Attachment 5 - DRAFT CCR Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award (1).pdf

DRAFT

United States Air Force

AFLCMC/WLT Tinker AFB

KC-135 Center Console Refresh (CCR)

Attachment 5 Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

27 February 2026

Contents

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

1.4. Rejection of Offers

1.5. Facility Clearance

1.5.1. Facility Clearance Information

1.6. Competitive Range Determination

1.7. Discussions

1.7.1. Reviews and Visits

1.8. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation Factors used to Evaluate each Proposal

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Technical Solution

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Data Rights

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Schedule

2.3. Factor 2 – Technical Risk

2.4. Factor 3 – Past Performance

2.4.1. Ratings

2.4.2. Evaluation Process

2.4.3. Assigning Ratings

2.5. Factor 4 – Price

2.5.1. Reasonableness

2.5.2. Balanced Pricing

2.5.3. Price Realism

2.5.4. Cost Realism

2.5.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

2.5.6. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements/Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

2.5.7. Rounding

2.5.8. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision

2.5.9. Business Systems and Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) Disclosure Statement

2.5.10. Subcontractor Pricing

2.5.11. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing

2.5.12. Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material (GFP/GFE/GFM)

2.5.13. Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Tooling/Material (CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM)

2.5.14. Government Field Support Agencies

2.5.15. Other Documentation

2.5.16. Submission of Excel Pricing Workbook

2.5.17. Submission of Cost/Price Narrative

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Subfactor 2

Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths, Technical Risk, Past Performance and

Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable in subfactors 1, 3, and 4.

Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L– Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technically acceptable proposal in Factor 1, Subfactors 1, 3, and 4, and superior technical in Factor 1, Subfactor 2, and/or superior Factor 2 technical risk, and/or superior Factor 3 past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection

Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part

15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022, and Air Force Mandatory

Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

1.2.Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

A single contractor will be responsible for the design, development, integration, testing, and production for the KC-135 Center Console Refresh effort.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency, weakness, and/or significant weakness. The correction potential is based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements. If a deficiency/weakness/significant weakness is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an Offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not require a major proposal revision, but the Offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4.Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources are available to perform the proposed technical approach.

http://www.acquisition.gov./

1.5. Facility Clearance

1.5.1. Facility Clearance Information

The Offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess or acquire prior to Source Selection Authority

Decision Brief a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD254) attached to this solicitation and be entitled to COMSEC information without additional authorization (i.e.

National Interest Determination (NID)). Therefore, all final facility clearances must be approved prior to the Source Selection Authority Decision Brief. The Industrial Security Facilities Database (ISFD) will be used to verify final facility clearances one business day prior to the Source Selection Authority Decision

Brief. Offerors who do not have a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification

(DD254) attached to this solicitation in the ISFD database one business day prior to the Source Selection

Authority Decision Brief will be considered non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. The

Source Selection Authority Decision Brief may occur without discussions if there is a fully acceptable and awardable initial proposal among the offers tendered or may occur following discussions and receipt of the final proposal revisions. The Government is not obligated to hold discussions nor delay the

Decision Brief awaiting Offeror completion of the facilities clearance requirement. Any determination that an Offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9.

1.6.Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition IAW FAR

15.306(d)(5). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1: Technical, Factor 2:

Technical Risk, Factor 3: Past Performance, Factor 4: Price, or a combination of the four factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the final proposal revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR

15.505, or a post award debriefing IAW FAR 15.506.

1.7. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. 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, the

Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final

Proposal Revision (FPR). The request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request draft FPRs during discussions.

Offeror responses to ENs for Volume III (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7.1. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned. The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the

Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, System Requirements Documents (SRD) and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, other than those identified as factors and subfactors. Requirements included in the factors and subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with the process described for each factor and subfactor.

