LGPBL1_Section_M_RFP_Amend_7.pdf

M1

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Landing Gear Performance Based Logistics One

(LGPBL1)

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR AWARDS

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection Process in accordance with

(IAW) FAR 15.101-1, as supplemented. The LGPBL1 Contract will be awarded to the offeror who represents the best overall value to the government, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price, that is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L and Technical Requirements Document (TRD) of this solicitation. The Government intends to award to the offeror that 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 overall business approach of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the source selection criteria in section M. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the

SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors and all other information required by Section L, Instructions to Offerors (ITO), of this solicitation.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to award one contract for the Landing Gear Performance Based Logistics One (LGPBL1) program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

Correction Potential of Proposals – The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. 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, the proposal may be considered “uncorrectable” and the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. A proposal will be considered “uncorrectable” if it is determined that a major proposal revision will be required in order to meet the minimum requirements of the

Request for Proposal (RFP).

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805

M2

Discussions – The Government reserves the right to award without discussions;

therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. 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 or receive a lower technical rating or higher technical risk, or all three. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions, if the SSA determines it to be in the best interest of the Government.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the

Government, based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below:

Factor One – Capability and Capacity

Sub-factor One: Facilities Plan & Equipment Plan

Sub-factor Two: Repatriation Plan

Sub-factor Three: Transition Plan

Sub-factor Four: Small Business Participation Plan

Factor Two – PBL Management Approach

Sub-factor One: Supply Chain Management (SCM) Plan

Sub-factor Two: Requisition Fulfillment Approach (RFA)

Sub-factor Three: Supplier Response Time (SRT)

Sub-factor Four: Integrated Master Plan & Schedule (IMP&IMS)

Factor Three – Past Performance

Factor Four – Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors – The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows (in descending order): First in importance is

Technical Factor One (Capability and Capacity), second is Technical Factor Two (PBL

Management Approach), third is Factor Three (Past Performance) and Factor Four

(Price) is last in importance. Within each Technical Factor, the sub-factors are listed in descending order of importance. IAW FAR15.304(e)(1), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of the threshold requirements.

M3

The LGPBL1 Contract will be awarded to the offeror who represents the best overall value to the government, based upon an integrated assessment (tradeoff) of Technical, Technical Risk (for all technical subfactors), Past Performance, and Price.

Technical Factor Ratings –For both Technical Factors listed in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below, the technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments

(Technical and Technical Risk). These two ratings impact the rating of each technical sub-factor.

2.3.1. Technical Rating - The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality and feasibility of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical sub-factor will receive a rating as detailed in paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5 below.

2.3.2. Technical Risk Rating – Assessment of Technical Risk, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

2.3.3. Definitions – For purposes of this evaluation the following definitions will be used:

2.3.3.1. 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.

2.3.3.2. Weakness – Is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

2.3.3.3. Significant Weakness – Is a proposal flaw that appreciably increases the risk on unsuccessful contract performance

2.3.3.4. 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.

2.3.3.5. Landing Gear Major Assembly – Assemblies containing high strength steel (heat treated above 180 ksi).

Technical Factor One (Capability and Capacity)-

2.4.1. Sub-factors will be evaluated IAW Table 1 – Technical

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings and IAW Table 3– Technical Risk Ratings.

An “Unacceptable” rating IAW Table 1, for any sub-factor will render a proposal un-awardable.

M4

Technical Factor Two (PBL Management Approach)

2.5.1. Sub-factors will be evaluated IAW Table 2 - Technical Color Ratings below and

IAW Table 3 - Technical Risk Rating below. An “Unacceptable” rating IAW

Table 2, for any sub-factor will render a proposal un-awardable.

Table 1 –Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable 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.

Table 2 - Technical Color Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

M5

Table 3 - Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Factor Three Past Performance – A past performance evaluation will be performed for all offerors. Past performance will be evaluated for Recency (IAW 4.3.1 below), Relevancy (IAW 4.4 and Table 5 below), and Performance Quality Assessment (IAW

4.5 and Table 6 below), and will receive an overall Performance Confidence

Assessment rating based on the definitions in Table 4 below.

Factor Four Price – A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with this section and proposals will be evaluated based on a Total Evaluated

Price (TEP).

3. VOLUME I – FACTORS ONE AND TWO, TECHNICAL

FACTOR ONE (CAPABILITY AND CAPACITY)

Factor One will be evaluated utilizing Acceptable / Unacceptable ratings IAW Table 1 above and Technical Risk Ratings IAW Table 3 above.

