Section_M.pdf

Section M – Page 1 of 10

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

T-38 -33 WING PROGRAM

SOURCE SELECTION

SECTION CONTENT

1 – Source Selection 2 – Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 3 – Volume I (Factor One) – Technical 4 – Volume II (Factor Two) – Past Performance 5 – Volume III (Factor Three) – Price 6 – Volume IV (Factor Four) – Small Business Participation 7 – Volume V – Contract Documentation

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures conducted in accordance with (IAW) the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

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. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price and Small Business Participation. 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 meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award. 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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Section M – Page 2 of 10 considered in making the source selection decision.

1.3. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award a single award, firm fixed price, Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the T-38 -33 Wing Program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all.

1.4. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements is not considered easily correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

1.5. Evaluation Notices: 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.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

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

Factor One: Technical Subfactor One: Technical Approach Subfactor Two: Program Management

Factor Two: Past Performance Factor Three: Price Factor Four: Small Business Participation

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

• Factor One: Technical – The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor (subfactors and elements) assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.”

If any subfactor or element is unacceptable, the entire factor will be rated as unacceptable and will render the entire proposal as unacceptable.

• Factor Two: Past Performance – The Government 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 2 – Performance Confidence Assessment below.

• Factor Three: Price – The Government shall calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) IAW procedures listed in Section 5 – Volume III – Price to allow the

Section M – Page 3 of 10

Government to compare pricing. The Government shall evaluate the pricing volume for reasonableness and balance.

• Factor Four: Small Business Participation – The Government shall evaluate the Small Business Participation factor assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” If the factor is rated as unacceptable it will render the entire proposal as unacceptable.

3. VOLUME I (FACTOR ONE) – TECHNICAL

3.1. 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.

3.2. Technical Acceptability: The Government shall evaluate all technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 - Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Rating Definition Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Failure to meet the criteria in any subfactor will result in the proposal being determined technically unacceptable in its entirety. The proposal shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

3.2.1. Subfactor One, Technical Approach

The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that it includes detailed processes to perform the requirements in the solicitation. This subfactor is acceptable when the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the following:

3.2.1.1. Machining of Forged Parts

Description: This element evaluates the Offeror’s plan to manufacture forged spars [15% Spar (P/N 3-23242-11/12, forging P/N 2-23296-9), 44% Spar (P/N 2-23252-15/16, forging P/N 2-23311-7) and 66% Spar (P/N 3-23282-7/8, forging P/N 2-23297-17/18)] in compliance with the T- 38 -33 Wing TDP.

Section M – Page 4 of 10

This element is acceptable when the Offeror’s technical proposal provides an accurate part manufacturing plan (for each spar) that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the following requirements:

a. Obtain forged materials with applicable material certifications

b. Machine parts (including how to handle the anticipated warpage when machining the non-stress relieved aluminum forging)

c. Perform the applicable post-machining processes (e.g. peen, anodize, plate, coat, etc) to meet TDP requirements

d. Apply metrology and inspection to ensure dimensional conformity

e. Perform non-destructive inspection

3.2.1.2. Production Tooling

Description: This element evaluates the Offeror’s proposed process to identify, design, manufacture, and implement tooling required to fabricate up to 4 wing assemblies per month of the T-38 -33 Wing configuration.

This element is acceptable when the Offeror’s production tooling plan demonstrates an understanding of the necessary steps to design and manufacture tooling necessary to fabricate up to 4 wing assemblies per month. This plan shall portray the proposed facilities, shop floor layout, equipment, production tooling, and wing assembly sequence.

3.2.1.3. Interpretation of Legacy Data

Description: This element evaluates the Offeror’s process to interpret the loft data and 2D drawings (provided in the TDP) to create digital representations (3D) of the T-38 -33 Wing and the Offeror’s approach to mitigate interpretation error in this process.

This element is acceptable when the Offeror’s technical proposal clearly demonstrates the ability to read, understand, and interpret T-38 2D drawings and loft data as defined in the TDP. This plan shall present an approach to mitigate 2D drawing interpretation error.

3.2.2. Subfactor Two, Program Management

The proposal will be evaluated to ensure that it includes detailed processes to perform the requirements in the solicitation. This subfactor is acceptable when the proposal demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to meet the following:

3.2.2.1. Resource Management

Description: This element evaluates the Offeror’s plan for managing resources to meet the Government’s schedule.

This element is acceptable when the Offeror’s proposed Integrated Master Plan (IMP) identifies the following:

Section M – Page 5 of 10

a. Process for material purchase (to include long lead items)

b. First article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing)

c. Manufacturing plan to meet full-rate production (including a plan for Interchangeable & Replaceable items and Critical Safety Items). Full Rate Production (FRP) delivery rate will be 4 wings per month.

3.2.2.2. Subcontractor Management

Description: This element evaluates the Offeror’s plan to manage supply chain partners. This plan shall demonstrate the ability to achieve the Government’s estimated 4 wings per month FRP.