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, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1.Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1.Evaluation Factors used to Evaluate each Proposal

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical Solution

Subfactor 2: Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths

Subfactor 3: Data Rights

Subfactor 4: Schedule

Factor 2: Technical Risk Factor

Factor 3: Past Performance Factor

Factor 4: Price

2.1.2.Relative Importance of Factors

For this solicitation, technical acceptability in Technical Subfactors 1, 3, 4 is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Factor 1- Subfactor 2 Exceeding Requirements and

Demonstrating System Strengths, Factor 2 Technical Risk, Factor 3 Past Performance and Factor 4 Price.

The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, the following is the order of importance in the integrated assessment:

• Technical Subfactor 2 Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths, Factor 2

Technical Risk, and Factor 3 Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to each other.

• Technical Subfactor 2 Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths, Factor 2

Technical Risk, and Factor 3 Past Performance individually are more important than Factor 4

Cost/Price.

• Technical Subfactor 2 Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths, Factor 2

Technical Risk, and Factor 3 Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4 Cost/Price

2.1.3.Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the Technical Subfactors 1, 3, and 4 on a pass/fail basis in accordance with paragraph 2.2 below, assigning ratings of Acceptable (Green) or Unacceptable (Red). Technical

Subfactor 2 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.2.2 below. Technical Risk will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 below. For the best value award decision, the SSA will assess the Factor 1 Technical ratings for Subfactor 2, Factor 2 Technical

Risk ratings, and Factor 3 Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Factor 4

Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2.Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below.

Tradeoff considerations will only be applied to Subfactor Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating

System Strengths. The remaining subfactors (1, 3, and 4) will be rated Acceptable (Green) or

Unacceptable (Red) and will not include tradeoff considerations. To be eligible for award, an offeror must be rated Acceptable (Green) in all subfactors, either initially, or as a result of discussions. Any subfactor rated as Unacceptable (Red) will be considered un-awardable. A single deficiency identified within any subfactor will result in an Unacceptable (Red) rating for that subfactor and therefore unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. A deficiency is defined as 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.

Table 1: Technical Rating Method

The ratings will be applied to each subfactor as follows:

a. For Subfactor 2 Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths, all ratings apply to these subfactors which, Acceptable (Green), Good (Purple), and Outstanding (Blue). To receive an Outstanding (Blue) or Good (Purple) rating, an offeror’s proposal must include one or more strengths and or a significant strength, as identified by the Government evaluation team, and in accordance with the definitions described above. Subfactor 2 will only be evaluated in relation to Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths, and the assignment of strengths/significant strengths. Tradeoff considerations for Subfactor 2 will be based on identified strengths/significant strengths within an offeror’s proposal.

b. For Subfactor 1 Technical Solution and Subfactor 3 Data Rights and Subfactor 4 Schedule, the only ratings which apply to these subfactors are Acceptable (Green) and Unacceptable (Red).

There are no tradeoff considerations for any of these subfactors. As a minimum, the offeror must meet all criteria for Subfactor 1, Subfactor 3, and Subfactor 4 to be awardable. For the best value award determination, all offerors rated as Acceptable (Green) will be considered equal for these subfactors.

The evaluation criteria for each subfactor is as follows:

2.2.1.Subfactor 1: Technical Solution

The government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Solution approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential elements:

a. The proposal must ensure the approach to teaming arrangements, including either an

Associated Contract Agreements (ACA) or Letter of Intent with statement of rationale, meets the requirements in SOW paragraphs 5.13 and 17.0.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue

Outstanding (O)

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple

Good (G)

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable (A) Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal (M) Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable (U) Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable

b. A sufficient approach to the Engineering Manufacturing and Design (EMD) phase to include the identification of Title 10 §4401 compliance; projected Technical Readiness Level (TRL) of each system; model-based systems engineering, model-based design, and Technical Data

Package digital files; SIL stand-up, integration, and testing; autothrottle solution, integration, and testing; and the need, if any, to reverse engineer interfaces with KC-135 legacy systems, which ensures the requirements are met in accordance with SOW 1.2.1, 2.2, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.6, 6.9.1, 7.0, 9.0, 9.4.

c. An approach to the Production Phase which ensures kit and installation requirements are met in accordance with SOW 1.2.2, 12.0, 12.1, 12.2.

