Appendix_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award_Revised_02_Dec_14.pdf

FA8106-13-R-0002 – APPENDIX M

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION (SS)

Basis for Contract Award 1.1.

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 past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. 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 FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum 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 that the technically acceptable proposal and superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference of lower priced offerors.

NOTE Both Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) are contained within the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). For clarity, when referencing Federal Aviation Regulations, the reference will be FAA FAR Title 14, and when referencing Federal Acquisition Regulations, the reference will be simply FAR.

While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will 1.1.1.

strive for maximum objectivity, the Source Selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: 1.2.

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. 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.

Correction Potential of Proposals: 1.3.

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. 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, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement would require major proposal revisions, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Rejection of Offers 1.4.

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 risks of the program. Aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 1 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

Competitive Range Determination 1.5.

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306. The competitive range determination will be based upon the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation 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.

Facility Clearance 1.6.

Facility Clearance Information: The offeror, and subcontractors as required, must 1.6.1.

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.

Proscribed Classified COMSEC Information Notice to Offerors and any and all 1.6.2.

subcontractors: Proscribed classified COMSEC information is involved in this effort.

Therefore, US companies operating under Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) as defined in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual with a Special Security Agreement as the mitigation instrument are on notice that a National Interest Determination (NID) will be required. The NID decision will be made by the Government and documented prior to award of the contract. If the NID is denied, the contractor will be determined non-responsible and will not be eligible for award. Any determination that an offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9.

Subcontracting Classified COMSEC Work 1.6.3.

If the offeror plans to subcontract COMSEC work to a subcontractor, NISPOM) 9-407 will apply. NISPOM 9-407, Subcontracting COMSEC Work, states, “Subcontracting requiring the disclosure of classified COMSEC information shall be awarded only upon the written approval of the Government Contracting Activity (GCA)”. Due to the long authorization process and in order to be in compliance with the NISPOM at contract award, the offeror's request for authorization to subcontract classified COMSEC work shall be included in the proposal. This authorization shall be a letter to the PCO with the subcontractor’s name, full address, CAGE code, facility clearance level, ownership information, and shall address any FOCI issues.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 2

Discussions 1.7.

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, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the Source Selection decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, Offeror responses to ENs for Volume I (Technical), Volume III (Price), and Volume IV (Contract Documentation) must be incorporated in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (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.

Reviews and Visits 1.8.

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.

Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions) 1.9.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, contract appendices, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. 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.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 2.1.

Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal: 2.1.1.

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:

Factor 1: Technical o Subfactor 1: Program Management o Subfactor 2: Maintenance o Subfactor 3: Resources and Materiel Management

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: 2.1.2.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 3

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and 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, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis of approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

Evaluation Methodology: 2.1.3.

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 proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph

2.3. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4. The SSA will then assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

Factor 1 – Technical 2.2.

Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings contained and based on Table 1 criteria. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each Offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating per Table 1. Only Low Risk approaches will be deemed acceptable.

TABLE 1

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

ACCEPTABLE Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

SUBFACTOR ONE: PROGRAM MANAGEMENT (PM) 2.2.1.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 4 their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential PM Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance (Low Risk):

a. Program Management Approach – The offeror’s approach must clearly describe their Program Management plans and methods to establish and maintain adequate program oversight and risk management for CLS support to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets IAW PWS paragraphs 1.1.2., 1.3.1., and 1.4.1. - 1.5.9.

(1). Continuation of Essential Services Plan - The offeror’s approach must clearly describe their plans and methods to establish and maintain essential services for the CLS support to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets IAW PWS paragraph 1.1.2. and PWS Attachment 13.

b. Subcontracts – The offeror’s subcontracting approach must clearly describe subcontract arrangements and relationships, roles, and work to be performed by subcontractors as well as flow down of systems requirements which ensure the PWS requirements are met. The offeror’s approach must demonstrate the capability to meet and maintain the 10% annual Small Business subcontracting requirement (by % of total contract value) per proposal clause GKK 12-028-1, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements and Incentives and PWS paragraphs 1.4.1.2. and 1.4.2.2.