This element is acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal identifies their process to meet quality system requirements, the process in which the Offeror’s partners are evaluated and selected, and the process to conduct risk identification and implement mitigation strategies.

3.2.2.3. Non-Conforming Product

Description: This element evaluates the Offeror’s proposed process to manage non-conforming product and the associated analysis and disposition.

This element is acceptable when the Offeror’s proposed non-conforming product plan demonstrates a sufficient understanding of the Material Review Board (MRB) process. The proposed non-conforming product plan shall demonstrate the ability to perform static, fatigue and damage tolerance analysis and the ability to provide repair dispositions.

4. VOLUME II (FACTOR TWO) – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1. Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation team will consider each

Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the T-38 -33 Wing 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 Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to an individual contract basis.

Section M – Page 6 of 10

4.2. The past performance evaluation results is an assessment of the Offeror’s ability to meet the T-38 -33 Wing solicitation requirements. For the past performance factor, Offerors will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings IAW Table 2 below.

Table 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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.

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

4.4. Recency Assessment: 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 criterion will not be evaluated.

4.5. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the technical sub-factors/elements. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical sub-factors and elements.

(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 subfactors/elements identified in Section L, The Past Performance Information Sheets (PPISs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions in Table 3 when assessing recent contracts.

Section M – Page 7 of 10

Table 3 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

4.6. Quality of Products and Services Assessment: This evaluation considers the

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

a. Extent to which the Contractor’s products and/or services met the specification/performance requirements

b. Customer’s satisfaction with corrective actions on non-conforming product

c. Timely recognition and notification of administrative, engineering, production, problems affecting the program

d. Contractor performed independently without significant customer direction/oversight

e. Monitoring of program schedules and critical milestones

f. Contractor’s ability to manufacture part(s) from non-stress relieved aluminum forging (e.g. 7050-T74 forging)

g. Contractor’s ability to design and manufacture tooling required to meet requirements

h. Contractor’s ability to interpret point-to-point loft data and 2D drawings and their approach to mitigate 2D drawing interpretation errors

i. Contractor’s ability to manage critical safety items and the associated requirements (i.e. products requiring added traceability, qualification, certification, inspection, etc)

j. Contractor’s ability to control and manage subcontractors (supply chain management)

4.7. 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 2. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors/elements, the resulting

Section M – Page 8 of 10 performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

4.8. Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). The Offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)”. 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).

4.9. Offerors shall 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.

Clarifications 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.

5. VOLUME III (FACTOR THREE) – PRICE

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated upon the following:

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

5.1.1. Price Reasonableness: Price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. 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. In general, price reasonableness is an assessment of whether or not the price is too high. Unreasonably high pricing may give the government cause to eliminate a proposal from consideration.

5.1.2. Unbalanced Pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they

Section M – Page 9 of 10 are unbalanced. A proposal may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable program risk to the government. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced IAW with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.1.3. Realism: A limited realism assessment will be performed on the EPA Basis of

Estimate to ensure that the prices of aluminum parts included in the Offeror’s production prices are reflective of the actual costs that the Offeror will incur, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. No other portion of the proposal will be evaluated for Realism. Unrealistic proposed costs will result in proposal rejection.

5.2. 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 is not contractually binding; however, the unit prices that make up the TEP are contractually binding. The TEP calculation is shown below:

5.2.1. CLIN 0001, 0004, 1004 – Not Separately Priced (NSP) – Data: These prices are assumed to be included in the other CLINs and will not be evaluated separately.

5.2.2. CLIN 0002 – Firm Fixed Price (FFP) – First Article: The FFP value of this

CLIN will NOT be added to the TEP, but will otherwise be evaluated for Reasonableness and Balance.

5.2.3. CLIN 0003, 10003 -- Firm Fixed Price with Economic Price Adjustment

(FFP/EPA) – Production: The per-unit production price will be calculated by adding the EPA portion per unit plus the Non-EPA portion per unit as proposed in the TEP Pricing Summary. The Government will apply notional quantities against the prices the Offeror proposes for all years of the contract ordering periods and add the result to the TEP. These notional quantities will not be disclosed outside the Government.

These CLINs will also include the FOB Origin Transportation costs that will be based off shipping from the Offeror’s provided FOB Origin shipping location.

These costs will be considered an Other Government Cost and will be added to the TEP for evaluation purposes only.

6. VOLUME IV (FACTOR FOUR) – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

6.1. General – The Small Business Participation Factor is considered to be acceptable when the Offeror’s Small Business Participation clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Participation as defined in

Section M – Page 10 of 10

SOW 2.1.2.1. The Small Business Participation is not to be confused with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All Offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Participation. The evaluation of the Small Business Participation will also include the following:

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

• The extent of commitment to use such firms.

Table 4 – Small Business Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

7. VOLUME V – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

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

7.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: In addition to meeting the identified factors and subfactors, in order for Offerors to be eligible for award they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Section 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.