TLPS Section M 11 Dec 08

M-900

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1.0 This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. All technically unacceptable offers will not be considered in the best value decision and will not be eligible for award. All technical proposals initially rated reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable will need to meet all technical requirements after clarifications or discussions and be rated acceptable in order to be considered in the best value decision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

2.0 Evaluation Process:

Proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP. Offeror’s compensation plan for professional employees will be evaluated IAW FAR 52.222-46, and the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated for completeness IAW FAR 52.219-9 and FAR 52.219-9 Alt II. Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will also be evaluated on a pass/fail basis to ensure it complies with the Small Business Participation requirement specified in the Section H clause, Small Business Participation and demonstrates the ability to achieve this requirement. Any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable.

The technical proposal has four subfactors, as follows: Subfactor 1, Certifications; Subfactor 2, Facilities and Equipment; Subfactor 3, Structures & Mechanical Systems; and Subfactor 4, Avionics. The Offerors must be capable of performing work on all configurations of the A-10; however, for evaluation purposed, only the A-10C configuration is specified in some subfactors. The A-10C is the most current / complex configuration, and it implements all the elements of the Precision Engagement upgrade program. The government will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis (See Factor 1), assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The government reserves the right to establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15 and provision 52.215-1 of this solicitation.

The government will assess the performance confidence (See Factor 2) of each offeror rated Acceptable or Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable.

The government will evaluate price reasonableness of all technically “Acceptable” or “Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable” proposals (See Factor 3), calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror.

The Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision based on performance versus price with past performance being significantly more important than cost or price. Award will be made to no more than three (3) responsible Offerors whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government.

2.1. Factor 1 - Technical Acceptability The government will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable as defined below:

Acceptable: Meets all specified technical capability requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable: There are omissions and/or weaknesses identified which require clarifications or discussions with the offeror. There is a good probability of meeting minimum requirements after clarifications or discussions, without making major changes to the proposal All technical proposals initially rated Reasonably susceptible of being made acceptable will need to meet all technical requirements after clarifications or discussions and be rated acceptable in order to be considered in the best value decision.

Unacceptable: Fails to meet one or more specified technical capability requirements and would require major revisions to the proposal. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are considered not awardable. All technically unacceptable offers will not be considered in the best value decision and will not be eligible for award.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2.1.1. Subfactor 1, Certifications: The purpose of this factor is to evaluate the Offeror’s and critical subcontractor’s (as identified in the Minimum Capabilities Matrix, see Section J List of Attachments) compliance with the certification requirements set forth below. For purposes of this RFP, a critical subcontractor is defined as any subcontractor whose capabilities are utilized by the prime contractor for purposes of completing the Minimum Capabilities Matrix (Attachment 6), to include subcontractors and other business entities of the Offeror’s common parent corporation. The number of critical subcontractors shall be limited to no more than four (4) for the purposes of fulfilling the requirements contained in the Minimum Capabilities Matrix. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates their compliance with the following certification requirements A. Offeror as prime contractor must demonstrate the following:

a. Current AS 9100 B Certification from an accredited certification body listed in the International Aerospace Quality Group's (IAQG) OASIS database: http://www.iaqg.sae.org/servlets/index?PORTAL_CODE=IAQG

b. Documentation evidencing DCMA certified Earned Value Management System (EVMS) in compliance with ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998 (R2002) or a comprehensive plan for compliance with the guidelines in ANSI/EIA-748-A-1998(R2002) n accordance with contract provision 252.234-7001 as included in this RFP. Documentation is required as part of this proposal for the TLPS basic contract; however EVMS will be implemented at a Task Order level as applied at DFARS 234.201. The offeror’s EVMS plan will be reviewed by the government and must be approved prior to contract award in accordance with PGI 234.2.

B. Either the offeror as prime or one of its critical subcontractor as identified in the critical capabilities matrix must demonstrate the following:

a. Appraisal Disclosure Statement evidencing a minimum of CMMI (Capability Maturity Model Integration) Level 3 rating.

b. Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) Principal Level III certification/s in accordance with NAS 410 for the following methods: Liquid Penetrant, Magnetic Particle, Eddy Current, and Ultrasound.