(1). Proposed Team List - The Offeror’s Team List must clearly describe the breakout and distribution of planned work between the prime and primary subcontractors, the percentage of performance as a whole of the contract effort and primary PWS functions they shall perform and be in the format specified by Appendix L, Attachment 2.0 in support of PWS paragraphs

1.4.1.2. and 1.4.2.2.

(2). Subcontracting Plan - The Offeror shall submit, as an attachment, their Subcontracting Plan per PWS 1.4.2.2. and FAR 19.704.

c. Transition Planning – The Offeror’s approach must clearly demonstrate the integrated planning, resources, and capability to establish full C-32/C-40 CLS performance capability by the beginning of Option Year 1 IAW PWS paragraphs 1.4.5.,

1.6.1. -1.6.2.8., and 3.1. - 3.1.8.

(1). Staffing Plan - The Offeror’s planned organization and staffing approach must clearly demonstrate the Offeror’s ability to establish and maintain CLS support to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets IAW PWS paragraphs 1.4.5.,

1.6.1. - 1.6.2.8., 3.1. - 3.1.8.

(2). Resources: The Offeror’s Resource Plan must clearly describe Offeror’s plans and activities to establish and maintain necessary resources to provide required CLS support to the C-32A, C-40B, and C-40C fleets IAW PWS paragraphs 1.3.2., 1.18. - 1.18.1.7., 1.18.2. - 1.18.4.4., 1.18.6.8., 1.18.6.8.4.

SUBFACTOR TWO: MAINTENANCE (MX) 2.2.2.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 5 adequate understanding of the requirements and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential Maintenance Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance (Low Risk):

a. Depot Level Maintenance – The Offeror’s approach to support depot level maintenance must ensure all requirements are met per PWS 1.17.1. The Offeror’s approach must demonstrate all depot level maintenance shall be accomplished at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 facility certificated for the applicable model of aircraft and High Value Assets IAW PWS paragraphs 1.4.3., 1.17. - 1.17.2.14.,

1.17.5. -1.17.9.1., 1.17.11. - 1.17.11.3., and 1.18.2. - 18.4.4.

(1). The Offeror’s approach to depot level maintenance and teaming partners must be supported by FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated Repair Station with Operations Specifications provided for each equivalent commercial model Covered Aircraft and associated High Value Assets.

b. Line Maintenance – The Offeror’s approach to support line maintenance must ensure all requirements are IAW PWS paragraphs 1.4.3., 1.6.3.4., 1.17.2.11. - 1.17.2.11.3., 1.17.3.2., 1.17.6.5., and 1.17.10. - 1.17.11.3.

c. Contract Field Teams – The Offeror’s approach to provide FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 qualified depot level contract field teams (CFTs) for worldwide repair/recovery of Aircraft on Ground (AOG) to include engine replacement must ensure all requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.17.12. - 1.17.12.1. are met.

d. VIP Aircraft Painting – The Offeror’s approach to perform executive paint application at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated facility per the paint specification and appearance standards must ensure all requirements of PWS paragraphs

1.17.2.11. - 1.17.2.14. and 1.17.3. - 1.17.4. are met.

e. Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Technical Data Access – The Offeror’s approach to acquire data from the OEMs must ensure capability to maintain aircraft, aircraft systems, avionics; aircraft engines, APUs, and Field Service Representative (FSR) requirements IAW PWS paragraphs 1.2.9., 1.6.2.4., 1.14.2., and

1.16.5. - 1.16.5.2.

(1). Attach copies of Letters of Intent for data access/license, Proprietary Information Agreements, or other evidence of data access with the primes/OEMs IAW PWS paragraphs 1.2.9.

