AppendixEEvaluationFactorsforAwardAmendment0003.pdf

Appendix E ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2 FA8106-14-R-0004-0003

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection (SS) 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 (IAW) 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 superior past performance of the higher priced technically acceptable offer outweighs the price difference.

1.1.1 The SSA will base the SS decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all SS criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the SS process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2 This SS is conducted IAW FAR Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 04 Mar 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

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, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

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 requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm

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 to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three 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.

1.6 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 Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the SS 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.

1.7 Reviews and Visits

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, 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

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: Phase-In/Transition Subfactor 2: Program Management Subfactor 3: Maintenance and Supply Support Subfactor 4: Tow Support

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

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. Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (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 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 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. 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.

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical

Each subfactor within the Technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. 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. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

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.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.2.1 Subfactor 1: Phase-In/Transition

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Phase-in/Transition approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the 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 of how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An approach to manage and accomplish contract phase-in/transition, which ensures the Contractor will successfully meet all requirements of the PWS paragraphs 1.20,1.20.1,1.25,1.39,1.39.1, 3.1.1, and 3.1.1.1 with no disruption of mission support for the USAF Academy fleet.

b. A detailed milestone plan which ensures a seamless phase-in/transition to fully support the requirements of the contract IAW PWS paragraphs 1.39 and all subsequent paragraphs.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Program Management

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management approach.

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the 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 on how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. A Program Management Plan which ensures the support of the entire scope of the effort is met IAW PWS paragraphs 1.20.2, 1.21.2, 1.30, 1.31, 1.31.1, 1.31.2, and Attachment E.

b. An approach which indicates an adequate awareness and understanding of applicable standards for sustainment of the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA) fleet, which ensures all work described in the PWS can be successfully accomplished IAW both United States Air Force (USAF) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) standards.

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Maintenance and Supply Support

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance and Supply Support approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an understanding of the requirements, and provides rationale as to how your approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. The approach shall ensure the requirements of PWS paragraph1.6.8 are met.

b. An effective approach to procure, issue, replenish, maintain, and manage all material, parts and components for Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) of the USAFA fleet which ensures the Mission Capable (MC) rates required by PWS paragraph 1.2 and PWS Table 1-2 are met.

c. Approach to manage Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply (COMBS), to include parts obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortage, as well as an approach to procure, issue, replenish, maintain, and manage all material, parts and components of Government Furnished Property/Equipment (GFP/GFE) which ensures that PWS paragraphs 1.18, 1.18.1.1, 1.18.2, 1.18.2.1, and 3.1 are met.

d. An approach to maintain the entire USAFA fleet IAW FAA and Air Force regulations which ensures that PWS paragraphs 1.3, 1.28, and 1.40 are met.

2.2.4 Subfactor 4: Tow Support Services

The proposal shall describe in detail a sound and effective, feasible plan to provide tow aircraft and pilots to meet the PWS requirements and meet tow rate requirements for main operating base and deployed locations. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an understanding of the requirements, and provide rationale as to how your approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. The approach shall list the type and performance capabilities of tow aircraft being used for this requirement. Proposed aircraft shall be capable of meeting the requirements as outlined in PWS paragraphs 1.27.2 and 1.27.2.1.

b. The approach shall ensure tow pilots meet all the qualifications and certifications IAW 14 CFR Part 61, Section 61.69 and PWS paragraphs1.27.1.1 and 1.27.1.2.

2.3 Factor 2 – 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.

2.3.1 Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following Performance Confidence Assessments described in the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, paragraph 3.1.3.3, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments:

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

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

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.

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.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet the contract requirements as outlined in the proposed solicitation. 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 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 all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.3.2.1 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 three 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.

2.3.2.2 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)), as defined in paragraph

4.3.3 of the ITO, Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) 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 forms contained in ITO Attachments of FAR 52.212- 1 Addendum 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 and relevant contracts:

Degree Description

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.

