Section_M.pdf

ATTACHMENT 2 – SECTION M- EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 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 and present 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 and also provided the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph 3.0 below.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

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 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

1.3 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.

2.0 Discussions

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, if 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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

2.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any unacceptable offer. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

3.0 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

• Factor I: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings) o Subfactor One: Technical Capability o Subfactor Two: Program Management

• Factor II. Past Performance o Relevancy o Performance Quality

• Factor III. Cost/Price

4.0 Relative Importance

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

5.0 Factor 1 – Technical

5.1 General:

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks; see Table 3, Section L, 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 exceeded 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 increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See

FAR 15.001.

• Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increased 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 increased the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

5.2 Subfactor One (SF1): Technical Capabilities

For each of the following Subfactor Elements the offeror’s proposal shall have described the offeror’s proposed approach to performing applicable PWS requirements and how the offeror intended to integrate the technical requirements into the offeror’s current business processes, including applicable risks/mitigations for each element.

The following shall have been addressed:

(a) Specific skills, functional capabilities, facilities, and equipment (beyond that provided as Government Furnished Equipment) required to accomplish the required activities for aircraft servicing and handling, PMB/Paint, aircraft assembly and disassembly, parts and equipment fabrication/manufacturing, structural inspection and repair, systems test and checkout, and quality assurance monitoring and control.

(b) Technical capability and expertise for each functional capability or the plan for obtaining required specialty skills and capabilities.

(c) Documentation or reasonable assumption of proof that the following requirements will be met prior to award:

i. Current ISO 9001:2015/SAE AS 9100 (or equivalent) certification from an accredited certification body for the facility or facilities/location(s) that will be performing the work requirements.

ii. Level II Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) certifications in accordance with AIA/NAS 410 for the personnel who are to perform these inspections.

Subfactor One: Measures of Merit - Ratings for the technical capabilities subfactor will be assigned In Accordance With (IAW) Section M Paragraph 5.4. 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 requirement to begin work within six (6) months of contract award and produce 3- 4 aircraft per year.

5.3 Subfactor Two (SF2): Program Management

The offeror providing a draft Integrated Master Plan (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 provided the process for risk identification, mitigation and management as demonstrated by the following:

(a) Process for ensuring that all contractor personnel are properly trained and qualified to perform assigned tasks and duties in accordance with applicable procedures and regulations by the start of the contract (1 OCT 2019). Description of the process for documenting individual training to provide evidence that an individual has met all initial training, re-training, certification, and proficiency requirements. Description of the plan for obtaining specific training and qualifications unique to the A-10 to include compliance with DCMA Instruction 8210.2.

(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 plan to obtain the aircraft parts that are currently unavailable through the MILSTRIP system. This plan must detail the process the offeror will use to obtain these parts to prevent schedule disruptions and must include the steps to certify flight worthiness in accordance with applicable technical data and regulations to include First Article Testing requirements. This plan shall have included 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 generalized plan describing the facilities, systems, processes, and procedures that will be in place at the start of the contract to ensure the safety and security of U.S. Government property to include aircraft, equipment, material, and information.

(e) A draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that at a minimum graphically details the offeror’s timeline for contract milestones and significant tasks/activities as required by the PWS to demonstrate achievability of contract objectives and integrate program activities for the first year of contract performance. Assume a delivery rate of three aircraft per year. The draft IMS will not be included in the page count limitation for the Technical Proposal Volume. Include applicable tasks/activities for workload transition to include facility preparation, workforce training/certification, receipt of GFE, and other activities that must be accomplished prior to first aircraft induction. Include a notional aircraft induction/delivery schedule based on the best estimated quantities for FY18 For purposes of this proposal, discrete aircraft maintenance tasks need not be included in the IMS as the Government is interested in the overall induction and delivery schedule rather than the specific maintenance process. Offerors may assume that they have control over the induction schedule. Proposed flow-days shall take into account an appropriate learning curve and include flow days for completing over-and-above tasks and final aircraft checkout and Functional Check Flight.

Subfactor Two (SF2): Measures of Merit – Ratings for the program management subfactor will be assigned IAW Sections M Paragraph 5.4. 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 requirement to begin work within six (6) months of contract award and produce 3-4 aircraft per year.

5.4 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 meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

Subfactor ratings shall 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 consideration for performance in excess of threshold requirements.

