Attachment_5_Addendum_to_FAR_52.212-2_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

ATTACHMENT 4 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

ADDENDUM TO FAR 52.212-2

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. Tradeoff considerations will be made only between past performance and price among those Offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by FAR 52.212-1 and its Addendum of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable proposal, and 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), Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) 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 IAW 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) hosted FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for award. 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 technical proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency. If a deficiency is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

require a major proposal revision, but the offeror is not among the most highly rated offerors.

1.4. Rejection of Offers

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

1.5. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.505. The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Past Performance, Factor 3 Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), or 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

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

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award. In the case that a discrepancy exists between Addendum 52.212-1, Instructions to Offerors (ITO) and Addendum 52.212-2, Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum 52.212-2 Evaluation Factors for Award will take precedence.

2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal

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

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Phase-In/Transition Subfactor 2: Program Management/Contractor Operated and Maintained

Base Supply (COMBS) Support

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential trade-off between Past Performance and Price. The Order of Importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded off on technically acceptable proposals.

For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to Factor 3 (Price).

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. Past Performance will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the Past Performance ratings and Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

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 single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor assessment will determine an overall technical unacceptable rating, and therefore, be considered unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. Risk will not receive a separate rating, rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings, and the overall Technical rating.

TABLE 1

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Phase-In/Transition

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

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An approach to manage and accomplish contract transition and phase-in, which ensures the contractor will be fully operational by the end of transition with no disruption to mission support. (PWS paragraph 3.1, 3.1.1 and 3.1.2)

b. Letters of intent must sufficiently establish agreements with appropriate airframe, engine and parts Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) for engineering support and technical data to meet the requirements of the PWS. (PWS paragraph 2.1.13)

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Program Management/COMBS Support

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed Program Management and COMBS Support approach. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1. To be acceptable, the Offeror’s proposal must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provide convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance:

a. An approach which ensures the proposed Contract Program Manager meets the qualifications and experience requirements for Program Management, Supply Chain Management and Aircraft Maintenance practices. (PWS paragraph 2.2.1)

b. An approach which ensures proposed Program Support Analyst (PSA) meets the qualifications and experience requirements. (PWS paragraph 2.2.2.1)

c. An approach which ensures the proposed FSR for each MOB meets the qualifications and experience requirements. (PWS paragraph 2.2.2.3)

d. An approach to manage COMBS and Government Furnished

Property/Equipment (GFP/GFE) and supplement with contractor furnished Property/Equipment (CFP/CFE), if necessary, to ensure Total Non-Mission Capability Supply (TNMCS) Rate is met. (PWS paragraphs 3.1.2, 3.2.2 and 7.1)

e. An approach to manage parts obsolescence and Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortage (DMSMS) for the T-1A aircraft and support equipment which ensures supply support problems stemming from parts obsolescence and DMSMS will be sufficiently forecasted, managed, resolved and reported before impacting the T-1A mission. (PWS paragraph 4.1.22)

f. The offeror’s approach must demonstrate the capability to meet and maintain the 15% annual Small Business requirement (by % of total contract value) required by the contract. (PWS paragraph 2.1.14)

2.3. Factor 2 – Past Performance

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

2.3.1. Ratings

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

TABLE 2

Adjectival Rating aAAdAAdjCONFIDENCE

ASSESSMENTS RATING

METHODAdjectival Rating

Description

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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 “Satisfactory Confidence” will be considered equal for the Past Performance Factor.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process:

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services relevant to the requirements in the solicitation. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to 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.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

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

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

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

4.3.1 of Addendum to FAR 52.212-1) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The Government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. For example: Past Performance for a subcontractor for Subfactor 2 Program Management/COMBS Support will only be considered if that same subcontractor is to perform work within Subfactor 2 Program Management/COMBS Support on the proposed effort.

The past performance information forms contained in Attachment 1.1 of FAR 52.212-1 Addendum, and information obtained from other sources, will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy IAW the DoD Source Selection Proceduresas depicted in Table 3, below: :

TABLE 3

RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT (VR)

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

(R)

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

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 T-1A COMBS requirement.

COMBS for this contract includes support actions required for operating and maintaining the aircraft, aircraft subsystems, mission systems, and support equipment. The COMBS support includes supply of Government owned spares and support equipment through a COMBS; repair and overhaul of all repairable spares, maintenance and repair of all support equipment. This effort also includes additional support, such as over and above (O&A) tasks, and depot maintenance support.