3.1.1. Sub-factor One, Facilities & Equipment Plan: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides evidence that the offeror possesses or will possess adequate facilities and equipment with the capacity to perform remanufacturing work sufficient to satisfy a minimum throughput of 275 major landing gear assemblies per month IAW TRD Appendix C paragraph 2.0 Remanufacturing

Process through paragraph 2.15 Asset Status Report (ASR). Evidence shall include:

3.1.1.1. A diagram that clearly illustrates the physical layout of the primary facility or facilities where the remanufacture will be performed and the interior layout/floor plan (including interior square footage) of each location. This diagram shall also provide evidence that the facility can accommodate all necessary equipment to satisfy the remanufacturing requirements.

M6

3.1.1.2. The physical address of any proposed facilities and internal locations where remanufacture will be performed.

3.1.1.3. Facility ownership or lease agreement OR, if the proposed facilities are not yet in possession of the offeror, a transition approach that provides purchase orders or agreements, or both to establish use of the required facilities (planned ownership or planned right of use) prior to and throughout contract performance.

3.1.1.4. ISO 9001-2008 , SAE AS 9100, or equivalent certification

3.1.1.5. The specific equipment that will be used to complete the proceses defined in Section L Table 3. The plan is acceptable when it precisely and accurately demonstrates how that specific equipment will be used to meet the required throughput of 275 major landing gear components per month IAW TRD Appendix C paragraph 2.0 Remanufacturing Process through paragraph 2.15 Asset Status Report (ASR).

3.1.1.6. Verification of current equipment ownership or lease agreement OR, if the proposed equipment is not yet in possession of the offeror, a feasible equipment transition approach that provides the following:

i. Purchase orders or agreements to establish use of the equipment

(planned ownership or planned right of use) prior to and throughout contract performance.

ii. Clear demonstration that the equipment will be fully operational no later than (NLT) six months after contract award.

iii. Documentation of installation schedules from any vendor(s) performing the installation to include man hours, calendar days, and a statement supporting ability to fit within the offeror’s facility and infrastructure where the remanufacture will take place.

3.1.2. Sub-factor Two, Repatriation Plan: This sub-factor is acceptable when it meets the defined repatriation requirements in TRD Appendix B paragraph 4.0

Repatriation and provides the following:

3.1.2.1. Clear demonstration that performance thresholds will be maintained for the life of the contract.

3.1.2.2. Feasible timelines for repatriation, for each weapon system.

3.1.2.3. Identification of current depot constraints inhibiting DSOR compliance and feasible approach(es) and solution(s) for overcoming these constraints in order to meet DSOR requirements.

3.1.2.4. Specific detail as to how the plan will be implemented.

M7

3.1.3. Sub-factor Three, Transition Plan: This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides the following:

3.1.3.1. A comprehensive detailed time phased approach to transition (phase in and phase out), that clearly demonstrates a logical order and feasible transfer of all accountability and responsibility for the elements identified in Section L para 3.4.3 and all subparagraphs

3.1.3.2. Feasible plan of implementation of an Information Technology (IT) interface in order to receive data from D035 IAW TRD Appendix F

Required Systems and System Interfaces.

3.1.3.3. Necessary details for a feasible approach as to how Asset Management

Workload (transition of components, issuing of assets, requisition fulfillment) will be accomplished

3.1.3.4. Necessary details for a feasible approach as to how Depot workload oversight and management will be accomplished

3.1.3.5. Necessary details for a feasible approach as to how Contract workload oversight and management will be accomplished

3.1.4. Sub-factor Four, Small Business Participation Plan: This sub-factor is considered acceptable when the Offerors small business participation plan clearly demonstrates their approach to maximize participation of approved small business manufacturers of spare supplies and parts and meet the requirements of the small business subcontracting goals as defined below:

3.1.4.1. Minimum small business subcontracting goal is 29% of the total subcontracted amount spent on spare supplies.

3.1.4.1.1. Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) - 5% of total subcontracted amount in para 3.1.4.1 above.

3.1.4.1.2. Woman-Owned Small Business - 5% of total subcontracted amount in para 3.1.4.1 above.

3.1.4.1.3. Hub-zone - 3% of total subcontracted amount in para 3.1.4.1 above.

3.1.4.1.4. Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business - 3% of total subcontracted amount in para 3.1.4.1 above.

3.1.4.2. The small business participation plan is not to be confused with the small business subcontracting plan. All offerors will be evaluated on their small business participation plan. However, IAW DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the small businesses considered in participation plan shall be listed in any subcontracting plan submitted pursuant to FAR 52.219-9.

M8

FACTOR TWO (PBL MANAGEMENT APPROACH)

Factor Two will be evaluated utilizing Technical Color Ratings IAW Table 2 above and

Technical Risk Ratings IAW Table 3 above.