Offerors (both small businesses and other than small businesses) will be evaluated based on the narrative description on the extent of the proposed participation/commitment to use of U.S. small businesses in the performance of this acquisition and a fully completed Small Business Participation Commitment

Document (SBPCD). The Offeror’s proposed SBPCD must be successfully completed IAW Section L, Attachment 3.0. In addition, the Offeror’s proposed small business participation must be 30%.

The MQR percentage must be equal to or greater than 30% to meet the MQR requirement. Rounding is not permissible. The Offeror shall describe their small business participation based on total evaluated price (TEP) for this contract effort IAW SOW 5.13.

For example: A proposed MQR of 29.97% would result in a deficiency. A proposed MQR of 30.01% would be acceptable.

(NOTE: The work to be performed directly by a small business prime offeror shall be evaluated as Small

Business Participation. Small business prime offerors shall include their information in the provided

SBPCD template, as required).

2.2.2.Subfactor 2: Exceeding Requirements and Demonstrating System Strengths

Offerors are afforded an opportunity to receive best value credit for a proposed approach which meets

SRD Objective Requirements and/or exceeds SRD threshold requirements listed below. The best value credit will be applied as strengths/significant strengths to the offeror’s proposal. A strength/significant strength is defined as follows:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

For this evaluation, the words in the strength and significant strength definitions, “advantage of the

Government” refers to the anticipated level of benefit the Government receives during contract performance as a result of the strength/significant strength.

To receive consideration as a strength/significant strength under Subfactor 2, Offerors must specifically identify which requirements the proposed approach exceeds and provide convincing rationale supporting the strength/significant strength. The Government will assess the rationale for each proposed strength/significant strength and apply professional judgment to determine if the proposed strength/significant strength is an actual strength/significant strength and if so, the level of anticipated benefit during contract performance the Government will receive from the strength/significant strength.

Subfactor 2 will receive one color rating based on the strengths/significant strengths identified. The available ratings for Subfactor 2 are Acceptable (Green), Good (Purple) and Outstanding (Blue). The definitions of each color are provided in Table 1. A general guideline for the ratings is as follows:

Acceptable (Green): A proposal in which there are no strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to

Subfactor 2a: items i-vi and Subfactor 2b: items i-iv. This rating also includes a proposal in which there are one or more strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2a: items i-vi and Subfactor

2b: items i-iv, however, based on the judgement of the Government, none of the proposed strengths includes convincing rationale to support the strength, and as a result, no strengths are assigned by the

Government.

Good (Purple) or Outstanding (Blue): A proposal which includes one or more strengths/significant strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2a: items i-vi and Subfactor 2b: items i-iv, and, based on the judgment of the Government, the proposal includes sufficient convincing rationale to support at least one of the proposed strengths/significant strengths. Each strength/significant strength, along with the supporting rationale, will be evaluated separately. The overall rating will be based on the number of strengths/significant strengths assigned by the Government, and the level of anticipated benefits the Government will receive during contract performance from the strengths/significant strengths.

For the best value determination, tradeoff considerations for Subfactor 2 will be based on any

Government-assigned strengths/significant strengths in each Offeror’s approach, along with the anticipated level of benefit received by the Government during contract performance resulting from the strength(s)/significant strength(s).

