Attachment_7_Section_M_Rev1.pdf

FA8106-23-R-0001

Attachment 7 – Section M, Rev 1

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 Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in System Requirements Document (SRD), Technical Risk, Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable in subfactors 1, 3, 4, and 5. 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– Instructions to Offerors 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 the technically acceptable proposal in Factor 1, Subfactors 1, 3, 4, and 5, and superior technical in Factor 1, Subfactor 2, and/or superior Factor 2 technical risk, and/or superior Factor 3 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 dated 20 August 2022, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

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, and install the Avionics Replacement Suite into the T-6A aircraft and corresponding Simulators.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency, weakness, and/or significant weakness.

The correction potential is based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet Government requirements. If a deficiency/weakness/significant weakness are not considered correctible, 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. The Government also reserves the right to eliminate an offeror from the competitive range where the technical proposal does not 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 are available 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 15.306(d)(5). 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 the initial offer contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if Offerors will be required to include EN responses in the FPR. The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how Offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. Note: Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the Draft FPR and/or FPR. Offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7. Reviews and Visits

The SSEB may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development of manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the Offeror’s written proposal.

1.8 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, System Requirements Documents (SRD), and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, other than those identified as factors and subfactors.

Requirements included in the factors and subfactors will be evaluated in accordance with the process described for each factor and subfactor. 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. For SRD requirements where the Offeror’s approach is not in full-compliance with the threshold requirements, the Offeror’s approach will be evaluated as part of Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 5b. 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: Threshold Requirements contained in SRD Subfactor 2: Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD Subfactor 3: Digital Engineering Subfactor 4: Schedule Subfactor 5: Modern Open Integrated Avionics

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 in Technical Subfactors 1, 3, 4 and 5 is a prerequisite to the best value analysis with potential trade-off between Factor 1, Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold

Requirements contained in SRD, Factor 2 Technical Risk, Factor 3 Past Performance, and Factor 4 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:

• Technical Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and

Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD, Factor 2 Technical Risk, and Factor 3 Past Performance will be evaluated on a basis approximately equal to each other.

• Technical Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD, Factor 2 Technical Risk, and Factor 3 Past Performance individually are more important than Factor 4 (Price)

• Technical Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD, 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 initially evaluate Factor 1 Technical, Subfactor 1(a) for compliance with all of the SRD requirements listed in the ARP SRD, Section L Engineering Tables, SF1 Threshold Compliance Tab. Offerors who indicate a “Y” in the Full Compliance column will be determined as “meets requirements” in Subfactor 1(a) and will be eligible for the remainder of the evaluation for Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Technical Risk, Factor 3 Past Performance, and Factor 4 Price. Offerors who indicate an “N” in the Full Compliance column for any requirement will be determined as “does not meet requirements” in Subfactor 1(a). In this instance, the Government will document the deficiency in Subfactor 1(a). The Offeror will not be provided an opportunity to correct any deficiency identified in Subfactor 1(a) as part of discussions. The Offeror will be determined Unacceptable in Subfactor 1 based on any identified deficiency in Subfactor 1(a), which will thus make the Offeror also Unacceptable in Factor 1 Technical and therefore ineligible for award. The Government will not evaluate the remainder of the Offeror’s proposal for Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Technical Risk, Factor 3 Past Performance, or Factor 4 Price. In instances where a requirement is blank and is not marked as “Y” or “N”, the Government will evaluate the blank as “N” and the same evaluation methodology described above will apply. At the conclusion of the Initial Evaluation, in the event the Government conducts an award without discussions, Offerors who are determined Unacceptable for Factor 1 Technical, based on a deficiency in Subfactor 1(a) will be unawardable. In the event the Government determines discussions are necessary, Offerors with an evaluated deficiency in Subfactor 1(a) will be excluded from the Competitive Range.

