Attachment_8_C-12_Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Source Selection (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

Tradeoffs will be made only between Technical Risk, 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 Section L 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 technical risk and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

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

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

1.1.3 This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (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 and 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 a deficiency, weakness, significant weakness, or is 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.

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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm 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 in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Technical Risk, Factor 3 Past Performance, Factor 4 Price, or a combination of the four factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6 Supplemental Responsibility Requirements

1.6.1 Facility Clearance Information: The offeror, and subcontractors as required, must possess or acquire, prior to Source Selection Authority Decision Brief, a final facility clearance equal to the highest classification specification (DD Form 254) attached to this solicitation and be entitled to COMSEC information without additional authorization (i.e. NID). Therefore, all facility clearances must be approved and Foreign Ownership, Control or Influence (FOCI) as defined in the National Industrial Security Program Operating Manual (NISPOM) issues must be mitigated 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. Any determination that an offeror is non-responsible will be in accordance with FAR Part 9. The Source Selection Authority Decision Brief may occur without discussion 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 discussion nor delay the Decision Brief awaiting offer completion of the facilities clearance requirement.

1.6.2 Proscribed Classified COMSEC Information Notice to Offerors and any and all subcontractors: Proscribed classified COMSEC information is involved in this effort.

Therefore, US companies operating under FOCI as defined in the NISPOM with a Special Security Agreement (SSA) 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.

1.6.3 Subcontracting Classified COMSEC Work: 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 Contract Volume of the offeror’s 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.

1.7 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, 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 with Technical Risk), 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.

1.8 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.

1.9 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 Section L, Instruction to Offerors and Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Section M, 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: Program Management Subfactor 2: Maintenance Subfactor 3: Supply Support Subfactor 4: Transition

Factor 2: Technical Risk Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: 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 Technical Risk, 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 (Technical Risk), and Factor 3 (Past Performance) will be approximately equal and individually more important than Factor 4 (Price). When combined, Factor 2 (Technical Risk) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) are significantly more important than Factor 4 (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. Technical Risk will be evaluated against subfactor 1: Program Management, subfactor 3: Supply Support, and subfactor 4: Transition, as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 below. The SSA will then assess the Technical Risk ratings, 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.

For each subfactor, the offeror must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, anawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

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: Program Management

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

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal meets the requirements for all of the following essential components:

a. The proposed approach for a Program Management must clearly describe the plan to staff sites to meet all qualifications and experience requirements to accomplish permformance in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9

Approach must include management structure, and methods to establish and maintain adequate program oversight in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.4, 1.9 and 1.15

b. The proposed approach to provide for quality assurance and safety must clearly describe the plan to provide and maintain a quality system in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.14 and 1.18.

Approach must include plan to ensure all subcontractors comply with the requirements in paragraph 1.2.4.

c. The proposed approach must clearly describe process to provide for technical and engineering services. As a miminum approach must include process to obtain required data required on FAA Form 337 and for obtaining FAA approvals for modifications in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.3.1.2, 1.25.4, and 1.25.6.

d. The proposed approach for subcontracting 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 and Incentive (by % of total contract value) required by Note 1 located in the preamble of the solicitation, which is in additional to the Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS clause 252.219-7003).

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Maintenance

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Maintenance approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal meets the

a) An approach to manage aircraft site operations and aircraft maintence, including engine, propeller, and defensive systems maintenance, must clearly describe process used to maintain aircraft to achieve requied MC rate in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, and 1.8

Approach shall include unique considerations affecting maintence of single aircraft sites for both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance to maintain MC rate in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.21, 1.22, 1.25.3, and 2.2.

b) An approach to provide for a maintenance information system which adheres to the requirements of the PWS. The maintenance information system should be able to provide near real time status reporting and give Government complete visibility and insight into the C-12 critical program metrics in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.15.5.

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Supply Support

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Supply Support approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors

a) An approach of to manage all material, parts, tools, and support equipment must clearly describe process used to maintain COMBS at each site and conduct logistics operations to maintain MC rate.

At a minimum, approach should provide range and depth of spare parts, repairable and expendable to support required aircraft MC and utilization rates in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.4. Approach must address, in particular, providing supply support within Argentina, Brazil, Egypt, Kenya, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia.

2.2.4 Subfactor 4: Transition

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Transition Plan approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in Section L, Instruction to Offerors

a) An approach to manage and accomplish phase-in must clearly describe process used to accomplish a transparent, to the Government, phase-in to ensure no disruption to supply and maintance support in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.24.1.

b) The approach shall clearly describe process and timelines to ensure passports, visas, site access credentials, facility leases, medical clearances, FACT training (where required), and security clearances have been obtained in accordance with PWS paragraphs 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, and 1.24.1. In particular, approach shall address approach for Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudia Arabia.