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the KC-135 Center Console Refresh

(CCR) as it relates to exceeding requirements and demonstrating system strengths contained in SRD and

SOW. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L Paragraph

4.2.4. The Government assessment will tradeoff for the following areas:

a) Exceeding Requirements

i. Utilizing a glass cockpit that incorporates the majority of objective requirements in SRD

Paragraph 3.16 Trade Space Adaptability Components.

ii. Meeting Objective requirements for Fuel System improvements (SRD 3.14.3, 3.14.6, 3.14.7, 3.14.13, 3.14.5, 3.14.8, 3.14.14, 3.14.16).

iii. Improved navigation as defined in SRD Paragraph 3.6.4.2.

iv. Meeting system MTBF as defined in SRD Paragraph 3.28.3.2.

v. Replacement of the current Electronic Engine Instrument Display (EEID) as defined in

SRD Paragraph 3.16.14.

vi. Meeting objective requirements for Annunciator Lights/Warning, Cautions, and

Advisories in SRD Paragraph 3.4.

b) Demonstrating System Strengths:

i. Sufficient proof that greater than 50% of environmental testing is complete with a gap analysis for remaining environmental testing required in order to meet SOW 6.5.2.

ii. The evaluation will assess how effectively the Offeror’s plan addresses the specific topics outlined in the instructions. This includes evaluating the described processes for identifying, evaluating, and integrating new technologies in a way that minimizes the combined effect of disruption, schedule, cost and risk while providing a flexible platform for incorporating evolving warfighter requirements (SOW 6.2). A plan that is deemed comprehensive, well-defined, provides a convincing and valuable approach to lifecycle technology management, and is not dependent on any Original Equipment Manufacturer

(OEM) for future integrations can receive a higher best value credit in this paragraph.

iii. Sufficient details of Technical Standard Order (TSO) authorization for flight critical components in the offer’s solution as referenced in SOW 6.9.1.

iv. The proposal should identify and describe any additional capabilities or exceedances of threshold requirements that provides a relevant and significant benefit to the Government as stated in SOW 2.3.2.

2.2.3.Subfactor 3: Data Rights

The Government will evaluate the Government requested data rights versus the Offeror's data assertions. The subfactor minimum is met by completion of the Data Rights Assertion Matrix (DRAM)

(RFP Attachment 6) with sufficient supporting documentation for any assertion less than the

Government requested.

The Government will evaluate submitted letter(s) of attestation to see if they clearly document and map which data rights the subcontractor, affiliate, or vendor will deliver to the Offeror and/or Government.

The Subfactor 3: Data Rights is considered to be acceptable when the following criteria is met: The

DRAM (RFP Attachment 6) is filled and the information provided by the Offeror supports its position;

the Offeror’s DRAM clearly demonstrates the ability to meet the requirements; required licensing is identified; and subcontractor IP flow-down is clearly mapped with letters of attestation submitted when required.

2.2.4.Subfactor 4: Schedule

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L, Technical Subfactor

4, Paragraph 4.2.6.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach to the KC-135 CCR modification. To be acceptable, at a minimum, the Offeror must indicate an adequate understanding of the following schedule requirements to ensure successful modification in accordance with the SOW:

a) The Offeror's proposed initial Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated Master Plan

(IMP) must ensure their proposed solution identifies and addresses significant program events, accomplishments, and critical milestone is comprehensive and executable for fulfilling the contract requirements. The evaluation will analyze whether the Offeror identifies and addresses significant program events, accomplishments, and critical milestones. Furthermore, the

Government will assess the feasibility of the Offeror's accompanying rationale, which must explain how the proposed schedule and plan will be effectively managed, maintained, and executed from award through completion. An Offeror that demonstrates a deep understanding of the project's scope by providing a well-structured, logically sound, and achievable IMS and IMP will receive a more favorable evaluation. (SOW 5.4, 5.5)

b) Approach must ensure identification of long lead time material/parts for their approach in order to meet schedule requirements (SOW Section 5.4, 5.5)

c) Approach must ensure a detailed schedule and diagram of their approach to standing up a SIL and utilizing the SIL for integration and testing. (SOW 7.0 and 9.4)

d) Approach must ensure lead time requirements for standing up and exercising Contractor Fly-In

Facility option at the Contractor’s facility are detailed. (SOW 12.2)

2.3.Factor 2 – Technical Risk

The Technical Risk evaluation assesses the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach under

Factor 1 Technical may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical Risk is manifested by the identification of weaknesses or significant weaknesses.