The Academy operates out of two Main Operating Bases (MOB), USAFA and Peterson AFB. CLS support includes aircraft and mission systems maintenance capability to provide depot-level repair, COMBS operation, spare parts acquisition, component overhaul/repair (including engines), recurring engineering and technical services, and support equipment maintenance. 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 in regards to Scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the USAFA CLS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to Scope:

1. Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance.

2. Organization intermediate depot maintenance on multiple platforms (USAFA has seven commercial derivative aircraft).

3. Supply chain management at multiple sites. (USAFA and Peterson AFB), (COMBS).

4. Tow services for glider fleets.

5. Over and Above (aircraft repairs, aircraft modifications, etc).

Magnitude: Relevancy in regards to Magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the USAFA CLS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regards to Magnitude:

1. Dollar value of parts managed.

2. Contract value. Generally, efforts of less than $100,000 will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example: Multiple overhaul contracts under $100,000 on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract).

Complexity: Relevancy in regards to Complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort, technical subfactors, and the USAFA CLS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to Complexity:

1. Labor category utilized (personnel skill type/level).

2. Aircraft type (General Aviation).

3. Level of maintenance (i.e. depot, intermediate, and organizational).

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regards to Price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the USAFA CLS requirement.

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the Performance Quality of recent and relevant efforts.

The Quality Assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the Past Performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), 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 levels when assessing recent and relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description

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 failed) 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. Do not know.

UNKNOWN (UK)

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

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings

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 paragraph 2.3.1 above. 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.

2.4 Factor 3 – Price

The Offeror’s Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the pricing instructions in Addendum 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Price Realism, (4) Unbalanced Pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price. 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 Government will evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all Offerors, including all option prices. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.4.6, as follows. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed Price calculations as computed IAW 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.

This TEP Price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Phase-In Period, the Basic Period, all Option Periods, and the 6-month Extension Period. The Extension Period is IAW Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Appendix F, Pricing Matrix.

2.4.1 Completeness

Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1, para 5.2. All required pricing must be provided in the Pricing proposal Price Matrix in Appendix F. Complete pricing is one aspect of reasonable pricing. Incomplete proposals will be considered not awardable.

2.4.2 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of Price proposals will be performed using one or more of the proposal analysis techniques defined in FAR

15.404 in order to determine 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.

2.4.3 Price Realism

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for Price Realism. This pertains to CLIN pricing as well as TEP. Proposed pricing will be evaluated to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement and to ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance.

Realistic pricing demonstrates an adequate understanding of the requirement with proposed pricing realistic for the work required. To be realistic, proposed pricing shall be consistent with the proposed approach, demonstrating adequate understanding of the requirement and program complexity. All documentation submitted to support Price Realism shall be considered in making a determination of Price Realism.

Unrealistic prices may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based on an apparent lack of adequate understanding of the requirement or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. Offerors are cautioned to not use under-bidding as a pricing strategy with the intention of recovering under-bid costs after contract award via Requests for Equitable Adjustments (REAs) or other devices.

2.4.4 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors’ 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 (CO) if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Unbalanced Pricing pertains to CLIN pricing variance and/or unexplained variance between periods of performance. 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 Offeror; or

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

2.4.5 Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

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

2.4.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in the Pricing Matrix, Appendix F. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed unit prices multiplied by the estimated quantities provided in paragraph 2.4.7 below.

Each CLIN calculation will be computed IAW 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. The six month extension period is not to be considered part of the Option Year periods—the Extension Period will be a separate option exercised, if it is utilized. Similarly, quantities provided in the Estimated Quantities Table (para 2.4.7) are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent future purchase quantities or obligate the Government whatsoever.

For purposes of TEP calculation, the Estimated Quantities Table (para 2.4.7) provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as Phase-In, the Basic Period, Option Periods, and Extension. If an Extension Period of a few months is also required, that pricing shall be based on the last Option Period unit prices. Extended Pricies per CLIN will be based on unit prices multiplied by the government-provided estimated quantities: number of occurrences, estimated dollars or estimated hours.

