J85 SECTION M.pdf

FA8122-10-R-0012

J85 SECTION M – Evaluation Criteria

SECTION M - 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. The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Specification (PWS) and the Repair Qualification Requirements (RQRs) for the

National Stock Numbers (NSN) listed in Section B. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section

L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the Government. 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 price 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 one contract. 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) 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.

e) Evaluation Factors and SubFactors

Evaluation factors and subfactors used to evaluate each proposal:

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

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: Transition/Phase-In

Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

In PPT, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the trade-off between cost/price and past performance. For all technically acceptable proposals, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is significantly more important than Factor 3 (Cost/Price). Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the award decision.

f) Technical Acceptability.

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, Subfactor 1) Milestone schedule confirms access to required support equipment, tooling and demonstrates the capacity to meet full production during transition/phase-in period. Production plan illustrates minimal disruption of mission support through contract transition and phase-in period and demonstrates ability to meet any production required during phase-in. Demonstrates ability to gain/maintain access to required technical orders and required data systems in accordance with PWS 1.7.1. Subfactor 2) Contractor Furnished

Material (CFM) management plan illustrates substantial evidence of forecasting, operating and maintaining an adequate inventory and supply ordering system to ensure supportability of delivery requirements. CFM management plan reveals methods to procure all CFM required to meet remanufacture requirements in accordance with PWS 1.6.2 and 1.6.3.

The ratings are defined as follows:

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Reasonably Susceptible of being made Acceptable

The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered

“unacceptable”.

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance.

Proposals with an Unacceptable rating are not awardable.

g) Cost/Price Evaluation. The government shall rank all technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made

Acceptable offers by Total Evaluated Price, including option prices. The Government shall validate the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) of all offerors, including option prices. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP, calculated as stated in paragraph 1 below.

1) TEP Calculation: An offeror’s proposed TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) or Subcontract Line Item Number (SLIN) to confirm the extended amount for each. The extended amounts of each CLIN/SLIN will be added together to get the extended amount for each year. The annual extended amounts will be added together to get the TEP for each offeror. The TEP of all offerors will be ranked from lowest price to highest price.

2) Price Reasonableness: The price evaluation will document the reasonableness of the proposed total evaluated price.

Unreasonably low prices or estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement. The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of cost/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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

3) Unbalanced Pricing: Offeror’s proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. 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.

4) Other than Cost or Pricing Data: FAR 12.209 gives the requirement to establish price reasonableness in accordance with

13.106-3 (Simplified Acquisition Procedures), 14.408-2 (Sealed Bidding), or 15.4 (Contract Pricing by Negotiation), as applicable. FAR part 15 applies. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness. FAR 15.403-3(a)(1) provides for obtaining other than cost or pricing data if needed to determine price reasonableness. FAR 15.404-1(d)(3) provides for obtaining other than cost/pricing data on FFP competitive contracts when requirements may not be fully understood by competing Offerors. Therefore, the FAR does not preclude the requirement for obtaining other than cost or pricing data under certain circumstances and the Government reserves the right to obtain data as appropriate. Should the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) determine proposed prices to appear unreasonable or the possibility that an Offeror does not fully understand the requirement, the Offerors may be required to support price reasonableness via other than cost or pricing data. Should this occur, this opportunity will be provided via an Evaluation

Notice (EN).

5) Over and Above (O&A) Rate: Proposed pricing for O&A effort (CLIN X080) will be based on proposed annual fixed price hourly rates per year. These O&A rates per year should include all costs for such effort, including indirect rates, G&A, and profit. These rates shall be fully burdened (loaded) O&A hourly rates. CLIN X080 will use 8,000 estimated hours for each year to calculate the annual price and the TEP.

6) Other: In reviewing proposed pricing, all additional information from the Cost/Price Volume, will be considered. All relevant information pertaining to cost or pricing information must be included in Volume II, Cost/Price. Other proposal volumes shall not contain cost/price information required for thorough evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor. (Exception:

Proposed prices included in Section B shall also be included in Volume III, Contract Documentation in the Model Contract submission.)

7) Competitive Range: Unreasonably high or low proposed prices provided initially or subsequently, may indicate the offeror does not understand the requirement which can increase risk to an unacceptable level. Under such circumstances, those offerors may be eliminated from the competitive range.

h) Performance Confidence Assessment. Under Past Performance, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror’s present 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.

Degree Description

VERY RELEVANT (VR)

Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

RELEVANT (R)

Past/present performance effort involved much of the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR)

Past/present performance effort involved some of the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT (NR)

Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope, magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

NOT APPLICABLE (NA)

Past performance efforts that are not from the same entity as proposed (i.e. different division of Large Business), or past performance is for the correct entity but the proposed effort is not applicable to their proposed role, or the Small Business subfactor is not applicable to the evaluated contract.

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

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 performance level and 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 records indicate 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 overall integrated confidence assessment will consider present and past performance relating to, but not limited to, meeting/maintaining required delivery schedules, obtaining CFM, operating and maintaining an adequate inventory and supply, remanufacture of a quality product, number and severity of Quality Deficiency Reports (QDRs)/Product Quality Deficiency

Reports (PQDRs), forecasting future parts and material demands, subcontractor management, accuracy of tracking and updating status in various systems, cost controls and other matters of this nature. 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

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s performance record, the government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Table M-2.6 – Past Performance Factor

n) 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.

o) 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).

p) 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.

q) 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.

r) 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.

s) 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.

t) 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.

u) 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.

v) Solicitation Requirements – Terms and Conditions

The offeror shall be compliant with the requirements as stated in the Performance Work Specification (PWS) and the Repair

Qualification Requirements (RQRs) for the National Stock Numbers (NSN) listed in Section B. 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.