Section_M.pdf

Section M - pg 1 (of 12)

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Evaluation Criteria for the

Acquisition of Supplies

For the

Landing Gear Remanufacture 3 (LGR3) Program

18 Feb 2015

Section M - pg 2 (of 12)

Section Content:

1.0 - Source Selection

2.0 - Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

3.0 - Volume I – Executive Summary

4.0 - Volume II – Technical

5.0 - Volume III – Past Performance

6.0 - Volume IV – Price

7.0 - Volume V – Contract Documentation

1.0. Source Selection

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than, cost or price considerations. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

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

1.2. Award Without 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) incorporated in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award a single award

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the Landing Gear Remanufacture 3

(LGR3) Program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.4. Rejection of Offers: The Government may reject any proposals that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

1.5. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. “Deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If the Government determines that an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet its requirements and is not easily correctable, the

Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

Section M - pg 3 (of 12)

2.0. Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

2.1. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

Factor One: Technical

Sub-factor one: Program Management

Sub-factor two: Transition Plan

Sub-factor three: Contractor Capability

Sub-factor four: Sample Tasks

Sub-factor five: Qualification and Certification

Factor Two: Past Performance

Factor Three: Price

2.2. Evaluation Methodology: Proposals will be evaluated as follows:

Upon receipt of proposals, the Governments evaluation team will begin evaluating all proposals against all factors and sub-factors contained in this document (Technical, Past Performance, and Pricing). Additionally, the Contract

Documentation Volume would be evaluated to ensure a complete proposal is received. Each Offeror will be evaluated on an individual basis. The Procurement

Contracting Officer will notify contractors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or from further consideration for award.

Factor One – Technical – The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) shall evaluate the Technical Factor (sub-factors) assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable.” If any sub-factor is unacceptable, the entire factor will be rated as unacceptable and will render the entire proposal as unacceptable.

Factor Two – Past Performance – The SSEB shall evaluate the Past Performance factor utilizing the following ratings: Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory

Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence

(Neutral) as defined in Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessment below.

Factor Three – Price – The SSEB shall calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

IAW procedures listed in Paragraph 6.0 – Volume IV – Price to allow the SSEB to compare pricing. The SSEB shall evaluate the pricing volume for reasonableness and balance.

All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. The government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced technically acceptable offer if the lowest priced Offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of "Satisfactory Confidence" or lower. In that event, the

Source Selection Authority (SSA) shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision.

Section M - pg 4 (of 12)

3.0. Volume I – Executive Summary

3.1. The Government shall ensure that each proposal includes the general outline stated in

Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Volume I.

4.0. Volume II (Factor One) – Technical

4.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability: The proposals must provide methodologies, rationale and evidence to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to all portions of the RFP. The Government may make a final determination as to the

Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the Offeror.

4.2. Technical Acceptability: The SSEB shall evaluate all technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. Failure to meet any criteria in any sub-factor will result in that proposal being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors:

Sub-factor one: Program Management

Sub-factor two: Transition Plan

Sub-factor three: Contractor Capability

Sub-factor four: Sample Tasks

Sub-factor five: Qualification and Certification

Table 1 - Technical Acceptability/Unacceptable Ratings

Technical Acceptability/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

4.2.1. Sub-Factor 1 – Program Management: The SSEB will evaluate the following plans:

4.2.1.1. Staffing Plan: This plan will be evaluated to ensure that a staffing plan table has been completed (per Section L, Table 2) and demonstrates the Offerors ability to support the LGR3 requirement. Additionally, it will be evaluated to ensure that there is adequate rationale supporting information used to complete the table.

Section M - pg 5 (of 12)

The plan is acceptable when it clearly demonstrates with adequate rationale the following:

(i) Adequate number of Personnel to support the various Remanufacture

Process Plans

(ii) Adequate certification documentation for each employee (if required) in accordance with Section L, Table 2.

4.2.1.2. Small Business Participation Plan: This plan is considered acceptable when the

Offeror’s small business participation plan clearly demonstrates their approach to meet the requirements of the small business subcontracting goals as defined below:

4.2.1.2.1 Minimum small business subcontracting goal is 10% of the total subcontracted amount.

• Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) - 5% of total subcontracted amount in para 4.2.1.2.1 above.