The Technical Risk evaluation does not consider the Offeror’s proposed price.

The offeror’s risk assessment provided IAW Section L, ITO, paragraph 5.0 will be evaluated by the

Government in addition to any Government assessed risk. The evaluation will consider risk mitigations proposed by the offeror, and whether the mitigation approach is manageable. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine if there is any risk which was not identified by the offeror.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s proposed risk rating. For the Technical Risk evaluation, the Government will utilize the data, information, and the approach in the Volume I Technical Proposal submitted by the Offeror.

The Government will review and analyze the Offeror’s approach and apply professional judgment in determining whether the approach includes weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses in relation to

Subfactors 1 2, 3, and 4. The Technical Risk evaluation will include an analysis of subfactors 1 - 4 listed in Factor 1 Technical. A single risk rating will be assigned for all four subfactors combined. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness or significant weakness identified, the evaluation will consider the probability of whether the weakness/significant weakness will occur, and the impact to the program if the weakness/significant weakness were to occur. The definitions of Weakness and Significant Weakness IAW the FAR 15.001 and DoD Mandatory Source Selection Procedures are outlined below.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Each proposal will receive one of the risk ratings described below. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive a Low or Moderate Technical Risk rating. For the best value determination, tradeoff considerations for Technical Risk will be based on any identified weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses in each Offeror’s approach. The source selection evaluation team will specifically consider the probabilities of whether the weakness(es)/significant weakness(es) will occur and the impacts to the program if the weakness(es)/significant weakness(es) were to occur.

Table 2: Technical Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

2.4.Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.4.1.Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessment ratings IAW the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures Paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5.

Table 3: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Adjectival 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.

Note: With regards to the best value award decision, all offerors rated as “Substantial Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance factor.

2.4.2.Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall

Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to scope, magnitude, the Technical Subfactors, price assessment, performance quality, and complexity. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the

Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The

Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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, such as, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Report (CPAR) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.4.2.1.Recency Assessment

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 five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.2.2.Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the technical subfactors and price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)/teaming partner performing over 5% of the total proposed contract value), as defined in Section L – Instructions to Offerors, section 6.3.1, past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. 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. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Program

Management will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform Program Management on the proposed effort.

The past performance information submitted by offerors along with information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August

2022 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 4: Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant (SR) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Scope, magnitude, and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The Government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy regarding scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the KC-135 CCR requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy regarding scope:

a. Installing similar systems on military or civilian large or heavy aircraft.

Note: Large aircraft is defined as aircraft more than 41,000 pounds maximum certified takeoff weight up to 300,000 pounds. Heavy aircraft is defined as aircraft capable of takeoff weights of

300,000 pounds or greater.

Magnitude: Relevancy regarding magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy regarding magnitude:

a. Quantity of systems installed on aircraft per year

b. Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform

Complexity: Relevancy regarding complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and Technical Subfactor 1 – Technical Solution, Subfactor 3 Data Rights, and Subfactor 4 Schedule.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e., Cost-Plus Incentive Fee (CPIF), Firm-Fixed-

Price (FFP) and Cost) of previous effort as compared to the KC-135 Center Console Refresh requirement.