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

1. Supply chain management COMBS of Government owned spares and support equipment at multiple main operating bases

2. Scheduled/unscheduled maintenance for engine and landing gear overhauls

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 T-1A COMBS requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regards to Magnitude:

1. Dollar value of parts managed and number of locations managed/supported

2. Contract value. Generally, efforts of less than $1,000,000 will not be considered relevant unless such efforts, when combined, comprise a significant amount of work. (Example: Multiple overhaul contracts under $1,000,000 on a large Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract).

Complexity: Relevancy in regards to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given Past Performance effort and the T-1A COMBS technical subfactors. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to complexity

1. Supply chain management for large inventory at multiple locations

Price: Relevancy in regard to price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e. Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP), Cost, Time and Materials (T&M)) of previous effort as compared to the T-1A COMBS requirement.

2.3.2.3. 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.

TABLE 4

QUALITY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY

(S)(GREEN)

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

MARGINAL (M)

(YELLOW)

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

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

(RED)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or 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.

2.3.3. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating based on the definitions provided in Table 2 above. The rating is not based on a quantitative 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 a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. A record of Somewhat Relevant to Very Relevant past performance, which may result in Satisfactory or Limited Confidence, may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.4. Factor 3 –Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) price realism, (3) balanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Unreasonable or unrealistic proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness to include completeness. 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 15.404-1(b).

2.4.2. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. This evaluation is based on review of proposed pricing to ensure adequate understanding of the requirement to further ensure proposed pricing does not pose a risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.4.3. Balanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer (CO) if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to performance. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, 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.

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

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offeror’s may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify proposed pricing. If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of price reasonableness, balance, and/or price realism. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of price reasonableness and/or realistic pricing and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 pricing instructions. Table 5 below will demonstrate the TEP calculation methodology.

Proposed pricing evaluated as the TEP is required in accordance with the following format.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six (6)-month Extension Period is not to be considered part of the last option period and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized.

The Pricing Matrix will be used to develop the TEP. Within the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet, proposed unit prices shall be input by Offerors in the yellow highlighted cells. Extended pricing will be automatically calculated using estimated quantities provided within the spreadsheet.

Based on the Offerors proposed pricing for the third Incentive Option pricing, the spreadsheet automatically applies the third year Incentive Option pricing as input in the spreadsheet for the six (6) month extension. Extended Prices per CLIN will be based on the calculation methodology described in Table 5 below.

Information provided in Table 5 below demonstrates the general CLIN structure of the requirements and explains details regarding instruction of submitting proposed pricing.

Explanation of proposed pricing evaluation methodology is provided below. To develop the TEP for the contract, CLINs X001 through X007 will be proposed for evaluation and subsequent award purposes as shown in Table 5 below.

2.4.6 CLIN Structure and TEP Calculation Methodology

The evaluated TEP is based on evaluation of proposed unit pricing multiplied by the Best Estimated Quantities (BEQ) provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment C). Note that evaluation CLIN quantities provided does not in any way reflect or guarantee contract quantities after award. Calculation methodology is provided in Table 5. Pricing will be based on TEP evaluation that includes review for price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.6.1 Pricing Matrix & Price Model

The prices in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment C) shall reflect pricing proposed in the price/cost model in the price volume. Should discrepancies exist in unit prices between the hard copy of the Pricing Matrix and any electronic copy of the price/cost model and/or Pricing Matrix or hard copy of the price/cost model, the hard copy of the Pricing Matrix will be used for the TEP.

2.4.6.2. Pricing Methodology

For purposes of TEP calculation, the Estimated Quantities, as indicated in Table 6, below, provides information to be utilized as a basis for proposing prices by contract periods. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for the Basic Period (one year including the three-month transition), four (4) one-year Option Periods, three (3) one-year Incentive Option Periods, and a six (6)-month Extension Period. Based on the Offerors proposed pricing for the third Incentive Option pricing, the spreadsheet automatically applies the third year Incentive Option pricing as input in the spreadsheet for the six (6) month extension.The six (6)-month Extension Period under FAR 52.217-8 will only be utilized if necessary.