The approach shall clearly describe the process and timelines to ensure personnel are appropriately trained upon assumption of their duties in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.13.

c) An approach must clearly describe process (with a detailed schedule) to obtain import/export lincenses, ITAR processing, and customs clearance for all materials shipped OCONUS in accordance with PWS paragraph 1.4.

2.3 Factor 2 – Technical Risk

The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for the subfactors listed in Factor 1 Technical. Risk considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management, Subfactor 3: Supply Support, and Subfactor 4: Transition will be evaluated for technical risk and will receive a single risk rating for the three subfactors combined. Subfactor 2: Maintanance will not be evaluated for technical risk. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. The offeror’s risk assessment provided IAW Section L, paragraph 3.2.7 will be evaluated by the Government in addition to any Government assessed risk. The technical risk ratings are defined as follows:

Rating

Description – Technical Risk

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

2.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance

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

2.4.1 Ratings

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

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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

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

2.4.2 Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to 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, but not limited to, 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.

2.4.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past 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.

2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including 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.

joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)), as defined in paragraph

4.3 and 4.4 of Section L) 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 Attachments 1.1, 1.2, and 2.0 of Section 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:

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:

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-12 CLS requirement.

Consideration may be given to the following aircraft maintenance operations (in order of greater relevancy to least relevancy) when determining past performance:

1. C-12 maintenance

2. Beechcraft King Air/Beech 1900 Airliner maintenance

3. Twin turboprop fixed wing aircraft maintenance

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 proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to magnitude:

1. Number of OCONUS locations in developing nations where aircraft components were shipped

2. Number of aircraft sites managed

3. Number of aircraft managed and maintained

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 technical subfactors. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity:

1. Accomplishment of full contractor logistics support at multiple OCONUS single or limited number of aircraft sites in developing nations

2. Maintaining workforce at difficult to staff locations, to include passports visas, and site credentials

3. Level of supply chain support to include clearing customs in foreign countries

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/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 C- 12 CLS requirement.

2.4.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, 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 levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Description EXCEPTIONAL (E) During the contract period, contractor performance is

(BLUE) 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.

VERY GOOD (VG)

(PURPLE)

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely 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. Do not know.

UNKNOWN (UK)

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

2.4.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the 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 2.4.1 above. The rating is not based on a qualitive 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.

2.5 Factor 4 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) reasonableness (including completeness), (2) balanced pricing, (3) price realism, (4) cost realism, 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 shall evaluate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.5.6.4. (TEP Calculation Table) and paragraph 2.5.7 (Estimated Quantities Table) below. 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.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all technically acceptable Offerors. This TEP price rollup is based on the specific contract line item number (CLIN) calculation methodology provided below. These calculations will include all evaluation periods: the Basic Period, all Option Periods, and the Six Month Extension Period. The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services. The Offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix of the RFP.

2.5.1 Price Reasonableness

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. 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.

Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with Section L, para 5.2.1.

Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable.

2.5.2 Balanced 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 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 Offeror; or

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

2.5.3 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 may 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 failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

2.5.4 Cost Realism

The proposed indirect rates for cost reimbursable CLINs X016, X017, and X018 will be evaluated for cost realism. Analysis of cost realism will be performed to determine if the proposed rates are realistic. In addition, cost realism will be used to determine the most probable cost of performance related to those cost reimbursable CLINs. IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2)(i) the most probable cost will be used for the purposes of evaluation to determine best value.

2.5.5 Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data

Data other than certified cost or pricing data as required in the ITO, Section L, will be evaluated to assist in the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing and price realism. If requested by the CO, additional data other than certified cost or pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing, also reflecting 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.

2.5.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in the Pricing Matrixof the RFP. The Offeror’s pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L pricing instructions. The TEP Calculation Table below demonstrates the TEP calculation methodology. Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required by Section L, paragraph 5.0 and all subparagraphs.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the one year Phase-In during the Base Period, one ten month Option Period, seven one-year Option Periods, one eight month Option Period and the six month Extension Period IAW FAR 52.217-8 “Option to Extend Services”. For TEP calculation, the six month Extension Period unit prices will be based on the proposed unit prices of Option Period Nine.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six month extension period is not to be considered part of Option Year periods—the Extension Period will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized. Similarly, quantities used in the Estimated Quantities Table below are for evaluation purposes only and do not represent future purchase quantities or obligate the Government.

2.5.6.1 The Pricing Matrix of the model contract should reflect pricing proposed in the Price Volume used to develop the TEP.

2.5.6.2 For purposes of TEP calculation, the Estimated Quantities Table provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods, such as the Basic Period, Option Periods, and Extension Period. As stated above, the Extension Period unit prices shall be based on the Option Period Nine unit prices.

Extended Prices per CLIN will be based on Offeror proposed unit prices multiplied by the government-provided estimated quantities: number of occurrences, estimated dollars or estimated hours.

