value “Small Business” Offeror following the Subjective Trade-Off evaluation parameters outlined in this solicitation.

6.0 VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract and Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 Instruction to Offerors (ITO) - Addendum “Contract Documentation.” An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range.