5.4.1 Technical Ratings:

Color Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

5.4.2 Technical Risk Rating

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

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness (es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased costs or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased costs or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased costs or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

5.5 Cross Reference Matrix:

The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships between the offerors technical volume and the PWS (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 4.3, 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

6.0 Factor 2 – Past Performance

The government shall rank all technically acceptable offers by performance confidence. The Government will assess confidence in the offeror and their critical teaming arrangement. Critical subcontractors are defined as subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform at least 30% of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price, or, perform aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. The Government reserves the right to exclude subcontractor performance that the Government does not deem critical to overall successful performance. Past performance will be assessed to determine the ability to successfully accomplish the requirements of this solicitation.

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 later than five (5) years prior to the RFP issuance date. Current work is not excluded as long as there has been sufficient work performed on the contract/effort to facilitate a meaningful review. More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact in the performance confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance.

6.1 Relevancy

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. Relevancy will be determined by the technical capabilities demonstrated relative to Section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 in this attachment. 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. The offeror and its critical subcontractors 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 criteria defined in Section 6.1.1 and 6.1.2 in this attachment.

In determining relevancy of individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

The most consideration is given to efforts where the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor is acting as a prime, however subcontractor/teaming performance will also be considered.

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 and the aggregate rating would be used for the evaluation.

6.1.1 Relevancy Criteria

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.

6.1.2 Procedures 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.

In order to be deemed ‘Very Relevant’ in relation to Technical Acceptability Subfactor 1, Management Plan, a past effort must demonstrate successful management and performance on an effort that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. Efforts that do not fully meet this definition, as determined by the Government, will be rated in accordance with the relevancy criteria above.

In order to be deemed ‘Very Relevant’ in relation to Technical Acceptability Subfactor 2, Technical Acceptability, a past effort must demonstrate capability to inspect, service and perform repairs of similar scope and complexity to the work effort defined in the PWS involving aircraft that meet the following criteria:

• Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul activity on U.S. military aircraft designed in 1960s or 1970s

• Weigh at least 15000 lbs. empty

• Be serviced at a rate of at least four (4) per year

• Be able to mechanically fasten metallic structure

• Include integrated flight control, hydraulic, electrical and mechanical systems

• Perform servicing and ground handling

• Contain repair of bonded metallic and non-metallic composite structure, e.g. beaded panel/skin, honeycomb sandwich structure, epoxy resin composition laminate, etc.

• Demonstrate Quality Assurance/Quality Control and Material Review Board process capabilities

• Contain parts and equipment fabrication/manufacturing

• Require arming/disarming and removal of ejection seats

• Require weight and balance of flight controls and aircraft

• Contain fatigue and fracture critical and CSI primary structure components

Efforts that only meet some or none of the above criteria, as determined by the Government, will be rated in accordance with the relevancy criteria in Paragraph 6.1.1.

6.1.3 Information Utilized

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 address up to three most relevant contracts for the prime and up to three of the most relevant contracts for each critical subcontractor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) evaluation is not limited to review of only those 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, performance in regard to the established technical subfactors (section 5.2), and conclusions of informed judgment.

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.

6.2 Performance Quality

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Capability subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings as defined in Section 6.2.1 of this document. For adverse information that would result in a marginal or unsatisfactory quality assessment rating, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

6.2.1 Performance Quality Criteria

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing individual aspects of efforts:

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

performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NETURAL CONFIDENCE

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 the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully

NO CONFIDENCE (N)

performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

6.3 Assigning Overall Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the mission capability subfactors and cost factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral” rating for the Past Performance factor. The SSA may consider performance confidence assessment ratings of “SUBSTANTIAL CONFIDENCE” and “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” more favorably than a “Neutral” confidence rating.

6.3.1 Overall Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

The following overall performance confidence assessment ratings apply:

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

record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully

NETURAL CONFIDENCE

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 the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO CONFIDENCE (N)

record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

In analyzing survey information gathered, the contracting officer may find isolated site-specific problems.

Provided all other reports are favorable, isolated problems will not carry as much weight in the assessment of confidence as when there is an identifiable trend of questionable performance, whether overall or in a particular area.

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.

7.0 Factor 3 – Cost/Price

The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for all tasks outlined in the basic requirement.

7.1 Cost/Price Evaluation

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the cost/price factor will be price reasonableness, balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

7.1.1 Reasonableness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. The reasonableness evaluation will be performed for all CLINs.

7.1.2 Balance

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items IAW 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. The balance evaluation will be performed for all CLINs.

7.1.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be computed and provided to the SSA for evaluation and award decision purposes. Unit Pricing from the TEP will be incorporated into the contract at award. The offeror shall provide extended total prices on Attachment 11, Pricing Worksheet by multiplying the estimated quantity by the proposed unit price or labor rate, as applicable. The estimated quantities provided in Attachment 11, Pricing Worksheet are estimates and are only being used for Total Evaluated Price (TEP) computation.