Section_M_relevancy_change.docx

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Subjective Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures (dated 1 April 2016) referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation (DFARS) 215.300 and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 (dated 3 October 2017) to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who has given the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements in a way that will be advantageous 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 that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conformed to all required terms and conditions, included all required representations and certifications, met all requirements set forth in the RFP, had acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provided the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

Subfactor One: Technical Capability

Subfactor Two: Program Management

Factor II. Past Performance

Factor III. Small Business Participation (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor IV. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, technical is the most important followed by cost/price and then past performance. Technical and Past Performance when combined are significantly more important than cost factors. Within “Factor I: Technical,” “Subfactor One: Technical Capability” and “Subfactor Two: Program Management” are considered equal in importance.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306 and as supplemented. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP: Volume I will be evaluated for overall completeness and exceptions.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal will be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provided a sound, compliant approach that met the requirements of the Solicitation, SOW (including attachments), TDP, CDRLS, and proved/demonstrated a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks; see Section L Paragraph II.C.3, Cross Reference Matrix for links between the evaluation factors and technical requirements documents.

Elements to the subfactors will be evaluated for strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.

· Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

· Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

· Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

· Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Subfactor One (SF1): Technical Capabilities – For each of the following Subfactor Elements, the proposal shall have described the offeror’s proposed approach to performing ATTACK SOW and 162D610010-1001 TDP requirements. For each subfactor element risks/mitigations shall have been identified, and proposals shall have described how the offeror intended to integrate the technical requirements into current business processes. The following shall have been addressed:

(a) Define technical personnel, with roles and responsibilities, required to plan for and manufacture the wing and its components from build concepts through delivery support.

(b) Approach to develop and implement a comprehensive manufacturing concept/process for the 162D610010-1001 A-10 wing assembly .

(c) Control of stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, especially at critical interfaces. Provide substantiation of tolerance control equal to the following parts/locations related to this effort: WS 110 wing splice 162D611101-1001, Trunnion Instl 162D611102-1001, Trunnion 162D611621-2003, WS 23 162D611104-1001.

(d) Use of model based definition as defined in the TDP to control component loft and contour during manufacturing and assembly, use P/N 162D611211-2001 and P/N 162D711110-1205A as sample cases .

(e) Seal and test the integral wing fuel tank (i.e. a wet wing) as defined in the TDP.

(f) Approach to manufacture and procure Critical Safety Items (CSI) and manage CSI requirements from raw material through all levels of manufacture up to final assembly.

(g) Approach to fabricate, control and inspect bonded metallic composite structure and bonded non-metallic composite structure as defined in the TDP .

(h) Approach to control interchangeable and replaceable (I&R) lofted and non-lofted interfaces as defined in the TDP that are capable of being readily installed, removed, or replaced without alteration, misalignment, or damage to items being installed, adjoining items, or structure.

(i) Use of available production tooling from previous contract and/or new tooling in the production of the current ATTACK wing configuration in a manner that allows First Article (FA)/Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP)/Full Rate Production (FRP) delivery within the government timeline.

Subfactor One: Measures of Merit - Ratings for the technical capabilities subfactor will be assigned In Accordance With (IAW) Section M Paragraph II.C.2. and Section M Paragraph II.C.3. The technical capabilities subfactor ratings will be based on the degree to which the proposal was compliant, feasible, mature, and proved/demonstrated the technical approach has met the program threshold of First Article delivery within 3 years.

Subfactor Two (SF2): Program Management - The offeror provided draft IMP shall have enabled the Government to assess how the offeror will establish and maintain a program management system that will direct and control the administrative, technical, financial, manufacturing, procurement, storage, and logistics functions of this effort. The IMP shall have also addressed key events required by the technical requirements documents and offeror requirements that reflect mature program decision activities and mark transition points between intervals of major program activity. Included identified risks/mitigations and IMP shall have provided or demonstrated the following elements:

(a) A fully integrated management approach sufficient for accomplishing an effort of this size and scope.