For Offerors who are determined as “meets requirements” for Subfactor 1(a), 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 Subfactors 1, 3, 4 and 5 on a pass/fail basis in accordance with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.2.1 below, assigning ratings of Acceptable (Green) or Unacceptable (Red). Technical Subfactor 2 will be evaluated in accordance with paragraphs 2.2 and 2.2.2 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 best value award decision, the SSA will assess the Factor 1 Technical ratings for Subfactor 2, Factor 2 Technical Risk ratings, and Factor 3 Past Performance ratings, along with supporting information, and Factor 4 Price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Tradeoff considerations will only be applied to Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD. The remaining subfactors (1, 3, 4 and 5) will be rated Acceptable (Green) or Unacceptable (Red) and will not include tradeoff considerations.

To be eligible for award, an offeror must be rated Acceptable (Green) in all subfactors, either initially, or as a result of discussions. Any subfactor rated as Unacceptable (Red) will be considered unawardable. A single deficiency identified within any subfactor will result in an Unacceptable (Red) rating for that subfactor. The subfactor ratings are as follows in the following table:

Color/Adjectival

Rating Description

Outstanding (O) Blue

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Good (G) Purple

Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Acceptable (A) Green

Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal (M) Yellow

Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Unacceptable (U) Red

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

The ratings will be applied to each subfactor as follows:

Subfactor 2 Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of Threshold Requirements contained in SRD: this is the only subfactor to include Factor 1 Technical tradeoff considerations. The only ratings which apply to this subfactor are Acceptable (Green), Good (Purple), and Outstanding (Blue). To receive an Outstanding (Blue) or Good (Purple) rating, an offeror’s proposal must include one or more strengths and or a significant strength, as identified by the Government evaluation team, and in accordance with the definitions described above. Subfactor 2 will only be evaluated in relation to meeting objective requirements and exceeding threshold requirements, and the assignment of strengths/significant strengths. Tradeoff considerations for Subfactor 2 will be based on identified strengths/significant strengths within an offeror’s proposal.

For Subfactors 1 Threshold Requirements contained in SRD, 3 Digital Engineering, 4 Schedule, and 5 Modern Open Integrated Avionics, the only ratings which apply to these subfactors are Acceptable (Green) and Unacceptable (Red). There are no tradeoff considerations for any of these subfactors. As a minimum, the offeror must meet all criteria for each subfactor to be awardable. For the best value award determination, all offerors rated as Acceptable (Green) will be considered equal for these subfactors.

The evaluation criteria for each subfactor is as follows:

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Threshold Requirements Contained in SRD

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the T-6A Avionics Replacement Program (ARP) as it relates to the SRD. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L, Technical Subfactor 1, Paragraph

3.2.3. To be acceptable, the Offeror must meet the requirements of paragraph (a) below.

a) Sufficient completion of the ARP SRD, Section L Engineering Tables, SF1

Threshold Compliance Tab, in which every requirement in the Full Compliance column is marked as “Y” or “N”. For requirements marked as “Y” in the Full Compliance column, no further explanation or rationale is required. For requirements marked as “N” in the Full Compliance column, or requirements which are left blank, the Government will follow the process described above in Paragraph 2.1.3 Evaluation Methodology.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Meeting Objective Requirements and Exceedances of

Threshold Requirements contained in SRD Offerors are afforded an opportunity to receive best value credit for a proposed approach which meets SRD Objective Requirements and/or exceeds SRD threshold requirements listed below. The best value credit will be applied as strengths/ significant strengths to the offeror’s proposal. A strength/significant strength is defined as follows:

Strength: An aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

For this evaluation, the words in the strength and significant strength definitions, “advantage of the Government” refers to the anticipated level of benefit the Government receives during contract performance as a result of the strength/significant strength.

To receive consideration as a strength/significant strength under Subfactor 2, Offerors must specifically identify which requirements the proposed approach exceeds in relation to Subfactor 2a and meets in relation to 2b below and provide convincing rationale supporting the strength/significant strength. The Government will assess the rationale for each proposed strength/significant strength and apply professional judgment to determine if the proposed strength/significant strength is an actual strength/significant strength and if so, the level of anticipated benefit during contract performance the Government will receive from the strength/significant strength. The Government will not identify any proposal aspect as a strength/significant strength unless it relates to the criteria listed in Subfactor 2a and 2b below, and the aspect is specifically identified as a strength/significant strength in the Offeror’s proposal as described in Section L, paragraph 3.2.4.