2.4.2.3.Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Past Performance Questionnaire responses, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs) (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 5: Performance Quality Assessment Rating Method

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some or many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)

(GREEN)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting

(or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY

(U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.4.3.Assigning Ratings

As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.4.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors and price assessment, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the past performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Satisfactory, or Limited Confidence (low, med, high), may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.5.Factor 4 – Price

The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s pricing in Volume 7, Cost/Price Volume, for (1) reasonableness (including completeness), (2) balance, (3) cost realism (for the CPIF EMD CLINs), (4) price realism (for the FFP Production CLINs), and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be based on the cost/prices proposed in the Excel Pricing

Workbook (EPW) in RFP Attachment 3A, EPW – PRIME (which will include proposed costs reflected in RFP Attachment 3B, EPW – SUB for major subcontractors, if applicable). Offerors shall review all instructions contained within RFP Attachment 3A, EPW – PRIME and RFP

Attachment 3B, EPW - SUB and shall ensure the information provided is compliant with the provided instructions. The Offeror’s proposed costs/prices will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance and TEP calculation in accordance with Paragraphs 2.5.1, 2.5.2 and 2.5.6 below. The

Offeror’s proposed FFP Production prices (CLINs X007 – X016, X020, and X021) will be evaluated for price realism in accordance with (IAW) Paragraph 2.5.3. The Offeror’s proposed costs in the cost model worksheets in RFP Attachment 3A (and RFP Attachment 3B, if applicable) for CPIF

EMD CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 will be evaluated for cost realism IAW Paragraph 2.5.4.

2.5.1. Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness (to include completeness). Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-

1(b)(2) in order to determine reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed. To evaluate completeness, the Government will confirm unit prices for the FFP Production CLINs in the EPW (Attachment 3A, EPW - PRIME) have proposed inputs. If proposed unit prices of zero ($0) have been proposed for the FFP Production

CLINs, the Government will confirm that rationale was provided by the Offeror in the Cost/Price

Volume and will evaluate the rationale supporting the zero-dollar entry. For the CPIF EMD CLINs to be complete, the Government will confirm that Offerors provide sufficient data other than certified cost and pricing data in the EPW (RFP Attachment 3A, EPW – PRIME and RFP

Attachment 3B, EPW – SUB, if applicable) to support the target prices proposed for the CPIF EMD

CLINs (CLINs 0001 – 0003) in support of the cost realism evaluation.

2.5.2. Balanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate proposals for balance. Proposed unit cost/prices will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to cost/price and/or quantity changes within each Offeror’s response to the pricing structure in RFP Attachment 3A (and 3B, if applicable). The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining cost/price variances that appear unbalanced. For the FFP Production CLIN unit prices, the Government will evaluate rationale provided to support any FFP Production CLIN unit price increase greater than 5% from one year to the next, or any CLIN unit price decrease from one year to the next, if applicable.

Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the

Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.3. Price Realism

Proposed unit prices for the FFP Production CLINs X007 – X016, X020, and X021 will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and must ensure the price does not pose unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.5.4. Cost Realism

The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on the data other than cost or pricing data provided to support CPIF EMD CLINS 0001, 0002, and 0003 IAW FAR 15.404-1. Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the Offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and estimating approach can successfully accomplish the Offeror’s SOW at the competitively proposed cost for cost-type CLINs.

2.5.4.1. Most Probable Cost

Based on the results of the cost realism analysis, an independent review will be conducted on the

Offeror’s proposed cost elements to determine the Most Probable Cost (MPC). To calculate a realistic cost for each CLIN, adjustments may be made to the Offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the result of the cost realism analysis. The MPC represents the Government’s best estimate of the cost to acquire specified goods and/or services based on each Offeror’s proposed technical and estimating approach. The MPC may differ from the Offeror’s proposal. The resulting MPC will be included in the TEP for CPIF EMD CLINs 0001, 0002, and 0003 and shall be utilized by the SSA in making the best value determination.

2.5.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Cost/price proposals will be reviewed for compliance with RFP Section L pricing instructions. The

Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors, including option periods. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the proposed pricing for the following: one (1) 4-Year Basic Period for the

CPIF EMD effort and six (6) 1-Year Option Periods for the FFP Production effort. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, which will include a cumulative sum of FFP

Production CLINs and a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for the CPIF EMD CLINs.