• Woman-Owned Small Business - 5% of total subcontracted amount in para 4.2.1.2.1 above.

• Hub-zone - 3% of total subcontracted amount in para 4.2.1.2.1 above.

• Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business - 3% of total subcontracted amount in para 4.2.1.2.1 above.

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.

4.2.2. Sub-Factor Two, Transition Plan:

This plan will be evaluated to ensure that proposal includes a time-phased approach to meet the required six month transition time period (IAW TRD para 2.1 and sub-paragraphs).

This plan is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale and evidence to demonstrate the following:

(i) Necessary equipment and facilities will be in place within the six month transition period and that that the equipment aligns with the equipment plan

(ii) Necessary personnel are/will be employed, trained and able to work accordingly to satisfy LGR3 requirement to meet the six month transition period

4.2.3. Sub-Factor Three, Contractor Capability:

Section M - pg 6 (of 12)

4.2.3.1. Facility Plan: This plan will be evaluated to ensure that a map documenting the physical layout of the primary facility is provided with accompanying rationale of its capacity to remanufacture 275 landing gear major assemblies per month (IAW TRD

2.2.1). Additionally, it will be evaluated to ensure that physical addresses of any proposed alternate (subcontractor facilities etc.) facility is included.

This plan is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale and evidence to demonstrate the following:

(i) Current ownership or ability to have access to facility that supports the

LGR3 requirement

(ii) That the facility is adequate to support each remanufacture process

(iii) Facility is adequate to support the overall throughput of 275 landing gear assemblies per month within the delivery time of 60 days after receipt of

(ARO) repairable

4.2.3.2. Equipment Plan: This plan will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror has/will have the necessary equipment to remanufacture up to 275 landing gear major assemblies per month (IAW TRD 2.2.1).

The plan is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale and evidence to demonstrate the following:

(i) Current ownership, or evidence that Offeror will have access to equipment necessary for remanufacturing all landing gear components contained in the LGR3 requirement

(ii) Equipment is fully capable of meeting monthly throughput of 275 major landing gear assemblies per month, within the delivery time of 60 days

ARO repairable

(iii) Equipment proposed is adequate to support all processes identified in

Section L, Table 3 - Equipment Plan

4.2.3.3. Remanufacture Process Plan: This plan will be evaluated to ensure that the

Offeror has provided a comprehensive process plan and Gantt chart, that provides the overall process flow to support the LGR3 requirement (IAW TRD para 2.2 and 2.3).

The plan is acceptable when it clearly demonstrates the following:

(i) Necessary steps required to remanufacture landing gear assemblies

(ii) Understanding of time required for each remanufacture process

(iii) Ability to meet the time required for each process, within the delivery time of 60 days or less

(iv) Ability to meet throughput of 275 landing gear assemblies per month.

4.2.4. Sub-Factor Four, Sample Tasks: The sample tasks will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror has provided a detailed narrative approach and flow chart (via Gantt chart) describing the process for remanufacture of the following NSNs from receipt to delivery

Section M - pg 7 (of 12)

(IAW TRD para 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6):

(a) E-3 Main OLEO Assembly NSN: 1620-01-198-1506, PN: 65-22110-37

(b) KC-135 Centering Cylinder NSN: 1650-01-582-2429, P/N: 200733824-10

(c) C-130, NLG strut NSN: 1620-00-505-1184, PN 3303591-3

The requirement is acceptable when the proposal clearly demonstrates the following:

(1) Time required for each step (from induction to delivery)

(2) Identification of all subcontracted work and applicable shipping involved with such work

(3) The remanufacture process is compliant with the applicable TO’s and Military

Standards (MIL-STD) and includes all tooling, equipment and material necessary for proper and complete remanufacture of applicable NSN within the 60 day delivery requirement

4.2.5. Sub-Factor Five, Qualification and Certification: The proposal shall be evaluated to ensure that it includes ISO 9001, or AS 9100 compliance, or equivalent documentation. Any equivalency documentation must clearly demonstrate its equivalence to ISO or AS certifications.