Subfactor 2 will receive one color rating based on the strengths/significant strengths identified within 2a and 2b. The available ratings for Subfactor 2 are Acceptable (Green), Good (Purple) and Outstanding (Blue). The definitions are provided in paragraph 2.2 above. A general guideline for the ratings is as follows:

Acceptable (Green): A proposal in which there are no strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2a and 2b. This rating also includes a proposal in which there are one or more strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2a or 2b, however, based on the judgement of the Government, none of the proposed strengths includes convincing rationale to support the strength, and as a result, no strengths are assigned by the Government.

Good (Purple) or Outstanding (Blue): A proposal which includes one or more strengths/significant strengths identified by the Offeror in relation to Subfactor 2a and 2b, and, based on the judgment of the Government, the proposal includes sufficient convincing rationale to support at least one of the proposed strengths/significant strengths. Each strength/significant strength, along with the supporting rationale, will be evaluated separately. The overall rating will be based on the number of strengths/significant strengths assigned by the Government, and the level of anticipated benefits the Government will receive during contract performance from the strengths/significant strengths.

For the best value determination, tradeoff considerations for Subfactor 2 will be based on any Government-assigned strengths/significant strengths in each Offeror’s approach, along with the anticipated level of benefit received by the Government during contract performance resulting from the strength(s)/significant strength(s).

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the T-6A Avionics Replacement Program (ARP) as it relates to meeting objective requirements and exceeding SRD threshold requirements contained in SRD. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L Engineering Tables, Threshold Exceedance and Objective Compliance Tabs.

a) Assessment will tradeoff for exceedances for the following (Section L Engineering Tables, SF2a Threshold Exceedance Tab):

i. Temperature Qualifications

ii. Solar hardiness

iii. Reliability

b) Assessment of level of compliance to objective requirements (Section L

Engineering Tables, SF2b Objective Compliance Tab)

i. Reliability

ii. Maintainability

iii. Display Configurability

iv. Sustainability

2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Digital Engineering

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to digital engineering as it relates to the Statement of Work (SOW). Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L, Technical Subfactor 3, Paragraph 3.2.5.

To be acceptable, the Offerors’ approach, at a minimum, must address an adequate understanding of the requirements and provide convincing rationale that the proposed solution will meet all requirements of the following elements.

a) The proposal must ensure the approach for model-based systems engineering, model based design, and Technical Data Package digital files meet requirements of SOW Section 5.1.

b) The proposal must ensure the approach for Systems Engineering Management Plan incorporation of Digital Engineering over the entire product lifecycle, and the utilization of the Authoritative Source of Truth in the technical reviews meets the requirements of SOW Section 5.1.

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Schedule

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the ARP modification strategy as it relates to the T-6A. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L, 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 ARP modification in accordance with the SOW:

a) At a minimum, the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated

Master Plan (IMP) must ensure events and milestones identified in SOW Appendix E are met and executable (SOW Sections 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2 and SOW Appendix E).

b) Approach must ensure the Virtual and Physical prototypes are available to meet schedule (SOW Sections 5.1.7, 5.1.8, 5.12.6.1, 5.12.7, and SOW Appendix E).

c) Approach must ensure identification of long-lead time material/parts and ensure items are available to meet schedule (SOW Section

4.11.1 and SOW Appendix E).

d) Approach must ensure a comprehensive draft Airworthiness Plan, including FAA Certification planning that substantiates an adequate approach to airworthiness certification (SOW Section 5.11.2.1).

e) Approach must ensure the requirements in SOW Section 3.1 are met in terms of data.

f) Approach must ensure technical orders for the T-6A aircraft IAW TO 00-5-3 is identified, developed and delivered to meet schedule (SOW Section 10.0).

g) Approach must ensure aircraft installation plan and ATD installation plan are delivered to meet schedule (SOW Sections 6.4, 7.3, and SOW Appendix B).