SUBFACTOR THREE: RESOURCES AND MATERIEL MANAGEMENT (RM) 2.2.3.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed RM approach and Material Management Plan to include, but not limited to requirement in PWS 1.4.2.1. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

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 RM Elements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance (Low Risk):

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 6

a. Spare and Repair Parts – The Offeror’s approach for spare and repair parts must ensure capability to meet performance requirements IAW PWS paragraphs PWS 1.3.1., 1.3.2., 1.4.2.1., 1.6.2.8., 1.7.5., 1.11.3., 1.18. - 1.18.1.17., and PWS Table 1-2 .

b. High Value Spares/Leases – The Offeror’s approach for providing high value spare/leases for engines, APUs, and landing gears must ensure capability to meet performance requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.17.6.4. and 1.18.2. - 1.18.4.4.

c. Support and Test Equipment – The Offeror’s approach for Support Equipment must ensure an understanding of the Support Equipment requirements, capability to source the items, and meet the requirements of PWS paragraphs 1.3.1., 1.18. - 1.18.1.2., 1.18.1.9., and 1.18.6.8. - 1.18.6.8.4.

(1). The Offeror’s planned Contractor Furnished Support Equipment List must demonstrate Offeror’s understanding of the assets required to be provided under the contract to establish and sustain C-32/C-40 CLS Support to covered aircraft per PWS paragraphs 1.3.1., 1.18. - 1.18.1.2., 1.18.1.9., 1.18.1.13., and

1.18.6.8. - 1.18.6.8.4.

FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE: 2.3.

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

Ratings: 2.3.1.

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance confidence assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures:

TABLE 2

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

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.

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.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 7

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.

UNKNOWN

CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

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

Evaluation Process: 2.3.2.

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet the requirements of the PWS. 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 the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. 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 the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use any information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

Recency Assessment: 2.3.3.

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. 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.

Relevancy Assessment: 2.3.4.

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)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 8 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 forms contained in Attachments 1.1 and 1.2 of FAR 52.212-1 Addendum (Appendix L) and 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, (paragraph 3.1.3.1., Table 4) when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3

RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Degree 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:

2.3.4.1. Scope

Relevancy in regard to scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-32/C-40 Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) requirement. Consideration may be given to the following CLS activities (in no order of increased relevancy) when determining past performance:

Main Operating Base (MOB) Support Worldwide Mission & Supply Support Items and Services Provided Within Supply Support System Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS)

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 9

Scheduled Depot Aircraft Maintenance at an FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 certificated facility of an equivalent aircraft fleet Unscheduled Depot & Drop-In Aircraft Maintenance World-Wide Contract Field Team Support Aircraft Modifications Aircraft Configuration Management Aircraft Records Management Executive Custom Aircraft painting at a FAA FAR Title 14 Part 145 facility.

Organizational support for aircraft to AF and/or FAA standards

2.3.4.2. Magnitude

Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-32/C-40 CLS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

Aircraft Type(s) Supported Location(s)/Area(s) Supported Number of Aircraft Supported Contract Type/Value

2.3.4.3. Complexity

Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the C-32/C-40 CLS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity:

Multiple geographic locations supported Aircraft maintenance concept Aircraft mission type (Mobility/Executive Airlift) Contract security requirements Breadth/Depth of skills required

2.3.4.4. Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy

Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract types (e.g., Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP); Cost; Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the C-32/C-40 CLS requirement.

2.3.4.5. Organizational Change History

The Offeror will provide Organizational Change History data for Offeror and subcontractors to facilitate Government’s determination of the relevancy of contracts to past performance.

Performance Quality Assessment 2.3.5.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 10

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, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), 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 that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. 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. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality assessment ratings for recent and relevant contract:

TABLE 4

QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Quality Assessment Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)

(BLUE)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) 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.

NOT APPLICABLE (N)

(WHITE)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 11

TABLE 4

QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

UNKNOWN (UK)

(GRAY)

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

Assigning Ratings 2.3.6.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in Table 2. The rating is not based on a qualitative analysis. 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 an "Unknown 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 strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown 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.

FACTOR 3 – PRICE 2.4.