2.1.2. Subfactor 2, Facilities & Equipment. The purpose of this factor is to evaluate the Offeror’s facilities and equipment or their ability to obtain facilities and equipment necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS items listed below. The government will evaluate the Offerors approach to determine if it adequately satisfies the scope of these PWS requirements. The Offeror must also demonstrate the ability to obtain these facilities and equipment within 2-years of contract award in order to compete on individual task/delivery orders.

A. An avionics software development and system test/integration facility that can support A-10 software requirements

B. Secure facility that can protect data marked up to and including a classified secret security level

2.1.3. Subfactor 3, Structures and Mechanical Systems. The government will evaluate if the offeror’s plan reasonably demonstrates the capability to meet the A-10 requirements listed below without creating an unacceptable level of risk to successful performance of A-10 task / delivery orders. The plan shall describe at a minimum a disciplined engineering approach, identification and management of resources, and maintaining OSS&E (Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness):

A. Provide ASIP engineering support for the A-10, as defined by tasks IV and V of Mil-Std-1530C

B. Perform fatigue, materials, durability, and damage tolerance testing and structural teardown and analysis

C. Analyze and redesign mechanical systems

D. Analyze the impact of and integrate propulsion upgrades

2.1.4. Subfactor 4, Avionics. The government will evaluate if the offeror’s plan reasonably demonstrates the capability to meet the A-10 requirements listed below without creating unacceptable level of risk to successful performance of A-10 task / delivery orders. The plan shall describe at a minimum a disciplined engineering approach, identification and management of resources, and maintaining OSS&E (Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness):

A. Develop, integrate, and successfully test hardware on A-10C avionics architecture

B. Develop, integrate, and successfully test Operation Flight Programs (OFP) and support equipment software on A-10C avionics architecture

C. Perform a temporary and permanent modification that ensures airworthiness

2.2. Factor 2 - Performance Confidence Assessment. The government will assess confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the requirements of this solicitation with emphasis on the technical subfactor 3, Structures and Mechanical Systems; technical subfactor 2, Paragraph A, Facilities for avionic S/W development and test; and subfactor 4, Avionics, based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past work record (which may include, but is not limited to, the offeror’s Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS), customer questionnaires, CPAR data, etc.). .The government will also consider other factors such as program management, schedule, cost etc in assessing confidence of the offeror. Past performance will only be evaluated for each Offeror and their critical subcontractors (defined in paragraph 2.1.1 above) based on the work they are proposing to do on this contract, as identified in the Past Performance Volume Executive Summary. The government will only assess the past performance of Offerors rated technically Acceptable and Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable.

2.2.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on past efforts. A past effort is defined as recent if it was performed no earlier than the past six (6) months prior to the RFP issuance date (current work is not excluded as long as it has been on contract for at least 6 months) and no later than five (5) years prior to the RFP issuance date. The relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained (which may include, but is not limited to, the offeror’s PPIS’s, customer questionnaires, CPAR data, etc.). The offeror and its critical subcontractors (defined in paragraph 2.1.1 above) do not need to have specific A-10 experience in order for the past performance to be relevant. In such cases the offeror will need to explain to the government why the past performance is relevant to the A-10. The Government may consider an Offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the Offeror’s past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an Offeror’s work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort. The following relevancy criteria apply:

Very Relevant – Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires

Relevant – Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant – Present/past performance contractual effort involved some of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant – Present/past performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.2.2. Evaluating Relevancy: In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contracts deemed most relevant to the effort described in the RFP. Relevancy will be separated into two (2) major technical areas: Avionics and Structures / Mechanical Systems. Each of these major technical areas will be assessed relevancy against three (3) categories. The Avionics technical area will be evaluated for relevancy against three (3) categories selected from Subfactor 2 (Facilities & Equipment), paragraph A; and Subfactor 4 (Avionics). Structures / Mechanical Systems will be evaluated for relevancy against three (3) categories selected from Subfactor 3 (Structures/Mechanical Systems). The specific categories for each technical area are detailed below, and the evaluation of relevancy will primarily focus on the following aspects in each category:

2.2.2.1. Avionics (Subfactor 2, Paragraph A, and Subfactor 4) A. Hardware & Software Facilities (Subfactor 2, Paragraph A):

a. Facility used to develop, integrate, & test Hardware & Software

b. Military Platform

c. Integrated with Nav/Comm, Weapons, HOTAS (Hands On Throttle And Stick), Radios, Displays, HUD (Heads Up Display)

d. Hardware/Software in the Loop

e. 1553 and/or Ethernet Architecture

f. Simulations: Flight & Pilot Models, Flight Controls

B. Hardware & Software (Subfactor 4, Paragraph A & B):

a. Real-Time Operation Systems, Software Languages (i.e. C++, Ada 95)

b. Weapons Algorithms, Nav/Com, Integration, Data Links, Graphics Generator

c. Multiplex Interfaces

d. Legacy Avionics

e. EMI (Electromagnetic Interference)/EMC (Electromagnetic Compatibility)

C. Temp/Perm Modifications (Subfactor 4, Paragraph C):

a. Examples of significant Military Platform modifications performed

2.2.2.2. Structures/Mechanical Systems (Subfactor 3)

A. ASIP (Aircraft Structural Integrity Program) (Subfactor 3, Paragraph A):

a. Fixed Wing, Mechanically fastened metallic structure

b. Military Aircraft

c. Damage Tolerant Design Methodology

B. Testing (Subfactor 3, Paragraph B):

a. Mechanically fastened metallic structure

b. Assembled component level fatigue test

C. Mechanical Systems (Subfactor 3, Paragraph C):

a. Military aircraft

b. Dual hydraulic systems

c. Cable driven, hydraulically actuated, flight control system

d. Dual engine

e. Retractable landing gear

f. Pressurized cockpit

2.2.3. In assessing past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

2.2.3.1. Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Although Section L asks the Offeror to submit PPIS’s and request questionnaires on the five (5) most relevant contracts to the technical capabilities listed in technical subfactor 3, Structures and Mechanical Systems, and the five (5) most relevant contracts to the technical capabilities listed in technical subfactor 2, Paragraph A, and subfactor 4, Avionics, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) evaluation is not limited to review of only those ten (10) submitted contracts, but may include performance information from other sources such as interviews, CPARS, etc. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. Evaluation of past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction and conclusions of informed judgment.

2.2.3.2. Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to determine if corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including, but not limited to, the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the Offeror’s overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.2.3.3. The SSA may consider performance confidence assessment ratings of “substantial confidence” and “satisfactory confidence” more favorably than an “unknown” confidence rating.

2.2.4. An overall confidence assessment rating will be made. The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

Rating

Definition 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 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.

2.2.5. Pursuant to DFARS 5215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offerors evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (i.e. subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business). Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL Offerors.

2.3. Factor 3 - Cost/Price Evaluation: The Offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for the criteria of Reasonableness, Balance, and Realism. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated. The evaluation criteria are defined below.

2.3.1. Reasonableness. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed labor rates and add-on factors. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.3.2. Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements, such as labor rates for the basic ordering period or option ordering periods is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced labor rates. An offer is unbalanced if it is based on labor rates for any labor category which are significantly less or greater, in relative terms, than the rates for other labor categories. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.3. Realism. It is anticipated that the proposed FP, LH, and CR rates will be the same for all labor categories through the cost line. In the event that the proposed CR rates differ from the proposed FP and LH rates at the cost line, the offeror must provide in his proposal a complete breakdown of the specific cost elements included in the CR rates with appropriate rationale and explanations. The Government will then perform a detailed cost realism analysis on the proposed CR rates. If there are any differences, the Government’s “adjusted” CR rates will be used in the computation of the TEP.

2.3.4. Total Evaluated Price. A TEP will be calculated to be used for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will consist of the proposed price for the Integrations Support Task order plus the proposed rates multiplied against predetermined hours and proposed NTE profit and fee factors. The Offeror’s TEP will be computed by the government and include a distribution of rates from the entire projected term of the contract, base period plus option periods. The government will multiply a predetermined subset of the given rates against a predetermined number of hours for each rate. The government will then apply the given NTE profit and fee factors. The distribution of rates and number of hours per rate will be based upon the government’s best estimate of projected workload over the term of this contract. The formula for application of hours and NTE profit and fee factors will not be disclosed to the Offeror prior to contract award.

3.0 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. Exchanges 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.

4.0 The Government intends to make an award without discussions. The government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.