2.5.6.3 Each offeror’s TEP may be adjusted by the Government as a result of the cost realism analysis based on the Government determined most probable cost. This only pertains to indirect rates proposed for cost reimbursable CLINs X016, X017, and X018.

Any adjustments to the TEP would be upward only. There will not be an adjustment to the Government’s historical cost estimate used as a basis for CLINs X016, X017, and X018. Evaluation of price realism does not require adjustments of proposed pricing.

2.5.6.4 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 9013 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

TEP Calculation Table

CLIN CLIN Description TEP Calculation Methodology X001

X001AA

X001AB

X001AC

X001AD

X001AE

X001AF

Base Operations Support

Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)

PACAF

Holloman AFB Edwards AFB

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Proposed unit prices for each site will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN.

Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X002 Flying Hour Support Proposed unit prices for each site will be

X002AA

X002AB

X002AC

X002AD

X002AE

X002AF

X002AG

X002AH

X002AJ

DIA

DSCA

Pilot Training

Holloman AFB Edwards AFB

Yokota AB Elmendorf AFB

Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Holloman AFB (BV-08) multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN.

Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X003 Reserved Not Evaluated X004

X004AA

X004AB

X004AC

X004AD

X004AE

X004AF

Propeller Overhaul

AFMC (C-12C/D Models) PACAF F (C-12F Model) PACAF J (C-12J Model)

Holloman AFB (C-12J Model) Edwards AFB (C-12C/D Models)

Holloman AFB (C-12F Model (BV-08))

Proposed unit prices for each aircraft model will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the

Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X005

X005AA

X005AB

X005AC

X005AD

X005AE

X005AF

Aircraft Conditions Inspections (ACI)

(C-12C/D Models) PACAF (C-12F Model) PACAF (C-12J Model)

Holloman AFB (C-12J Model) Edwards AFB (C-12C/D Models)

Holloman AFB (C-12F Model (BV-08))

Proposed unit prices for each aircraft model will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the

Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to

X006

X006AA

X006AB

X006AC

X006AD

X006AE

X006AF

Engine Overhaul

AFMC (PT6A-41)

PACAF F (PT6A-42)

PACAF J (PT6A-65)

Holloman AFB (PT6A-65) Edwards AFB (PT6A-41)

Holloman AFB (C-12F Model (BV-08))

Proposed unit prices for each aircraft engine type will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to

X007

X007AA

X007AB

X007AC

X007AD

X007AE

X007AF

Engine Teardown & Inspection

AFMC (PT6A-41)

PACAF F (PT6A-42)

PACAF J (PT6A-65)

Holloman AFB (C-12J Model) Edwards AFB (C-12C/D Models)

Holloman AFB (C-12F Model (BV-08))

Proposed unit prices for each aircraft engine type will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X008 Reserved Not Evaluated X009 Reserved Not Evaluated X010

X010AA

O&A Aircraft Labor (Depot)

Not Evaluated

X010AB

X010AC

AFMC/PACAF

Proposed unit prices of labor hour for each site will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price

X010AD

X010AE

586th FLTS (Holloman AFB) 412th FTW (Edwards AFB) for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to

X011

X011AA

X011AB

X011AC

X011AD

X011AE

O&A Aircraft Labor (Non-Depot)

AFMC/PACAF

586th FLTS (Holloman AFB) 412th FTW (Edwards AFB)

Proposed unit prices of labor hour for each site will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to

X012

X012AA

O&A Engine Repair Labor

X012AB

X012AC

X012AD

X012AE

AFMC/PACAF

586th FLTS (Holloman AFB) 412th FTW (Edwards AFB)

Proposed unit prices of labor hour for each site will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to

X013

Modifications

Material Factor Subcontractor Wrap Rate Factor

Composite Labor Wrap Rate

Proposed unit price factors and proposed unit prices for labor hour composite rates for each site will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table. The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X014 RESERVED Not Evaluated X015 Travel and per diem Not Evaluated

X016 Parts and Material (aircraft)

Proposed indirect rates will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table.

The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the CLIN.

X017 Parts and Material (engines)

Proposed indirect rates will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table.

The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the CLIN.

X018 Other Efforts

Proposed indirect rates will be multiplied by the quantity listed in the Estimated Quantities Table.

The resulting extended pricing per evaluation period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for the CLIN.

X019 RESERVED Not Evaluated X020 Phase-Out TBN X021 Phase-In Proposed unit price equals evaluated total for

CLIN 0021.

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

2.5.7 Estimated Quantities Table

The following table provides estimated quantities to be used in calculating the Total Evaluated Price. NOTE: These estimated quantities are for evaluation purposes only.

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

FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY

CLIN Unit Basic Yr

Opt Yr 1

Opt Yr 2

Opt Yr 3

Opt Yr 4

Opt Yr 5

Opt Yr 6

Opt Yr 7

Opt Yr 8

Opt Yr 9

Opt 6 Mos.

