Attachment_F_Section_M_Amend_0002.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 of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and superior technical risk and/or superior past performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced Offerors.

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

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

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, 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 31 Mar 2016, 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.

A single integrator will design, develop, integrate, test, certify, produce, install, provide Interim Contractor Support (ICS) and modify the replacement Avionics Suite into the T- 1A aircraft and corresponding Simulators: Operational Flight Trainer (OFT) and Part- Task Trainer (PTT).

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency, significant weakness, or is unacceptable. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

of the Government. If an aspect of an Offerors 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 the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources are available to perform the proposed technical approach.

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. 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), 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 Offerors 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 Offerors 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 Statement of Work (SOW) 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.

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: Aircraft & Simulator (OFT and PTT) Modification Strategy Subfactor 2: Systems Requirements Document Subfactor 3: Simulator (OFT and PTT) Specific Requirements Subfactor 4: Logistics and Planning (Implementation)

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, the following is the order of importance in the integrated assessment:

• Factor 2 (Technical Risk) is approximately equal to Factor 3 (Past Performance)

• Factor 2 (Technical Risk) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) individually are more important than Factor 4 (Price)

• Factor 2 (Technical Risk) and Factor 3 (Past Performance) when combined are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price)

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors 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 as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph

2.5 below. For the award decision, the SSA will then assess the Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment as to which Offeror provides the best value to the Government.

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, and therefore, unawardable. 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 meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Aircraft and Simulator (OFT and PTT) Modification Strategy The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the AMP aircraft and simulator modification strategy as it relates to the T-1A. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Technical Subfactor 1, Paragraph 3.2.3. To be acceptable, the Offerors’ approach, at a minimum, must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements to ensure successful aircraft and simulator modification in accordance with the SOW and SRD:

a) Approach for i. and ii. below must ensure the proposed solution integrates with the existing legacy system while minimizing disturbances to the legacy systems. For disturbed systems the approach must ensure the following:

i. Electrical and data compatibility between T-1A modified aircraft and legacy systems

ii. Electrical and data compatibility between modified simulator (OFT and PTT) and legacy systems

(SOW Section 6.6, Paragraphs 3 and 4).

b) Approach must ensure use of COTS components in the proposed T-1A avionics suite with a Technology Readiness Level of 8 on a Beechcraft 400A or equivalent aircraft (SOW Section 1.2 Paragraph 2 and SOW Section 3, Paragraph 1).

c) Approach for i. and ii. below must demonstrate software verification to ensure all elements of CDRL A042 are met and ensures developed software enables enhanced system performance, maintainability, interoperability, portability, reliability and user-friendly methods of operation. (SOW Section 9, Paragraphs 3 and 4).

i. Aircraft

ii. Simulator (OFT and PTT)

d) Approach must demonstrate ability to obtain required Associated Contractor Agreements (ACA), Offerors are not required to provide entire ACA, only the portion that establishes an agreement of parties. To be acceptable the offeror must provide an ACA or letters of intent with suppliers and OEMs for all required components to satisfy contractual expectations related to required intellectual property. (SOW Section 4, Paragraph 4).

e) At a minimum, the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP) must ensure events and milestones indentified in SOW Appendix E are met and executable. (SOW Section 4.1 and Appendix E).

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: System Requirement Document (SRD)

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the AMP simulator modification strategy as it relates to the T-1A. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L. To be acceptable, the Offerors’ approach, at a minimum, must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that the proposed solution will meet all requirements of the following elements.

a) Proposal successfully states all MANDATORY SRD requirements will be met

b) Offeror’s approach ensures the proposed solution will meet each individual SRD requirement identified in the SRD Evaluation Table (RFP Attachment D)

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: Simulator (OFT and PTT) Specific Requirements The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the AMP simulator modification strategy as it relates to the T-1A. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Technical Subfactor 3, Paragraph 3.2.5. To be acceptable, the Offerors’ approach, at a minimum, must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements to ensure successful simulator modification in accordance with the SOW:

a) Approach must demonstrate ability to obtain required ACAs. To be acceptable the offeror must provide an ACA or letter of intent with simulator Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) contractor (SOW Section 8, Paragraph 1).

b) Approach must ensure the two prototype OFTs and PTTs are modified no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to delivery of the first modified aircraft to that Maintenance Operating Base (MOB) in accordance with the IMS (SOW Section 8).

