J85 SECTION M.docx

FA8122-10-R-0012

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD USING PERFORMANCE PRICE TRADEOFF WITH TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE DETERMINATION PROCEDURES

a) Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) with Technical Acceptable Determination source selection procedure to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between price and past performance among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements affordably. 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 technical acceptable, superior past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team 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. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary.

b) Number of Contracts to be awarded The Government intends to award several contracts. Qualified contractors winning the source selection for more than one bearing may be awarded one contract for all qualifying bearings. Contracts for bearings with only one qualified source will not be combined with bearings having more than one source. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

c) Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable” or “reasonably susceptible to being made acceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount of corrections needed to meet the Government requirement is impractical, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

d) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

e) Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. 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.

f) Technical Acceptability.

Subfactor 1: Transition/Phase-In Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. “Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable” is an interim rating only, and will not be used as a final rating. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following: The minimum requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal thoroughly substantiates all the following essential components with little potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation in performance, 1) Ensures no disruption of mission support for the T-38 fleet through contract transition and phase-in in accordance with PWS 1.7.1. 2) Demonstration of processes to be employed to operate and maintain an inventory and supply ordering system that ensures supportability of delivery requirements in accordance with PWS 1.7.2.2.

The ratings are defined as follows:

g) Price Evaluation. Next, the government shall rank all technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable offers by price, including option prices. An offeror’s proposed prices will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number or Subcontract Line Item Number to confirm the extended amount for each. The subCLINs represent the pricing with and without advanced orders for CFM. A rate will be applied to each subCLIN for an estimate of the percentage of usage for each subCLIN. This rate is for evaluation purposes only and will help in the evaluation of balanced pricing. When applicable, the price evaluation adjustment for HUBZone small business concerns will be applied in accordance with FAR 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns, to arrive at an evaluated price. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

h) Performance Confidence Assessment. Under Past Performance, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror’s and past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including cost and schedule. The currency and relevancy of the information, source of the information and context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. NOTE: If any part of the performance falls within the five-year timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. For example, if a contract completed five years ago, the Government may also consider the Phase-In portion of that contract that occurred seven years ago. The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s recent and relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s present and past performance, including joint ventures, subcontractors and/or teaming partners, will be made. Relevancy will be assessed at the Technical subfactor level. In determining relevancy, 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 and/or teaming partner for remanufacture of specific National Stock Numbers (NSNs) will only be considered if that same subcontractor and/or teaming partner is to perform those specific NSNs on the proposed effort. Supply chain management past performance will focus on the Prime and/or teaming partners proposing on this effort. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the current acquisition requirements and will have a greater impact on the offeror’s overall performance confidence assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. Relevancy is not given a separate rating; it is integrated into the overall confidence rating. The following relevancy definitions will be used to determine relevancy for each subfactor under the Technical factor.

i) The Government evaluation team, known as the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG), will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the proposed effort. The PCAG will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources.

j) When relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented, evaluate their effectiveness and review if the problems reoccurred.

k) The PCAG may consider the offerors, including subcontractors, joint ventures, and teaming partners, past performance in aggregate, as it relates to the relevant portions of Technical and cost/price.

l) As a result of an analysis of positive and negative performance and relevancy, each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment, which is the rating for the Past Performance factor. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the Past Performance factor level and represents an overall evaluation of offeror performance.

m) Each offeror will receive one of the following Performance Confidence Assessment (MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3.2., Table 3):

TABLE 3- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Table M-2.6 – Past Performance Factor

n) Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating .

o) Past performance information will be obtained through, but not limited to, the Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contract Performance Assessment Reports(CPARs), questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government including commercial sources.

p) Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. In addition, as past performance information is relevant information regarding a contractor’s actions under previously awarded contracts, the Government, while focusing on the Technical factor, reserves the right to evaluate a contractors past performance that may not directly linked to the Technical factor (e.g., contractor’s record of conforming to contract requirements and to standards of good workmanship; the contractor’s record of forecasting and controlling costs; the contractor’s adherence to contract schedules, including administrative aspects of performance; the contractor’s history of reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and in general, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer).

q) The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

r) Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

s) Tradeoff If a trade-off is used, it will only be made between Past Performance and Price among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable.

t) 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 Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the SS decision. If a Request for FPR is issued, offeror responses to ENs Notices must be included in the FPR in order to be considered in the final evaluation.

u) 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.

v) Reviews and Visits The SSET may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the Offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or 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.

w) Solicitation Requirements – Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and mission requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or 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. In the case that a discrepancy exists between the ITO and the Evaluation Factors for Award, the evaluation criteria in Addendum to FAR 52.212-2 will take precedence.