The information provided below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains details regarding instruction of submitting proposed pricing.

To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs 0001 through X014 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

CLIN CLIN Description TEP Calculation Methodology

0001 Phase-In Proposed unit prices will be multiplied by 3 months for Phase-In.

X002 Aircraft Support Services

Proposed unit prices for each aircraft type will be multiplied by the quantity designated for evaluation purposes as well as frequency per year. This is 4 months per year for the Basic Period. Option years will be multiplied by 12 for each full Option year and by 6 for the Extension Period, representing 6 months. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together for the overall CLIN extended price.

X003 Towing Services

Proposed unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated for evaluation. This is 4 months of the Basic Period. Option years will be multiplied by 12 for each full Option year and by 6 for the Extension Period, representing 6 months. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X004 COMBS

Proposed unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated for evaluation. This is 4 months of the Basic Period. Option years will be multiplied by 12 for each full Option year and by 6 for the Extension Period, representing 6 months. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X005 Data NSP

X006 Flying Hours

Proposed unit prices multiplied by the quantity designated for evaluation. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X007 RESERVED

X008 Base Support Services

Proposed unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated for evaluation. This is 4 months of the Basic Period. Option years will be multiplied by 12 for each full Option year and by 6 for the Extension Period, representing 6 months. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X009 Engine Overhaul

Proposed unit prices multiplied by the number of engines estimated for Overhaul per period. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN

X010 Propeller Overhaul

Proposed unit prices multiplied by the number of propellers estimated for Overhaul per period. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN

X011 Engineering Support

Proposed unit prices will be multiplied by the quantity designated for evaluation. This is 4 months of the Basic Period. Option years will be multiplied by 12 for each full Option year and by 6 for the Extension Period, representing 6 months. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X012 Deployment Support

Overtime

Proposed unit prices multiplied by the quantity designated for evaluation. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X013 Strip and Paint

Proposed unit prices multiplied by the number of aircraft estimated for Strip and Paint per period. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN

X014 RESERVED

X015 RESERVED

X016 RESERVED

X017 Over & Above (O&A) Labor Rates

Firm Fixed Priced –To be Negotiated O&A Labor Rates per performance period shall be proposed as Fixed Rates for use throughout each period of performance. These Fixed Rates should be fully loaded rates, and will be multiplied by estimated hours per evaluation period provided by the Government. The resulting extended pricing per year or evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X018 O&A Material Handling Rate

A fully burdened (loaded) Material Handling Rate shall be proposed as a Fixed Rate per evaluation period.

These rates shall be sufficient to include all possible cost increases in out-years, as well as any and all future out-years changes in supply support, including subcontractors or vendors or supply chain management changes. These proposed Fixed Rates will be multiplied by the estimated material costs per year, resulting in annual extended pricing. These annual extended prices will be added together to yield total price CLIN.

X019

Travel & Per Diem

Not Evaluated

X020 Transportation Not Evaluated

X021 Parts & Materials

(Not included in Flying Hour CLIN) Not Evaluated

As indicated above, all extended pricing per CLIN will be added together yielding the

TEP.

2.4.7 Estimated Quantities Table

The following quantities are FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY. The figures are not to be used for computation of workload.