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Logistics and Planning (Implementation)

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the Logistics and Planning implementation as it relates to the T-1A. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Technical Subfactor 4, Paragraph 3.2.6. To be acceptable, the Offerors’ approach, at a minimum, must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements to ensure successful logistics and planning implementation in accordance with the SOW:

a) Approach must ensure FAA Certification Plan meets the minimum requirements of SOW Section 6.3.1, including STC certification within 12 MO from contract award.

b) Approach must ensure the level of staffing of qualified and certified personnel are adequate to support all aspects of the AMP program (SOW Section 4.4, Paragraph 1).

c) Approach must ensure identification of long-lead time material/parts and ensure items are available to meet schedule (SOW Section 5.6, Paragraph 2 and Appendix B).

d) Approach must ensure technical order data for the prototype T-1A aircraft and prototype OFT and PTT devices IAW TO 00-5-3 is identified, developed and delivered to meet schedule (SOW Section 10, paragraph 2).

e) To be considered technically acceptable, the approach must:

i. Include an FAA Part 145 certificate

ii. Ensure the associated airfield will support safe aircraft operations

IAW AFI 11-2T-1 section 3.3.6

iii. Demonstrate maintenance facilities will accommodate no less than six (6) in-dock modifications at any one time (SOW Section 3.5)

2.3. Factor 2 – Technical Risk

The Government will evaluate Technical Risk, focusing on weaknesses and significant weaknesses associated with an Offeror’s proposed approach for the subfactors listed below and as defined in Section L Paragraph 4.0. Risk considers the potential for disruption to schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical subfactors 1, 2, 3 and 4 (elements a & e) will be evaluated for technical risk and will receive a single risk rating for the four subfactors combined. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement.

The Offerors risk assessment IAW Section L, Paragraph 4.0 will be evaluated by the Government in addition to any Government assessed risk. It is the Government’s intent to identify our own risks based on the technical evaluation. The technical risk ratings are defined as follows:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Note: If an offeror is rated as high or unacceptable risk in one or more subfactor(s), the offeror will be unawardable.

2.4. Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an Offerors 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 Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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

2.4.2. Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the Offerors 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 Offerors recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and price assessment. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance will 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 Offerors 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 Offerors 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 Offerors (including joint venture partner(s) and significant subcontractor/teaming partner (performing over 5% of the total proposed contract value), as defined in paragraph 5.1.2 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 installation will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform installation on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 1.2 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 3.1.3.1.2, 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, similar Avionics Suite Replacement on the T-1A aircraft or equivalent aircraft.

Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to scope:

Avionics modifications

Engineering efforts

Production/installation activities

Simulator (OFT and PTT) modification

Aircrew and maintenance training

Subcontract management

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:

Number of aircraft modified per year

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

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.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy in regard to cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarities between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed- Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the T-1A Avionics Modification Program (AMP) 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), Offeror’s Volume II submission, 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) Blue

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

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Satisfactory (S) Green

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

Marginal (M) Yellow

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory (U) Red

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

Unknown (UK) Unknown performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.4.3. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the 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. 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. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance.

2.5. Factor 4 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) price realism, (4) balanced pricing, and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an Offerors 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 TEP of all Offerors, including option prices. The Offerors price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 2.5.5.3. (TEP Calculation Table) and paragraph 2.5.6 (Estimated Quantities Table) below. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offerors 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 will evaluate the TEP of all 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 and six Option Periods. The Offerors price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in Attachment C (Price Matrix) of the RFP. All information provided in response to the subparagraphs will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing.

2.5.1. Completeness

Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable.

2.5.2. 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 also be evaluated for completeness. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable.

2.5.3. 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.

2.5.4. 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.

Normally, price realism is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

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.

2.5.5. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

Data other than certified cost or pricing data as required in the ITO, Section L, paragraph 6.0 and all subparagraphs, 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 Price Matrix, Attachment C of the RFP. No pricing is required in Schedule B. The Offerors 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 6.0 and all subparagraphs.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offerors proposed prices for the eighteen month Base Period (including Low Rate Initial Production) and six one-year Option Periods.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. 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 Price 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 and each Option Period. 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. 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 6020 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as follows:

TEP Calculation Table

CLIN CLIN Description TEP Calculation Methodology

0001AA

0001AB

0001AC

0001AD

Engineering and Manufacturing

Specialized Undergraduate Pilot Training (SUPT) Combat Systems Officer (CSO)

OFT Simulator PTT Simulator

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

0002AA

0002AB

0002AC

Test, Evaluation, & Certification/Approval

SUPT Aircraft CSO Aircraft

OFT and PTT Simulator

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

0003AA

0003AB

0003AC

Training Development/Deployment

Operator (aircraft and simulator) training Aircraft maintenance training

Simulator maintenance training

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

0004AA

0004AB

0004AC

Technical Data Development

SUPT & CSO Aircraft OFT Simulator PTT Simulator

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

0005 Data - CDRLS NSP – Not Evaluated

0006 Travel Not Evaluated

0007AA

0007AB

0007AC

0007AD

Over and Above

Reserved Engineering Rate Technician Rate

Material Handling Rate

Proposed unit prices of labor hours and material handling rate 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

