Section_M.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Section M Evaluation Factors for Award

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive, best value with trade-offs source selection. The Government will select the best overall offerors’ proposal. An offeror receiving an unacceptable rating for the technical acceptability will not be considered for award. By submission of its offer, the offeror acceded to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations, and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and subfactors.

All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference.

b. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP/GFE/GFM. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP/GFM/GFE

d. Discussions.

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 source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the

Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

e. Evaluation Factors

Factor 1: Technical Acceptability.

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Subfactor 1: Wiring

Description: This subfactor evaluates wiring criteria that needs to be met as part of this effort.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates proper A-10 aircraft wiring practices to include troubleshooting aerospace wiring using approved aerospace support equipment as well as common electrical tools.

Subfactor 2: Technical Data

Description: This subfactor evaluates technical data as related to this requirement.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates that all Air Force technical data (to include but not limited to Aerospace engineering drawing and A-10 engineering drawing standards) and peculiar A-10 technical data formats and styles related and affected to this effort are planned, developed, will meet schedule requirements, and in accordance with all applicable rules and regulations

Subfactor 3: Management Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates how well the offeror’s approach demonstrates sound program management principles and integration of all program aspects. An acceptable proposal must demonstrate a well-defined approach to managing the schedule and performance aspects of the overall program.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal shall:

i. Show a process for ensuring that all contractor personnel are properly trained and qualified to perform assigned tasks and duties in accordance with applicable procedures

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

and regulations and that there is a plan for obtaining specific training and qualifications unique to the A-10.

ii. A generalized plan describing the systems, processes, and procedures that will be in place to ensure the safety and security of U.S. Government Property to include equipment, material and information.

iii. A draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that contains contract milestones and significant tasks/activities to demonstrate the achievability of contract objectives, period of performance, key dates, and integrated program activities for the duration of contract performance. The IMS should be top-level in nature and be based on an offeror developed Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

iv. Any Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Government Furnished Property

(GFP)/Government Furnished Material (GFM) that may be required as part of this contract is talked about.

v. A management and technical understanding of the complexity of the requirement is addressed. The plan includes an organization chart(s), rationale and methodology to staff the proposed structure, recruitment for each functional area. The plan includes the incorporation of key positions/descriptions reflecting the required education, experience, certification, and qualifications needed to comply with PWS requirements. The plan includes any cross-utilization, an employee retention plan, and all sub-contractor participation.

Subfactor 4: Design

Description: This subfactor evaluates design criteria that shall be met as part of this effort

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal plan for designing and executing those tasks in the PWS fulfill the requirement. All necessary specific skills, documentation, plans, competencies, capabilities, and equipment (beyond that provided as

GFE) that the design and producability of aircraft wiring harnesses will be achieved. A proposed solution how this effort will be a non-kitted and a field-level time compliance technical order (TCTO) for this effort’s Group-A and –B kit installation that limits the installation time to no later than (NLT) 25 man-hours to complete.

Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in a graded assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the following subfactors. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source

Selection Procedures, Table – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Subfactor 1: Quality and Satisfaction Rating for Contracts Completed in the Past Three

Years and Performance Surveys.

This subfactor will be evaluated by the information provided by the offeror and any other sources of information available (letters, metrics, customer surveys, independent surveys, etc.) which demonstrates customer satisfaction with overall job performance and quality of completed product for relevant past efforts/contracts (similar in scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires) as well as those corrective actions taken in the past, if any, for substandard performance and any current performance problems such as cost overruns, extended performance periods, numerous warranty calls, etc. The subfactor will also take into account of the offeror’s list of no more than five (5) of the most relevant contracts performed for Federal agencies and commercial customers within the last three (3) years of information regarding predecessor companies, key personnel who have relevant experience, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement when such information is relevant to the instant acquisition. Also, if a teaming arrangement is contemplated, complete information is provided as to the arrangement, including any relevant and recent past performance information on previous teaming arrangements with same partner. If this is a first time joint effort, each party to the arrangement provides a list of past relevant contracts with relevant information. Consent letters should be provided for subcontracting/teaming past performance information that is submitted.

Subfactor 2: Relative Experience: This subfactor will be evaluated by any relevant, past experience during the last five years along with personnel with at least three continuous years of experience in the past five years in the following areas: Aircraft wiring experience to include troubleshooting aerospace wiring using approved aerospace support equipment as well as common electrical tools; Experience in Air Force technical data (to include but not limited to Aerospace engineering drawing and A-10 engineering drawing standards, Technical Orders (TO’s), Time Compliance Technical Orders (TCTO’s) and peculiar A-10 technical data formats and styles. Also, any experience designing and producability of aircraft wiring harnesses that shall be non-kitted.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

Factor 3: Cost/Price. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for the criteria of reasonableness and balance for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements (basic award) and all options. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the

Government to exercise such options known as the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be the summation of all firm fixed priced contract line items.

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. If adequate price completion 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. If the proposed price cannot be supported adequately, the proposal may be excluded. This will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis.

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 or firm fixed prices for the basic period or following periods are significantly overstated or understated in relation to other labor rates or firm fixed prices as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. This will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis

3. Realism. The Government may evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed costs if, in the event of only one offeror, cost and data pricing is requested. Any realism issues will be resolved through negotiations. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101).

F.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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 past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have an unknown past performance. In the context of this assessment, the “unknown” shall be considered “neutral.”

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign strength, for performance in excess of threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements. No further positive consideration will be given for performance in excess of the objective requirements.

G.

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) 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 contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.