(a) The requirement is met when the contractor provides current ISO 9001 or AS 9100 compliance or equivalence.

5.0. Volume III (Factor Two) – Past Performance

5.1. Performance Confidence Assessment: The contracting officer shall seek recent and relevant performance information on all Offerors based on (1) the past efforts provided by the

Offeror and (2) data independently obtained from any other Government and commercial sources. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis.

5.2. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent (see Table 4 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings). To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this Solicitation. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

5.3. Relevancy Assessment: Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving remanufacturing that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Table 4 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

VERY Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope

Section M - pg 8 (of 12)

RELEVANT 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.

The Offeror’s completed PPIS (refer to Section L - Attachment 1, Past Performance Information

Sheet) and the Questionnaires will be the SSEB’s primary tool to consider relevancy (though additional information may be utilized).

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the

Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall performance confidence assessment of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Limited Confidence, No Confidence, or Unknown Confidence (Neutral) as defined in Table 5 – Performance

Confidence Assessments below.

Table 5 - Performance Confidence Assessments

The Past Performance evaluation will ensure that the Offeror provided required documents as defined in Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors, Volume III.

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.

Section M - pg 9 (of 12)

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 with no recent/relevant performance history or if the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned shall receive the rating "Unknown Confidence," meaning the rating is treated neither favorably nor unfavorably (neutral).

5.4. Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation may consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The government will review Offeror’s responses to any Offeror identified adverse performance and evaluate Offeror’s ability to isolate and resolve past issues.

Adverse past performance to which the Offeror hasn’t previously had the opportunity to respond will be addressed via communications, or in discussion (if applicable). The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 6 – Performance Quality Assessment

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

Section M - pg 10 (of 12) and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

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

5.4.1. 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 5. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price 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 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 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 may 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. Offerors with recent/relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous than offerors with no recent/relevant past performance (“unknown” confidence ratings).

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in

Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

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 FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

6.0. Volume IV (Factor Three) – Price

The Offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

The Offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated for the criteria of Price Reasonableness and

Balance.

6.1. Evaluation Criteria: Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award.

Section M - pg 11 (of 12)

6.1.1. Price Reasonableness: The proposed prices will be evaluated for Price

Reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR

15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

6.1.2. Balance: The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items/Contract Line Item Numbers

(CLINs) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques as those defined by FAR 15.404-1.

6.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): A TEP will be calculated to be used for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP calculations is shown below in para 6.2.1. The “a” and “b” used in calculation is summarized directly below:

a. Summation of CLINS 0001-0004 as shown below :

All Regular FFP CLINs (CLINS 0001-0004) for all years at proposed amounts multiplied by undisclosed Best Estimated Quantities.

b. Notional undisclosed Percentage of Summation of CLINS 0005-0008 as shown below:

All Surge FFP CLINs (CLINS 0005-0008) for all years at proposed amounts multiplied by Best Estimated Quantities. These quantities and percentages will not be disclosed to Offerors.

6.2.1. TEP Calculation taken from para 6.2 (a) and (b) as shown below:

a + b = TEP

All Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs will not be included as part of the Total

Evaluated Price. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable and billed IAW FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred.

6.3. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to ensure all dollar amounts have been rounded to nearest U.S. dollar

6.4. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to ensure the proposal pricing is sufficient/supported with data and estimating methodologies.

6.5. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure that it has an approved accounting system for the prime Offeror and any subcontractors who will be issued other than fixed-price subcontracts. If the Offeror/subcontractor does not have an approved accounting system they

Section M - pg 12 (of 12) may be subject to a pre-award survey IAW paragraph 7.1. Failure to obtain an approved accounting system as detailed above may result in the Offeror being found unawardable.

7.0. Volume V – Contract Documentation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L – Volume V – Contract Documentation.

7.1. Pre-Award Survey: The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of source selection activities. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be used in determining each

Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

7.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: In addition to meeting the identified factors and sub-factors, in order for Offerors to be rated acceptable they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Sections L and M to be eligible for contract award.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the

Offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award.