0008AA

0008AB

Low Rate Initial Production

SUPT Aircraft CSO Aircraft

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

0009AA

0009AB

0009AC

0009AD

0009AE

OFT and PPT Interim Contract Support

Randolph AFB, TX Columbus AFB, MS

Vance AFB, OK Laughlin AFB, TX Pensacola NS, FL

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X010

X010AA

X010AB

X010AC

X010AD

X010AE

X010AF

X010AG

Kit Production

A-Kit SUPT Aircraft A-Kit CSO Aircraft

A-Kit OFT Simulator A-Kit PTT Simulator

B-Kit SUPT & CSO Aircraft B-Kit OFT Simulator B-Kit PTT Simulator

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X011

X011AA

X011AB

X011AC

X011AD

Modification / Production Kit Installation

SUPT Aircraft CSO Aircraft

OFT Simulator PTT Simulator

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X012

X012AA

X012AB

X012AC

Training Development/Deployment

Reserved Aircraft maintenance training

Simulator maintenance training

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X013 Aircraft Initial Spares

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the overall CLIN extended price.

X014

X014AA

X014AB

Simulator Initial Spares

OFT

PTT

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X015

X015AA

X015AB

X015AC

Technical Data Development

SUPT & CSO Aircraft OFT Simulator PTT Simulator

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated separately and added together to determine the overall CLIN extended price.

X016 Data - CDRLS NSP – Not Evaluated

X017 Travel – Cost Reimbursable Not Evaluated

X018

X018AA

X018AB

X018AC

X018AD

Over & Above

Reserved Engineering Rate Technician Rate

Material Handling Rate

Proposed unit prices of labor hours and material handling rate 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated overall CLIN extended price.

X019 Engineering Change Packages Not evaluated

X020

X020AA

X020AB

X020AC

X020AD

X020AE

Interim Contract Support

Randolph AFB, TX Columbus AFB, MS

Vance AFB, OK Laughlin AFB, TX Pensacola NS, FL

Proposed unit prices 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 TEP for the SubCLIN. Each SubCLIN will be calculated overall CLIN extended price..

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 TEP.

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

Item SLIN CLIN Unit Basic Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Firm Fixed Price 0001 -- Engineering & Manufacturing