TABLE 5

CLIN TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE METHODOLOGY

CLIN CLIN Description TEP Calculation Methodology

X001 Contract Phase-In/ Transition

(FFP)

Proposed unit price multiplied by the number of months for transition designated for evaluation purposes. This unit price per month is for the Base period only. The resulting price for the base period is the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X002

X002AA

X002AB

X002AC

X002AD

X002AE

COMBS Operation / Management Support Per Month

(FFP)

Randolph AFB Laughlin AFB Vance AFB Columbus AFB Pensacola

A weighted average is calculated for each year based on the proposed unit price for each band of aircraft (i.e. 1-10 aircraft, 11- 20 aircraft, etc.) and the percentage associated with each band of aircraft. The weighted average for each location (Randolph AFB, Laughlin AFB, Vance AFB, Columbus AFB, & Pensacola) is added together for a total Price per Month. This total monthly price is multiplied by 12 months for each Option Period and multiplied by 6 months for the 6-month extension. The resulting extended price per year will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X003

X003AA

X003AB

X003AC

X003AD

X003AE

X003AF

Field Service Representative Support Per Month (FFP) Randolph AFB Laughlin AFB Vance AFB Columbus AFB Pensacola Program Support Analyst

(PSA)

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

X004

X004AA

X004AB

X004AC

X004AD

X004AE

Cost per Flying Hour

(FFP)

Randolph AFB Laughlin AFB Vance AFB

Pensacola

Proposed unit price for each flying hour band (i.e. 0-25, 26-50, and 51-75 average hours per month) is multiplied by the applicable weighting and added together to establish a weighted average per month price. This weighted average is then multiplied by the Estimated Flying Hours per year, per location and rounded to zero decimal places to calculate the evaluated price for CLIN X004 by location/SubCLIN.

The total of each location/SubCLIN is added together to calculate the total price per Option Period. The resulting extended price per period will be added together to yield the total evaluated price for this CLIN.

X005 TNMCS Incentive (Flying Hour)

(FFP)

Not included in the TEP

X006

X006AA &

AE

X006AB &

AF

X006 AC &

AG

X006AD &

AH

Depot Level Maintenance (Overhauls) (FFP) Scheduled engine hot section inspection 2500 Hrs Scheduled engine hot section inspection 2500 Hrs Landing gear overhaul – nose gear Landing gear overhaul – main gear

Proposed unit price for each SubCLIN is multiplied by the BEQ to calculate the extended price. The Extended price for each SubCLIN is added together to calculate the total for CLIN x006 by Option Period. The total of each option period is added together to yield the overall CLIN extended price.

*AA-AD apply to Randolph, Laughlin, Vance, & Columbus AE-AH apply to Pensacola

X007 Over & Above Material/Subcontractor Rate, Travel and Transportation (G&A) and Hourly Labor Rates

(FFP)

Proposed Material/Subcontractor Rate is multiplied by estimated material/subcontract Dollars. Proposed Travel and Transportation (G&A) Rates are multiplied by estimated Travel and Transportation Dollars. Proposed Labor Rates by category are multiplied by estimated labor hours by category. The extended total for material/subcontract, travel and transportation and labor are added together to yield the total evaluated price per option period. The total of each option period is added together to yield the overall CLIN extended price.

TABLE 6

ESTIMATED QUANTITIES TABLE

The following quantities are for EVALUATION PURPOSES ONLY. Estimated quantities in the Pricing Matrix do not obligate the Government in any way, and are not to be used for computation of workload. The figures are not to be used for computation of workload.

CLINs X001 – X003 are monthly quantities.

CLIN Description Basic Opt

Opt 2 Opt

Opt 4 Incentive

Opt 1 Eval Qty

Incentive Opt 2

Eval Qty

Incentive Opt 3 Eval Qty

6 Month Ext Eval

Qty

X001 Transition 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

X002

COMBS

Operation/ MGMT Support

X002AA

COMBS

Operation/

MGMT Support Randolph AFB

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X002AB

COMBS

Operation/

MGMT Support Laughlin AFB

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X002AC

COMBS

Operation/

MGMT Support Vance AFB

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X002AD

COMBS

Operation/

MGMT Support

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X002AE

COMBS

Operation/

MGMT Support Pensacola

NAS

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X003

Field Service Representative

Support Per Month (FSR)

X003AA

Field Service Representative

Support Per Month (FSR)

Randolph AFB

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X003AB

Field Service Representative

Support Per Month (FSR) Laughlin AFB

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X003AC

Field Service Representative

Support Per Month (FSR) Vance AFB

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X003AD

Field Service Representative

Support Per Month (FSR)