(b) A clear and logical structure and staffing to organize, staff, lead, plan, coordinate, and control resources for successful program execution. Show organizational structure including lines of authority and interfaces between management, staff, sub-tier vendors/suppliers (audit/management) and the Government.

(c) A clear and feasible approach to managing requirement definition and manufacturing capabilities for sub-tier vendor/suppliers wherever outside companies are employed for this task.

(d) A draft IMS that at a minimum graphically details the offeror’s timeline for tooling production (to include master and production tool need timeline), material purchase, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing), LRIP, and FRP for an entire year (following the delivery of final LRIP unit). Assume a FRP delivery rate of three wings per month. The draft IMS shall reflect program milestones and CDRL deliveries as required by the SOW. The draft IMS will not be included in the page count limitation for the Technical Proposal Volume.

(e) Planning and production approach, expedite options for long-lead items, and production and planning risks/mitigations to meet the incentivized delivery schedule.

(f) A list of items the offeror considers to be long-lead items and/or parts and assemblies that may cause delays in meeting government timelines, justification of items identified, and mitigations to minimize delivery impacts.

Subfactor Two: Measures of Merit - Ratings for the program management subfactor will be assigned IAW Sections M Paragraph II.C.2. and Section M Paragraph II.C.3. The program management subfactor ratings will be based on the degree to which the proposal was compliant, complete, suitable, and proved/demonstrated the program management approach has met the program threshold of First Article delivery within 3 years and substantiated the ability to scale to FRP.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal has met the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive evaluation consideration for performance in excess of threshold requirements.

Technical Ratings:

3. Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation will address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigations (if applicable), and document why these weaknesses, risks or mitigations are or are not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

4. Cross Reference Matrix:

The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships between the offerors technical volume and the SOW (to include attachments), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The technical volume shall have contained a fully populated cross reference matrix as shown in Section L Paragraph II.C.3, Cross Reference Matrix. In the event a submitted cross reference matrix is not complete, Volume II will not be considered for technical evaluation and the offeror may or may not be considered for award.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability--which includes the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement--to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform at least 20% of the fabrication and/or assembly work by part quantity or weight. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members and the critical subcontractors’demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. In the event a submitted contract is not determined recent, it will not be considered in the past performance evaluation and the offeror may or may not be considered for award. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

(a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(b) Adverse Past Performance: The offeror(s) shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror(s)/joint venture member(s) and/or critical subcontractor(s) has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation 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 overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

(c) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and the critical subcontractors’ present/past performance SHALL NOT HAVE included the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the offeror submitted an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government will use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality of products and services. All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, shall contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders shall have demonstrated relevance to the proposed acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be evaluated against each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal. Contracts submitted should:

(a) Contain a wing with a metallic spar/rib and skin/stiffener both monolithic machined and mechanically fastened wing box design.

(b) Contain a wing that weighs at least 2500 pounds

(c) Contain items that are (or have been) produced at a rate of at least 20 per year

(d) Contain contoured components of bonded metallic composite structure, e.g. beaded panel/skin, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.

(e) Contain contoured components of bonded non-metallic composite structure, e.g. epoxy resin composition laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.

(f) Contain integrated flight control components and systems

(g) Contain integrated avionics, hydraulic and fuel system components

(h) Contain an integral fuel tank (removable fuel tanks/bladders are not considered integral)

(i) Contain fatigue and fracture critical and CSI primary structure components

(j) Contain stringent manufacturing tolerances (e.g. surface finish 63 RHR or better, hole diameter ±0.00075, surface flatness of 0.002, hole location of 0.001 diametrical over 20 inches, etc.), particularly at I&R interfaces

(k) Demonstrate Quality Assurance/ Quality Control and Material Review Board (MRB) process capabilities

(l) Demonstrate proper understanding and use of Model Based Definition (MBD) for production control

The aggregate of these ratings will be assessed for a contract relevancy rating.

· VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

· SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

· NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

5. Quality of Products and Services Assessment:

This evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing quality products that meet the users’ needs. The following Quality of Products and Services elements will be considered independently. The aggregate of these considerations will be taken into account for the contract Past Performance Evaluation rating:

(a) Extent to which company’s products and/or services met the specification /performance requirements

(b) Configuration management

(c) Quality of completed product

(d) Overall management of subcontracting efforts

(e) Quality of tech manuals or commercial manuals

(f) Customer satisfaction with warranty response times and corrective actions

(g) Adequate number of dedicated resources for program

(h) Timely recognition and notification of administrative, engineering, production, problems affecting the program (ability shown to isolate and fix root causes)

(i) Company performed independently without significant customer direction/oversight

(j) Monitoring of program schedules and critical milestones (schedule management)

(k) Contracts > $700k must comply with 52.219-9 Small Business Plan. Contracts > $100k must comply with 52.219-8 Small Business Rules (exempt outside the United States)*

* Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and the critical subcontractors’ compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three respective contracts submitted for evaluation by each offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture partner award 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 concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. [Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 (Subcontracting Plan) only applies to large businesses.] If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture members’ policy to utilize 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 concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, and/or other past performance information obtained by the Government, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

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.

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: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance 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 unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

E. Volume IV, Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provided an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrated an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation Submission shall have addressed each of the following elements in sufficient detail:

(a) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract

(b) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided

(c) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided.

The associated goals in paragraph (c) above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated against the FY18 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The overall goal for this program is as follows:

TABLE 5 – SMALL BUSINESS

*IAW DFARS PGI 215.304(c)(i)(A)(6)

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Small business participation will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis in accordance with DoD Source Selection Mandatory Procedure Table 6. Each offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated to determine if the offeror provides an acceptable approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and proves an understanding of those objectives.

Offerors must be rated Acceptable for the Small Business Participation factor in order to be eligible for award.

F. Volume V, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1. General: The Pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. For the Cost/Price Factor, the Government will use the submitted TEP Pricing Matrix to calculate the TEP.

Evaluation of ordering periods will not obligate the Government to place an order during each period.

2. Reasonableness: The determination of reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs (0002, 0003 and 0004). These CR CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. All other CLINs will be reviewed for reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404. It is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

3. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): An Offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award. All elements required for the TEP shall have been included in the TEP Pricing Matrix Attachment. The TEP is the sum of CLINs XX01, XX05, and XX06. The TEP shall have also summed the price calculated utilizing the notional quantities used for each production delivery ordering period through delivery order seven. The TEP shall have included the minimum order guarantee as well as the ceiling incentive fee of $17M. The distribution of the notional quantities have been based upon the Government’s best estimate. The notional quantity for wings and kits SHALL NOT be disclosed to offerors. The prices associated with the TEP are contractually binding.

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated based on the offerors populated TEP Pricing Matrix Attachment. The price for CLINs 1001-7001 and XX06 will be calculated based on the notional quantities. All CLINs will be summed to a total evaluated price.

The TEP shall have included the following CLINs:

FFP CLINs XX01 Wing TEP for these CLINs are the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed price.

FFP CLIN: 0005 Incentive CLIN XX05 is included in the TEP as it is a fixed monetary performance incentive and the Government will establish a ceiling amount that the successful offeror may earn up to.

FFP CLIN: 0006 Kits TEP for these CLINs are the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed price.

CLINs excluded from the TEP include:

CRNF CLINs 0002 Shipping and handing These CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer.

CRNF CLIN: 0003 Restart These CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer.

CPFF CLIN: 0004 Over and Above These CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer.

5. CO Responsibility Determination: The CO will make a responsibility determination IAW with FAR 9.104-1 and 9.104-2 for the apparently successful Offeror prior to contract award using the information provided in Section L. The CO may also use other sources of information to make a responsibility determination.

6. Approval of Accounting System: As portions of this contract are other-than fixed price, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has a Government approved accounting system along with all subcontractors who will be issued other-than fixed price work under other-than fixed price CLINs. Failure to possess or obtain government approval of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award. If offerors and/or subcontractors do not currently have Government approval of their accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre-Award Accounting System Audit.