The Government shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all Offerors, consisting of all annual option prices—including two incentive option years and the six (6)-month extension. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph

2.4.5. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed price calculations as computed in accordance with the detailed methodology in this section. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions. Similarly, estimated quantities provided by the Government are used only for evaluation purposes and do not represent buy quantity obligation of the Government. This includes any direct cost estimates such as material or labor hour estimates. The Government will not be held to any evaluation quantities after contract award.

The Government will evaluate the TEP of all Offerors determined “Technically Acceptable”.

This TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology as described within. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Transition/Phase-In, all Option Periods—including Incentive Options, and the six (6)-month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, “Option to Extend Services”. Proposed pricing for the six (6)-month extension shall be based on pricing proposed for the final Incentive Option year for evaluation purposes only.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 12

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the prices proposed in Appendix G, Pricing Matrix. All unit pricing required for the proposal shall be input into the Pricing Matrix Excel Spreadsheet (Appendix G). Missing or omitted pricing shall be considered incomplete and therefore, unreasonable.

Price Reasonableness 2.4.1.

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine price reasonableness. Commercial designation does not relieve the Government from the requirement to assess price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-(b).

2.4.1.1. Offerors are cautioned that unreasonable prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.4.1.2. Complete pricing is one aspect of reasonable pricing. Proposals will be reviewed for complete pricing to ensure all required pricing is provided in the Pricing Matrix (Appendix G).

Unbalanced Pricing 2.4.2.

Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a. There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced offer; or

b. The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

Pricing will be evaluated to ensure proposals do not include unexplained variances between either separate CLINs, SubCLINs, within the same CLIN, or subsequent periods of performance.

Costs shall be appropriately allocated per CLIN in accordance with CLIN description of the model contract and consistent with the PWS requirements.

Price Realism 2.4.3.

Unrealistic prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement. Price realism relates to pricing that appears to be proposed too low, indicating possible lack of understanding the requirement or program complexity.

Pricing will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and does not pose a risk to performance. Offerors are cautioned to not use underbidding as a pricing strategy with

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 13 the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data 2.4.4.

If requested by the CO, data other than certified cost or pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable, balanced, and/or realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced and/or realistic pricing. Supporting documentation submitted by Offerors will be evaluated and considered in the determination of reasonable, realistic, and balanced pricing.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) 2.4.5.

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the Appendix L, Instructions to Offerors (ITO), pricing instructions. Tables 5-14 demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology and estimated quantities used in TEP/CLIN price development. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

2.4.5.1. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the four (4) month Transition/Phase-in, all Option Periods (1 through 5), all Incentive Option Periods (6 and 7), and the six (6) month Extension of Services Period in accordance with FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”. The six (6) month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit prices. The six (6) month Extension of Services Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized after contract award if determined necessary by the Government.

2.4.5.2. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Evaluation quantities in Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14 are estimates only for price evaluation purposes only and do not obligate the Government in any way. The six (6) month Extension of Services Period shall not to be considered part of the last option period.

2.4.5.3. Price Matrix, Appendix G, of the Cost/Price Volume IV will be used to develop the TEP. Within the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet, proposed unit prices shall be input by Offerors in the yellow highlighted cells. Extended pricing will be automatically calculated using estimated quantities provided within the spreadsheet.

2.4.5.4. For purposes of TEP calculation, the Estimated Quantities Tables 11, 12, 13, and 14 are separately provided by specific CLIN each using estimated annual quantities per event or occurrence, per Operating Hour, Flying Hour, or by estimated costs of Material, Travel and Transportation. These evaluation quantity tables provide information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as Transition/Phase-In, all Option Periods, all Incentive Option Periods, and the Six (6) month Extension of Services. After contract award, if the Extension Period is required and the Extension exercised, that pricing shall be the same prices as proposed for the last awarded Option Period preceding the Extension of Services period. Prices per CLIN will be based on proposed unit prices multiplied by the government provided estimated quantities: number of events or occurrences, estimated hours or estimated materials, travel and transportation costs. CLINs X100 (Program Management); X101 (OCONUS Line Maintenance--Hickam) and X102 (OCONUS Line Maintenance--Ramstein) priced on a monthly FFP basis will be multiplied by 12 months representing full annual periods to yield annual evaluated prices. CLINs of less than one-year duration such as 0001