Columbus AFB

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X003AE

Field Service Representative

Support Per Month (FSR) Pensacola

NAS

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X003AF

Field Service Representative

Support Per Month (PSA)

9 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6

X004 Flying Hour See Pricing Matrix for Evaluation Quantities

X005

TNMCS

Incentive

(Flying Hour)

(FFP)

O&A – Fixed Price/ Event

AA/AE

Scheduled Engine – Hot

Section Inspections

(2500 HRS)

See Pricing Matrix for Evaluation Quantities

X006

AB/AF

Scheduled Engine –

Overhaul (5000

HRS)

X006

AC/AG

Landing Gear Overhaul – Nose Gear

X006

AD/AH

Landing Gear Overhaul – Main Gear

X007 Over and

Above

X007AA

O&A Labor Rate (PM)

See Pricing Matrix for Evaluation Quantities

X007AB

O&A Labor Rate (EN)

X007AC

O&A Labor Rate (Mech)

X007AD

Material

Handling Rate

X007AE Travel

X007AF Transportation

2.4.6.3 Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest dollar. However, hourly labor rates (fully loaded or burdened) shall be rounded to the nearest cent. Also proposed Material Handling Rates shall be rounded to four decimal places to the right of the decimal point. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.5 Government Furnished Property / Contractor Furnished Property The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume to verify each offeror’s compliance with Addendum 52.212-1, ITO, paragraph 5.3.10, pertaining to offerors’ understanding of items (including property, equipment, material, and facilities) provided by the Government and/or provided by the Contractor.

2.6 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government shall review Section 2 of the price volume for all offeror’s 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 offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated by reviewers.

2.7 Estimating Methodology Review

The Government will review the basis of estimate of the proposed pricing, to include specific estimating techniques and methods. These methods should be similar to the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement including information regarding estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems. Deviations, and explanations of deviations from established systems or the Disclosure Statement will be reviewed. This review will include information provided for the estimating system, purchasing system, accounting system and any deviations from these systems used in the development of the Pricing Volume.

2.8 Price Assumptions/Limitations/Qualifications Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding price assumptions/limitations/qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing.

Such information will be used to understand Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.9 Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review section 3 of the price volume to check compliance with Addendum to FAR 52.212-1 requirement to identify the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and DCMA office.

2.10 Pre-Award Survey

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.11 Annual Price Changes

Proposed pricing increases greater than 5% annually will be verified and addressed pertaining to price reasonableness and balanced pricing.

2.12 Services Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

The Offeror’s proposal will be reviewed for compliance with SCLS. Compliance with the SCLS is the responsibility of the offeror and subsequent contract awardee. It should be noted that actual compliance of offerors’ wage rate payments to employees with the SCLS and regional Area Wage Determination (AWD) as appropriate is not within the responsibility or purview of evaluators and shall not be reviewed. The Department of Labor (DoL) is assigned SCLS compliance responsibilities and shall be the Government Point of Contact (POC) in regard to any compliance questions or concerns.

2.13 Subcontractor/Vendor Pricing

Probable subcontractor/vendor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology used to determine subcontractor/vendor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.14 Other Documentation Review

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

All information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, price realism, and balanced pricing.

3.0 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

3.1 Model Contract/Representations and Certifications

Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Instruction to Offerors (ITO), Addendum to FAR 52.212-1.

3.1.1 Representations, Certifications, and other Statements of Offerors The Government will review the offeror’s annual representations and certification electronically via the system for award management (SAM) at www.sam.gov. Any missing information, or incorrect data entered as requested above (physically or electronic) may render a proposal non-responsive and ineligible for award.

ATTACHMENT 1.0

ACRONYMS

AF Air Force AFFARS Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement CAS Cost Accounting System CBA Collective Bargaining Agreement CDRL Contract Data Requirements List CLIN Contract Line Item Number CPARS Contractor Performance Assessment Reports DCAA Defense Contract Audit Agency DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement DoD Department of Defense EN Evaluation Notice FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FFP Firm-Fixed Price FPR Final Proposal Revision IAW In Accordance With ITO Instruction to Offerors PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System PWS Performance Work Statement COMBS Contractor Operated and Maintained Base Supply SCA Service Contract Labor Standards SS Source Selection SSA Source Selection Authority SSEB Source Selection Evaluation Board T&M Time and Materials TEP Total Evaluated Price