2.2.5. Subfactor 5: Modern Open Integrated Avionics

The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed approach to the Modern Open Integrated Avionics approach and Intellectual Property (IP) Strategy as it relates to ARP. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the ITO, Section L, Technical Subfactor 5, Paragraph 3.2.7. To be acceptable, the Offeror’s approach, at a minimum, must indicate an adequate understanding of the requirements to ensure a successful Modern Open Integrated Avionics approach in accordance with the SOW and this subfactor evaluates the technology and presentation included in Offeror’s proposal.

a) Approach must ensure Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS)/Non- Developmental Items (NDI) Avionics Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) meet a Technology Readiness Level (TRL) of 7 or higher;

COTS/NDI LRUs will be identified in Section L Engineering Tables, LRU Tab.

b) Approach must ensure that SRD Human factors and Architecture are meeting intent to ensure suitability for Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) and minimization of pilot workload (Section L Engineering Tables, SF5 Modern Open Integrated Avionics Tab). For requirements marked as “Y” or “N” in the Full Compliance column, the proposal must include convincing rationale describing the Offeror’s approach to achieve full compliance for each Threshold requirement or meet the threshold requirement to the fullest extent possible. For these threshold requirements which are not in full compliance, the Offeror’s rationale must ensure the approach will meet the requirements to the fullest extent possible.

c) Approach must ensure an IP strategy for the T-6A ARP system, down to the LRU level, to include but not limited to the Program System Model (PSM), Virtual Crew Station, Aircraft, and Aircrew Training Device (ATD). The Offeror must identify all Government data licenses rights associated with the Technical Data to be delivered and that will be developed under this effort. This includes such data as Technical Data Packages (Drawings, Technical Orders, and specs), logistics product data, configuration control information, design information, and interface control documents, as well as Computer Software (including but not limited to source, executable, and object) (SOW Sections 3.10, 3.11, 3.11.1, and SOW Appendices G and H).

2.3 Factor 2 – Technical Risk

The Technical Risk evaluation assesses the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach under Factor 1 Technical may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical Risk is manifested by the identification of weaknesses or significant weaknesses. The Technical Risk evaluation does not consider the Offeror’s proposed price. For the Technical Risk evaluation, the Government will utilize the data, information, and the approach in the Volume I Technical Proposal submitted by the Offeror. The Government will review and analyze the Offeror’s approach and apply professional judgment in determining whether the approach includes weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses in relation to Subfactors 2, 3, 4, and 5.

The Technical Risk evaluation will include an analysis of subfactors 2 - 5 listed in Factor 1 Technical. A single risk rating will be assigned for all four subfactors combined. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness or significant weakness identified, the evaluation will consider the probability of whether the weakness/significant weakness will occur, and the impact to the program if the weakness/significant weakness were to occur.

The definitions of Weakness and Significant Weakness IAW the FAR 15.001 and DoD Mandatory Source Selection Procedures are outlined below.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

NOTE: As part of the determination for weaknesses and significant weaknesses, the Government will assess the Offeror’s proposal for SRD requirements where the Offeror’s approach is not in full-compliance with the threshold requirements, but instead, meets the requirements to the fullest extent possible (Subfactor 5b).

Each proposal will receive one of the risk ratings described below. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must receive a Low or Moderate Technical Risk rating. For the best value determination, tradeoff considerations for Technical Risk will be based on any identified weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses in each Offeror’s approach. The source selection evaluation team will specifically consider the probabilities of whether the weakness(es)/significant weakness(es) will occur and the impacts to the program if the weakness(es)/significant weakness(es) were to occur.

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

2.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance

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

2.4.1 Ratings

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

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 Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to scope, magnitude, the Technical subfactors, price assessment, performance quality and complexity. More relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant effort. More recent performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent performance.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources. The Government reserves the right to use all information available to fully assess the Offeror’s past performance.