0001 AA SUPT Aircraft EA 1

0001 AB CSO Aircraft EA 1

0001 AC OFT Simulator EA 2

0001 AD PTT Simulator EA 1

0002 -- Test, Evaluation, &

Certification/Approval

0002 AA SUPT Aircraft EA 1

0002 AB CSO Aircraft EA 1

0002 AC OFT Simulator EA 1

0003 -- Training

Development/Deployment

0003 AA Operator (aircraft & simulator) EA 1

0003 AB Aircraft maintenance EA 2

0003 AC Simulator maintenance EA 1

0004 -- Technical Data Development

0004 AA SUPT & CSO Aircraft EA 1

0004 AB OFT Simulator EA 1

0004 AC PTT Simulator EA 1

0007 -- Over & Above

0007 AA Reserved HR

0007 AB Engineering Rate HR 20

0007 AC Technician Rate HR 210

FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY

Item SLIN CLIN Unit Basic Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

0007 AD Material Handling Rate $$ 5000

0008 -- Low Rate Initial Production

0008 AA SUPT Aircraft EA 2

0008 AB CSO Aircraft EA 2

0009 -- OFT and PPT Interim Contract

Support

0009 AA Randolph AFB, TX MO 2

0009 AB Columbus AFB, MS MO 2

0009 AC Vance AFB, OK MO 2

0009 AD Laughlin AFB, TX MO 2

0009 AE Pensacola NS, FL MO 2

X010 -- Kit Production: A-Kits

X010 AA A-Kit SUPT Aircraft EA 20 22 28 31 29 24

X010 AB A-Kit CSO Aircraft EA 8 8 8 4 4 2

X010 AC A-Kit OFT Simulator EA 2 4 2 2 3 1

X010 AD A-Kit PTT Simulator EA 3 2 3 2 2 1

Kit Production: B-Kits

X010 AE B-Kit SUPT & CSO Aircraft EA 28 30 30 31 29 24

X010 AF B-Kit OFT Simulator EA 2 4 2 2 3 1

X010 AG B-Kit PTT Simulator EA 3 2 3 2 2 1

X011 -- Modification / Production Kit

Installation

X011 AA SUPT Aircraft EA 20 22 28 31 29 24

X011 AB CSO Aircraft EA 8 8 8 4 4 2

X011 AC OFT Simulator EA 2 4 2 2 3 1

X011 AD PTT Simulator EA 3 2 3 2 2 1

X012 -- Training

Development/Deployment

X012 AA Reserved EA

X012 AB Aircraft maintenance EA 1 1 1 1 1 1

X012 AC Simulator maintenance EA 1 1 1 1 1 1

X013 -- Aircraft Initial Spares KIT 3 3 3 3 3 3

X014 -- Simulator Initial Spares

X014 AA OFT Simulator KIT 2 1 1 1 1 1

X014 AB PTT Simulator KIT 2 1 1 1 1 1

X015 -- Technical Data Development

X015 AA SUPT & CSO Aircraft EA 1 1

X015 AB OFT Simulator EA 1 1

X015 AC PTT Simulator EA 1 1

X018 -- Over & Above

X018 AA Reserved HR X018 AB Engineering Rate HR 200 200 200 200 200 200

X018 AC Technician Rate HR 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400 1400

X018 AD Material Handling Rate $$ 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000 10000

X020 -- Interim Contract Support

X020 AA Randolph AFB, TX MO 2 2 2 2 2 2

X020 AB Columbus AFB, MS MO 2 2 2 2 2 2

FOR EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY

Item SLIN CLIN Unit Basic Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

Option Period

X020 AC Vance AFB, OK MO 2 2 2 2 2 2

X020 AD Laughlin AFB, TX MO 2 2 2 2 2 2

X020 AE Pensacola NS, FL MO 2 2 2 2 2 2

2.5.8. Rounding

Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

Documentation to support rounding will be provided in Section 1 of the Price Volume, as well as actual rounding in Section 4 of the Price Volume, copy of completed Attachment C (Price Matrix) of the 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. Reserved

2.5.10. O&A Labor Wrap Rate Support

The Government will review Section 3 of the Price Volume to ensure Offeror-specific labor categories that form the basis for the proposed wrap labor rates have been provided. The Government will also review Section 2 of the Price Volume to ensure the development of the proposed wrap labor rate has been provided in detail based on all labor types of effort designated under CLINs 0007 and X018. The Government will review pricing proposed as hourly labor wrap rates for O&A as required in Section 2 of the Price Volume.

2.5.11. Proposed Fixed Wrap Rate Support

The Government will review proposed fixed wrap rates to ensure reasonableness, balance and price realism. Note, all fixed wrap rates—whether labor, subcontract, or material, shall be fully burdened (loaded) as composite wrap rates representing a composite of prime and subcontractor(s) rates. This includes subcontractor rate revisions in out-years, as detailed below.

Offerors are strongly advised to seriously note risk for firm fixed pricing in contract out-years. Such risk is considered contractor risk and not risk to the Government.

Proposed pricing shall be sufficient to cover such contractor risk of future unknowns, such as subcontractor rate increases in contract out-years, as well as material cost increases in out-years or potential changes in teaming with specific subcontractors/ vendors. This also includes unanticipated changes in subcontractors’ or vendors’ pricing in the out-years. For example, as out-year performance periods are reached over time, subcontractor pricing (on which these originally proposed fixed wrap rates are based) could change. As a result, future subcontractor pricing may not correspond with the original proposed ceiling rates. Revision of proposed firm fixed pricing will not be accepted by the Government to cover any additional costs in the future out-years.

Offerors shall be held to their originally proposed pricing, i.e., fixed wrap rates for all CLINs.

2.5.12. Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review Section 2 of the Price Volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing as required in Section L, paragraph 6.3.12.

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. The subcontractor pricing will be analyzed through utilization of price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

2.5.13. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government shall review Section 2 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 performance risk will be evaluated by reviewers.

2.5.14. Estimating Methodology Review

The Government will review the Offeror’s basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based, including the explanation of specific estimating techniques and methods used. These methods should be reflected in and similar to your Disclosure Statement.

The Government will review information provided in Section 2 of the Price Volume regarding the Offerors Estimating, Accounting, and Purchasing Systems. This includes information pertaining to the Offerors Disclosure Statement and Cost Accounting System (CAS) compliance in preparation of this proposal. Offerors are cautioned to review compliance as it relates to their specific corporate policy. Deviations from established systems or Disclosure Statement or CAS compliance as provided in the Offerors explanation in Section 2 of the Price Volume will be reviewed. Explanation of such deviations will also be reviewed.

2.5.15. Purchasing System

As provided in Section 1 of the Price Volume, purchasing systems will be reviewed.

DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be evaluated.

2.5.16. Accounting System

The status of the Offerors accounting system will be reviewed by the Government.

DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be evaluated.

2.5.17. Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques & Methods The Government will review the…