Phase-In

3-Months

Basic Period

4-Months

Option Year I

Year II

Year III

Year IV

Incentive

Opt

6-Month Extension

Phase-In

3 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Aircraft Support Services

UV-18B 0 4 12 12 12 12 12

T-41D 0 4 12 12 12 12 12

TG-16A 0 4 12 12 12 12 12

TG-15A 0 4 12 12 12 12 12

TG-15B 0 4 12 12 12 12 12

TG-51A 0 4 12 12 12 12 12

T-53A 0 4 12 12 12 12 12

Towing Services

0 4 12 12 12 12 12

COMBS

0 4 12 12 12 12 12

Flying Hours

UV-18B 0 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200

T-41D 0 1,200

1,200

TG-16A 0 5,430

5,430

TG-15A 0 641

TG-15B 0 463

T-51A 0 1,150 1,150 1,150 1,150 1.150 1,150 1,150 1,150

T-53A 0 10,296 10,296 10,296 10,296 10,296 10,296 10,296 10,296

Base Support

Engine Overhaul

T-41D 0 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1

UV-18B 0 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 5

T-51A 0 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1

T-53A 0 1 1 5 9 6 4 1 1

Propeller Overhaul

T-41D 0 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

T-51A 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

T-53A 0 1 1 9 15 1 1 1 1

UV-18B 0 1 3 1 1 1 3 2 1

Strip & Paint

T-41D 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

UV-18B 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

T-51A 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

T-53A 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Deployments- Overtime Hrs

UV-18B 0 448 560 560 560 560 560 560 224

T-41D 0 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 222

TG-16A 0 404 909 909 909 909 909 909 202

TG-15A 0 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 202

TG-15B 0 404 404 404 404 404 404 404 202

T-51A 0 444 444 444 444 444 444 444 222

O&A

Maintenance- Straight Time Rate

0 200 500 500 500 500 500 500 300

Maintenance- Overtime Hourly Rate

Engineering- Straight Time Rate

50 60 60 60 60 60 60 30

Engineering-Overtime Hourly Rate

50 100 100 100 100 100 100 50

* Material Handling Rate (Ceiling, Fixed

Rate)

0 $150 $400

$400

$400 $150

* Dollar amounts in thousands of dollars

2.4.8 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

Documentation to support rounding should be provided in Section 1of the Price Volume, as well as actual rounding in Section 4 of the Price Volume. The Pricing Matrix is located in Appendix F. The Pricing Matrix format provides for decimal places that must be IAW the required decimal format. If any Pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and

TEP.

2.4.9 Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to verify each Offeror’s compliance with RFP Appendices G, H, J, and Appendix D requirement to demonstrate compliance with the SCLS. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the Offeror and subsequent contract awardee. Offerors’ demonstration of their understanding of SCLS as applicable for SCLA-covered positions will be reviewed. It should be noted that actual compliance of Offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and regional Area Wage Determination (AWD) as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact (POC) in regards to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.4.10 O&A Fixed Rates for Labor and Material

The Government will review pricing proposed as Fixed Rates (hourly labor rates for O&A and Material Handling Rates) as required in Section 3 of the Price Volume.

2.4.11 Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review Section 2 regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing. Reasonable pricing determination as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor/vendor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair & reasonable.

2.4.12 Government Furnished versus Contractor Furnished Assumptions The Government will review information provided in Section 3 of the Price Volume to verify each Offeror’s assumptions based on information provided in the solicitation pertaining to items furnished by the Government. The Government will review information provided in Section 3 of the Price Volume to verify each Offeror’s understanding of items (including property, equipment, material, and facilities) provided by the Government.

2.4.13 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government shall review Section 1 of the Price Volume for all Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduced, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions and so forth. Also, the Offerors’ explanation of how such reduction will not affect Contractor responsibility or put the Government at increased performance risk.

2.4.14 Estimating Methodology and Systems Review

The Government will review information provided in Section 1 of the Price Volume regarding estimating, accounting, and purchasing systems. As provided in Section 1 of the Price Volume, estimating, accounting, and purchasing systems will be reviewed.

The status of the Offerors’ systems will be reviewed by the Government. DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from Offerors’ standard practices will also be evaluated. The Government will review your basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based.

2.4.15 Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in Section 3 of the Price Volume regarding price assumptions utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate.

Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

2.4.16 Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to check compliance with the requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

2.4.17 Other Documentation Review

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or pricing data as believed necessary to support, justify or clarify their proposed pricing.

All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced and realistic pricing.