2.4.2.1. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.2.2. Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price assessment. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and significant subcontractor/teaming partner (performing over 5% of the total proposed contract value), as defined in paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 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.

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:

Adjectival Rating

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-6A aircraft or Avionics Suite Replacement of similar complexity. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy with regard to scope:

Avionics modifications Aircraft, avionics engineering efforts Production/installation activities Simulator (ATD) 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. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy regard to complexity:

Installation at multiple geographic locations Breadth and depth of skills required

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- 6A Avionics Replacement Program (ARP) 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) (including ratings and supporting narratives), 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 which the Government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. 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. 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) some or many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Satisfactory (S) Green

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

Marginal (M)

Yellow

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

Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory (U)

Red

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

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 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 Substantial, 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.

2.5 Factor 4 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic may not be considered for award. Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4). These calculations will include the one Basic Period of 4-years (TMRR, EMD, and Production/Installation), and one 4-year Option Period (Production and Installation) for a total of 8 years, plus a 6-month extension. 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.

2.5.1 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) 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). Proposals will also be evaluated for completeness. Incomplete proposals will be considered unawardable. The Government may also use other techniques as needed. To evaluate completeness, the Government will confirm all unit prices and rates in the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4), have a dollar amount, or rate proposed as applicable. Offerors shall provide rationale if any proposed unit price or rate is entered as zero in the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4).

2.5.2 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced, to include rationale for any CLIN price increase greater than 5% from one year to another, or any CLIN price decrease from one year to another. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

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

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

2.5.3 Price Realism

Proposed pricing will be evaluated for price realism. This pertains to CLIN pricing as well as TEP. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of and consistency with the requirement and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable 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 intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.5.4 Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

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

2.5.5 Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent, including hourly labor rates. Travel General & Administrative (G&A), Material Handling rates, and Shipping & Transportation G&A rates shall be rounded to four decimal places to the right of the decimal point. If any proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with the instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.5.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the pricing instructions in Addendum to FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors-Competitive Acquisition. The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) as a separate worksheet entitled “Calculation Methodology”.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices for each of the one Basic Period of 4-years (TMRR, EMD, and Production/Installation), and one 4-year Option Period (Production and Installation) for a total of 8 years, plus a 6-month extension. To reiterate, the TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.5.7 Estimating Techniques and Past Experience

The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. The relevance and application of the Offeror's price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository (CBAR) as considered necessary.

2.5.8 Estimating, Purchasing, and Accounting Systems

As provided in the Price Volume, estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will be reviewed. DCMA approval status will be noted. Any deviations from Offeror’s standard practices regarding estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will also be reviewed.

2.5.9 Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision The Government will review the Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. The Offeror’s explanation of how any reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at an unacceptable performance risk will also be reviewed.

2.5.10 Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, scope limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing. Such information will be used to understand the Offeror’s proposed pricing basis of estimate. Additionally, the assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.11 Probable Subcontractors/Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review the subcontractor information provided to include the subcontractor name, description of effort, contract type, and the methodology used to determine subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable.

2.5.12 Proposed Labor, Travel, Material Handling, Shipping & Transportation General

& Administrative (G&A) Rates The Government will review the Price Volume to ensure the Offeror has indicated their understanding that proposed ceiling rates will apply to all out-years despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.5.13 Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material/Facilities

(GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF)

The Government will review all information provided in the Price Volume regarding compliance and understanding of GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF.

2.5.14 Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Tooling/Material

(CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM)

The Government will review all information provided in the Price Volume regarding compliance and understanding CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM.

2.5.15 Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will ascertain that the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices responsible for administration of the Offeror’s Government contracts is provided.

2.5.16 Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices/rates, 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 pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.5.17 Submission of RFP Attachment 4 – Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm receipt of a complete, electronically-encoded Pricing Matrix (RFP Attachment 4) in the required format and utilize it to evaluate the Offeror’s TEP.