LPTA_Section_L_WS_SCM.doc

SeCTION L - A&AS support LOWEST PRICE TECHNICALLY ACCEPTABLE (LPTA) PROCEDURES INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (ITO) Advisory and Assistance Services (A&AS) for the C/KC-135

Weapon System Supply Chain Management (WS SCM)

a. Basis for Contract Award OC-ALC/PKEA, TAASC Program Office, plans to award an interim, independent A & AS contract of approximately one (1) year in length in accordance with the solicitation provisions. Proposals must include all data and information requested in these instructions and must be submitted in accordance with the solicitation. Electronic format (i.e. email) is preferred . Nonconformance with these instructions may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation or elimination from competition.

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures with technical proposals in accordance with FAR 15.101-2. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements. The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

Proposals shall be clear, concise, and shall include sufficient detail for effective evaluation. The proposal shall not simply rephrase or restate the Government’s requirements, but rather shall provide rationale to address how the PWS requirements will be met. Proposals shall specify on each volume cover page the title, proposal date, and the solicitation number.

Proposal shall be submitted in a format readable by Microsoft (MS) Office 2000 or MS Office 2003 Productivity Suite. Page size shall be 8.5 X 11 inches, not including foldouts. Pages shall be spaced with 1.5 line spacing. Text size shall be no less than 12 point. Use at least 1 inch margins on the top and bottom and ¾ inch side margins. Pages shall be numbered. If a non-electronic method is used for proposal submission, all originals shall be clearly marked on the cover page and two-hole punched, centered in the top margin.

b. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of unrealistically low cost/price when compared to Independent Government Estimated (IGE), such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

c. Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and sub-factors described below:

a. List Factors and Subfactors

Factor 1 Technical

Subfactor 1: Mix/Availability of Skills

Subfactor 2: Technical Solution/Approach

Subfactor 3: Contract Management

Factor 2 Cost/Price

The cost proposal will be evaluated based on:

(1) The labor categories and skill levels proposed

(2) Hours proposed for each labor category/skill level

(3) Total proposed amount, less travel

Factor 3 Past Performance

The Past Performance will be evaluated based on work specific to the C/KC-135 weapon system or similar weapon systems.

b. Evaluation Methodology

b. Evaluation Methodology The Government will evaluate price for all proposals. The evaluated price will be established for each proposal based upon the total price of all CLINS combined, excluding travel. Upon establishing the evaluated price of the lowest four (4) offerors, only those proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptance. Technical evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the evaluation criteria established below. A simple concurrence in response to stated technical requirements is not an acceptable approach and such an offer will be found non-responsive. If one (1) of these proposals is found technically unacceptable, the next lowest priced proposal will be submitted for technical acceptance review. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions will be considered for award. Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

c. Technical Factor The Technical evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each technical subfactor will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described below:

Acceptable – Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the RFP.

Unacceptable – Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

The number of copies to be provided of each document is specified below. All sanitized information should not include references to individuals, proposing Contractor or Subcontractors. In addition, all logos and letterhead should be removed from the sanitized versions. For example, the statement “Jane Doe, Tinker AFB will accomplish this task” should be “sanitized” as follows: “Jane Doe, Tinker AFB will accomplish this task”. Do not include “XXXX” in lieu of business name. Nor should the term “incumbent” be used in any of the required documents. The sanitized version must be in one electronic file. The unsanitized version must be in a separate electronic file.

This document is limited to fifteen (15) pages. Please submit two copies. One (1) of the copies should be sanitized.

For technical evaluation/award purposes, the Contractor shall submit sanitized resumes for review (Per GFP Section 3.2.1, Shared Work Center Space, space is available for one (1) Contractor employee). Each shall contain the proposed labor category/level and describe the qualifications each candidate will provide. Each must receive TAASC Program Office approval. Each shall meet the PWS requirement qualifications accepted during technical evaluations and upon award.

A resume must be submitted for all personnel proposed and must be submitted in one (1) electronic file. A primary and alternate resume may be submitted for each position; however each one shall not exceed four (4) pages. If the number of resumes differs from the number of positions proposed, there must be an explanation provided with resume submittal. If multiple candidates are proposed for the same position, the above required documentation and individual resume shall indicate which candidate is the primary and alternate. Please submit two (2) copies. One (1) of the copies should be sanitized.

Each resume shall include employment history dates, including month and year for each employer and total months (example 21 Jun 11-21 May 12 (11 months), job title, short description of relevant work, and the total period for each employer. Employment experience not relevant to the proposal should not to be included in the resume (gaps in work experience will not effect acceptability of the resume).

Each of the three subfactors will be evaluated to ensure that the technical proposal includes provisions for a fully mission capable workforce. Consideration will be given to such things as:

(1) Subfactor 1: The proposed description of the mix and availability of skills meets or exceeds the requirements IAW with the PWS as follows:

(a) Ability to begin work without the need for additional on-the-job training.

(b) Proposed Contractor employee candidate demonstrates the knowledge and experience requirements identified in PWS section 1.14 and all subparagraphs.

(2) Subfactor 2: The proposed technical solution/approach meets or exceeds the requirements IAW the PWS as follows:

(a) The Contractor demonstrates an understanding of the security requirements defined in PWS paragraph 1.4, CAC eligibility.

(3) Subfactor 3: The proposed contract management approach meets or exceeds the requirements IAW the PWS as follows:

(a) Includes a method or tool that provides for efficient and timely submission of all data requirements (CDRLs), PWS paragraph 1.13.

(b) Proposed management approach for this contract to include how the Contractor plans to accomplish the effort, including the performing team members and a transition plan. The transition plan shall, at a minimum, address availability of proposed personnel as well as PWS paragraph 1.3.2, CAC eligibility timelines.

d. Cost/Price Factor

Cost/Price Evaluation: The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the total evaluated price. Only one (1) unsantized copy of the offeror’s cost/price proposal shall be submitted.

Total Evaluated Price: Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be calculated as the sum of the total price of all Contract Line Item Number(s) (CLINs), excluding any travel CLINs.

Unrealistically Low Costs or Prices: Unrealistically low proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition, either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal.

Unbalanced Pricing: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalance pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or subline items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

e. Past Performance The past performance evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements and will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described below:

Acceptable – Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements delineated in the RFP.

Unacceptable – Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance.

Relevant Past Performance information should be provided. All past performance information should be contract number specific so that information can be verified. Each contract submitted shall include the contract number, the total contract dollar amount, the period of performance, work specific to the C/KC-135 weapon system or similar weapon systems, and the contract customer name and location. This document has a four (4) page limitation and two (2) copies shall be submitted. One (1) of the copies shall be sanitized.

f. Discussions It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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) as evidenced in their Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.