3.2.1. Sub-factor One, Supply Chain Management (SCM) Plan: This sub-factor is met when the plan demonstrates experience and knowledge of supply chain management and leverage buying, and provides a feasible approach in support of all elements IAW TRD Appendix A Supply Chain and Program

Management.

The sub-factor is exceeded when it demonstrates a successful and proven SCM approach; specifically addressing demand and supply planning/forecasting

(short and long term), supportability challenges, management of critical resources, and provides solutions and approaches that will likely result in enhancements or benefits to the current supply chain.

3.2.2. Sub-factor Two, Requisition Fulfillment Approach (RFA): This sub-factor is met when the RFA, for each NSN (1) specifically and accurately describes each process IAW the applicable Technical Orders (TOs) and MIL-STD requirements to include all tooling, equipment and material necessary for proper remanufacture, (2) Accurately indicates times required for each step in the process (requisition receipt to delivery), and (3) Identifies in the process where any new purchases, remanufacturing, subcontracting, or shipping is performed.

for the following NSNs:

3.2.2.1. E-3; Snubber Assembly, NSN: 1650-01-036-4299, PN: 204-30301-2

3.2.2.2. KC-135; Nose Strut, NSN: 1620-01-548-0607, P/N: 200310051-50

3.2.2.3. C-130 MLG strut, NSN: 1620-01-170-8325, PN: 3316498-1

The sub-factor is exceeded when the contractor’s approach reflects process and procedure improvements that will likely result in improved asset availability, asset reliability, or significant long term enhancements to the RFA process.

3.2.3. Sub-factor Three, Supplier Response Time (SRT): This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides a detailed and feasible approach that demonstrates capability of meeting the defined thresholds in TRD Appendix B Metrics.

The sub-factor is exceeded when the offeror demonstrates a feasible and effective SRT approach that is likely to achieve and sustain for the life of the contract, thresholds in excess of those identified in TRD Appendix B Metrics.

M9

3.2.4. Sub-factor Four, Integrated Master Plan & Schedule (IMP&IMS) This sub-factor is met when both the IMP and IMS provide all major events and milestones necessary to accomplish all PBL requirements. The plan shall demonstrate a detailed understanding of the processes, procedures and communication tools required to effectively manage and successfully implement this project; describe a feasible and fully integrated approach for forecasting and tracking cost, schedule and performance as well as financial management and cost-control procedures. The approach shall efficiently use planning, risk management, problem resolution and tracking through the mature

IMP/IMS.

The sub-factor is exceeded when the contractor’s approach reflects process and procedure improvements that will likely result in significant and long lasting enhancements to the supply chain, remanufacturing or overall management processes that are considered to be beneficial to the government.

4. VOLUME II – FACTOR THREE, PAST PERFORMANCE

Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the LGPBL1 solicitation requirements. In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government. Other sources include, but are not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal

Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Government personnel, e.g. Program Managers and

Contracting Officers (COs), Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), as well as commercial sources.

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the LGPBL1 solicitation requirements. For the past performance factor offerors will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings IAW Table

4 below.

M10

Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments

When evaluating offeror’s past performance, only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

4.3.1. Recency is defined as performance less than five years from the date of issuance of the solicitation.

Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the technical sub-factors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical sub-factors. (However, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including all sub-factors identified in Section L, Attachment 6 Team List, Roles and Responsibilities.

In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The Past

Performance Information Sheets (PPISs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent contracts.

Rating Descriptions

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.

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.

M11

Table 5 – Relevancy Ratings

Rating Descriptions

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.

Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the technical sub-factors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with

FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small

Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent relevant efforts.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm

M12

Table 6 – Past Performance Quality Ratings

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE

During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. For serious problems encountered, corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating IAW Table 4 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical sub-factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Past performance regarding predecessor companies, or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of the requirement will be evaluated on an equal basis to the evaluation of the prime contractor’s past performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be

M13 evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an

"Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

A strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

5. VOLUME III – FACTOR FOUR, PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Price Factor will be (1) Completeness, (2)

Reasonableness, (3) Balance, (4) Affordability and (5) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, all proposed rates and elements used to calculate the TEP will be fixed and contractually binding.

Evaluation of potential award-terms shall not obligate the Government to exercise such terms.

Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

Reasonableness: For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. All CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1

Balance: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to rates, disclosed elements of price, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Price proposal is affordable by comparing the yearly and total proposed evaluated price (TPEP) to budgetary information. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total price and the total budget. The maximum dollar amount at which a proposal is considered affordable is $970 Million, based upon current budgetary information

M14 derived from an estimate of the cost of the program. A proposal with a TPEP that exceeds $970 Million will be considered unaffordable, and therefore, unawardable under this solicitation. The TPEP is calculated the same way as the Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) as explained in Section M para 5.8, excluding the Adjustment Price Per

Requisition (APPR) notional quantities (Section M, para 5.8.1.2) and estimated transportation costs (Section M, para 5.8.4).