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 14

Transition/Phase-In will utilize the number of months representing the less than full year period of performance. Proposed hourly labor rates and material/travel/transportation burden rates by CLIN will be multiplied by estimated number of hours or material/travel/transportation costs provided in Tables 11 (event quantities), 12 (occurrence quantities), 13 (estimated hours) and 14 (estimated material, travel, transportation costs/expenses) for evaluation purposes only. All estimated labor hours, event or occurrence quantities, material, travel, and transportation dollars are used for evaluation purposes only and shall not obligate the Government to those estimated quantities after contract award. Note: Flying Hour rates are based on midpoints of the three quantity band ranges per CLIN. Proposed Flying Hour rates shall be based on the midpoint and no other quantity point within each quantity range band.

2.4.5.5. Information provided in Tables 5-14 demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements. To develop the extended CLIN pricing and TEP for the contract, Offerors shall propose monthly unit prices or unit prices per event/occurrence, fully burdened labor rates, material burden rates, and G&A rates for each of the CLINs in tables 5-14. The evaluated CLIN calculation methodology is provided in the following tables; this methodology shows Offerors how their proposed pricing will be utilized for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

TABLE 5

CLIN TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE METHODOLOGY

CLIN Description Calculation Methodology

Transition/ Phase- In

Proposed monthly price is multiplied by four (4) months. The sum of these four months equals the evaluated total for the Phase-In period and equals the total estimated price for CLIN 0001.

0002 Phase-Out Not evaluated – To be Negotiated

X100

Program Management

Proposed monthly price is multiplied by twelve (12) months for each year/performance period, except the final six (6) month Extension of Services Period. The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) monthly unit prices and multiplied by six (6) months.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the evaluated total price for CLIN X100.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 15

X101

OCONUS Line Maintenance (Hickam)

Proposed monthly price is multiplied by twelve (12) months for each year/performance period, except the final six (6) month Extension of Services Period. The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) monthly unit prices and multiplied by six (6) months.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the evaluated total for CLIN X101.

X102

OCONUS Line

(Ramstein)

Proposed monthly price is multiplied by twelve (12) months for each year/performance period, except the final six (6) month Extension of Services Period. The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit prices will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) monthly unit prices and multiplied by six (6) months.

evaluated total for CLIN X102.

X200

C-32A

8C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven-(7) unit price.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the total evaluated price for CLIN X200.

X201

9C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the total evaluated price for CLIN X201.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 16

X202

10C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X202.

X203

C-40B

4C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X203.

X204

5C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X204.

X205

6C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the total evaluated price for CLIN X205.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 17

X206

7C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X206.

X207

C-40C

2C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X207.

X208

3C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X208.

X209

4C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the total evaluated price for CLIN X209.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 18

X210

5C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X210.

X211

6C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X211.

X212

7C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X212.

X213

8C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the total evaluated price for CLIN X213.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 19

X214

9C-Check

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the total evaluated price for CLIN X214.

X215- X219

Reserved

Not evaluated.

X220

C-32A Full Strip and Paint – Blue

& White

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X220.

X221

C-32A Full Scuff/Sand and Paint – Blue & White

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

evaluated price for CLIN X221.

X222

C-32A Partial

Paint – White portion only of a Blue and White Paint

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit price.

The sums of all periods’ evaluated totals equal the total evaluated price for CLIN X222.

AS OF 02 December 2014 APPENDIX M - PAGE 20

X223

C-32A Partial

Paint – Blue portion only of a Blue and White Paint

Proposed unit price is multiplied by the estimated events per performance period (see Table 11 for estimated number of events). The six (6) month Extension of Services Period unit price will be based on the proposed Incentive Option Period Seven (7) unit…