Firm Fixed Price

X001 BASE

OPERATIONS

AA DIA MO 0 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 6

AB DSCA MO 0 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 6

AC AFMC/PACAF MO 0 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 6

AD Holloman MO 0 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 6 AE Edwards MO 0 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 6 AF Saudi Arabia MO 0 10 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 8 6

X002 FLYING

HOURS

AA DIA HR 0 3720 4464 4464 4464 4464 4464 4464 4464 2976 2232

AB DSCA HR 0 1630 1956 1956 1956 1956 1956 1956 1956 1304 978

AC Pilot Training HR 0 310 372 372 372 372 372 372 372 248 186 AD Holloman HR 0 400 480 480 480 480 480 480 480 320 240 AE Edwards HR 0 1020 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 1224 816 612 AF Yokota HR 0 1600 1920 1920 1920 1920 1920 1920 1920 1280 960 AG Elmendorf HR 0 800 960 960 960 960 960 960 960 640 480 AH Saudi Arabia HR 0 750 900 900 900 900 900 900 900 600 450

AJ Holloman (BV-

08) HR 0 90 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 72 54

Fixed Price Per Event

X004 PROPELLER

OVERHAUL

AA AFMC C/D EA 0 1 2 6 9 9 9 9 4 5 4

AB PACAF F EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AC PACAF J EA 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AD Holloman J EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AE Edwards C/D EA 0 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 3 3 2

AF Holloman (BV-

08) EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

X005 Aircraft Condition Insp

AA AFMC C/D EA 0 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 2

AB PACAF F EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AC PACAF J EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AD Holloman J EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AE Edwards C/D EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

CLIN Unit Basic Yr

Opt Yr 1

Opt Yr 2

Opt Yr 3

Opt Yr 4

Opt Yr 5

Opt Yr 6

Opt Yr 7

Opt Yr 8

Opt Yr 9

Opt 6 Mos.

AF Holloman (BV-

08) EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fixed Price Per Event

X006 ENGINE

OVERHAUL

AA AFMC C/D EA 0 2 11 10 6 2 2 2 4 5 2

AB PACAF F EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AC PACAF J EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AD Holloman J EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AE Edwards C/D EA 0 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

Holloman (BV-

08) EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

X007 ENGINE TD&I

AA AFMC C/D EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AB PACAF F EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AC PACAF J EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AD Holloman J EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 AE Edwards C/D EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

AF Holloman (BV-

08) EA 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Over and Above -- Fixed Price Rates

X010 Aircraft Labor (Depot)

AC AFMC/PACAF HR 0 2300 3400 3400 3400 3400 3400 3400 4000 4000 2000

AD Holloman HR 0 25 25 600 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 AE Edwards HR 0 25 25 25 25 600 600 600 25 600 25

X011 Aircraft Labor (Non-Depot)

AA DIA HR 0 45 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 30

AB DSCA HR 0 45 85 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 30

AC AFMC/PACAF HR 0 240 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 485 240

AD Holloman HR 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 AE Edwards HR 0 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

X012 Engine Repair Labor

AC AFMC/PACAF HR 0 700 3850 3500 2100 700 700 700 1400 1750 700

AD Holloman HR 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 AE Edwards HR 0 350 350 350 25 700 25 350 350 350 25

X013 Modifications Material Factor All Sites $000 0 603 1397 7377 5090 1299 1414 895 1084 1084 18

Subcontractor

Wrap Rate Factor

All Sites $000 0 258 598 3162 2181 556 606 383 465 465 7

Composite Labor Wrap

Rate

CLIN Unit Basic Yr

Opt Yr 1

Opt Yr 2

Opt Yr 3

Opt Yr 4

Opt Yr 5

Opt Yr 6

Opt Yr 7

Opt Yr 8

Opt Yr 9

Opt 6 Mos.

All Sites HR 0 2065 5500 15800 11000 5000 5500 3400 4200 4200 60 Cost Reimbursable

X016 Parts and Material (aircraft)

$000

0 374 483 629 582 664 667 669 824 747 300

X017 Parts and Material

(engines)

$000

0 2244 8938 9713 5404 4383 2619 3415 4641 5267 2107

X018 Other Efforts $000 0 553 1157 1179 1195 1215 1235 1259 1290 1301 1115 Firm Fixed Price

X021 Phase-In

AA DIA LO 1

AB DSCA LO 1

AC AFMC/PACAF LO 1

AD Holloman LO 1 AE Edwards LO 1

2.5.8 Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

Documentation to support rounding will be provided in Section 1, as well as actual rounding in Section 4, copy of completed Section B of RFP. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP.

2.5.9 Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

Formerly known as the Service Contract Act - The Government will review…