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) shall be calculated using the following: (1) Firm Fixed

Price (FFP) composite Requisition Band rates, (2) FFP Adjustment Price Per

Requisition (APPR) rates, (3) FMS and Other Services requisition pricing, (4) Notional

Estimates to be applied as designated below in 5.7.1. and 5.7.3 and (5) Transportation costs.

5.7.1. Transportation costs for this effort will be paid via a Government Transportation

Account Code (TAC) on an F.O.B Origin basis. The point of origin for the purpose of evaluation of this element shall be the offeror’s facility identified in FAR clause 52.247-29 F. O. B. Origin. Each offeror’s estimated transportation costs will be applied to the TEP for evaluation purposes only. In the event that an offeror identifies more than one F.O.B. Origin facility, only the facility with the largest transportation calculation will be used for evaluation purposes. Offerors’ transportation estimates will comprised of the following:

5.7.1.1. Estimated number of yearly requisitions for each requisition band.

5.7.1.2. Shipping differential, provided by the Government Transportation

Office, based on offeror’s point of origin.

5.7.1.3. Estimated number of yearly requisitions and identified differentials will be applied equally to all proposals. Offerors’ point of origin location will be the variable that affects the estimated price that will be applied to the

TEP.

5.7.2. All FFP Rates Composite prices shall be fully burdened and include all direct costs, indirect costs (Overhead, General and Administrative, etc.) and profit necessary for the performance of the entire requirement. For the APPR offerors shall propose a FFP APPR rate, that represents the variable prices associated with the offerors proposed Requisition Rate. All rates are Firm Fixed Price

(FFP) and contractually binding.

5.7.3. When cells for the Requisition Rate are populated in the TEP worksheet, it will automatically calculate the Band Price. The Band Price will be the multiple of the yearly Requisition Target Estimate and the Requisition Rate. The Band

Price will be summed across years 2-15 of the contract for evaluation of the

TEP. The Government will apply notional quantities to the APPR and FMS and

Other Services for TEP evaluation. The formula for application of the notional numbers and the actual notional numbers used will not be disclosed to offerors.

The notional numbers provided to the offerors in the draft RFP are for example

M15 purposes only and are not necessarily the notional numbers used for the TEP calculations.

The TEP shall be comprised of the following:

5.8.1. Band Requisition Pricing

5.8.1.1. Band Requisition Prices (Band Requisition Rates multiplied by

Requisition Target Estimates) for all bands and weapon systems for

Years 2-15. (CLINs X001, X002, X003)

5.8.1.2. Adjustment Price Per Requisition (APPR) for all bands and weapon systems for years 2-15 multiplied by notional quantities. (CLINs X001, X002, X003)

5.8.2. FMS and Other Services requisition pricing for all NSNs for years 2-15 multiplied by notional quantities (CLINs X004, X005, X006).

5.8.3. All Data/CDRL CLINs (CLIN X007) will be Not Seperately Priced and the price for such are assumed to be included in previous CLINs.

5.8.4. Estimated Transportation as described in paragraph 5.7.1 above.

A no bid or an omitted rate may result in an incomplete price submission.

The Government will evaluate the information detailing the OO/ALC Depot rates and efficiency adjustments proposed and utilized within the offeror’s proposal. This information shall be evaluated for consistency with the actual quotes and efficiency assumptions provided by the OO/ALC Depot. This information will be utilized to baseline the offeror’s Depot Rate Adjustment under the Depot Labor Economic Price

Adjustment Clause. The offeror shall use the Depot Labor Escalation Rate at the standard three percent (3%) used in OO/ALC Depot pricing estimates.

6. VOLUME IV, CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract/Solicitation, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by Section L

- ITO, Volume IV - Contract Documentation. An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and award.

6.1.1. The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources.

Acceptable evidence consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

IAW FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), a contractor’s accounting system along with all teaming partners/ interdivisional transfers/subcontractors who will be issued other-than fixed

M16 price work shall be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order for Cost Reimbursable contract CLINS in order to be awarded a contract. Submit evidence that your company has an adequate accounting system (i.e. Defense

Contracting Audit Agency (DCAA) approved accounting system for Cost Type contracts). If offeror does not have evidence of an adequate accounting system, then a

Pre-Award Survey may be conducted to determine whether or not offeror has an adequate accounting system. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines the contractor’s accounting system to be inadequate.

SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

7. 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.