FINAL_RFP_Attachment_9_Section_M_05Sep19.pdf

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 1

Attachment 4 – Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology:

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A hybrid approach will be utilized by evaluating some factors using trade-offs, while other factors (as identified) will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offeror’s who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation Submission, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered significantly more important than cost/price. 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. Offeror’s are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Evaluation Methodology: Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, Cost/Price, and Small Business Participation are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) and Factor 2 (Past Performance) being equal in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) and Factor 4 (Small Business Participation) being equal and last in importance. Within the Technical Capability Factor, all subfactors are of approximately equal importance. The Government’s intention is to initially evaluate each offeror’s Technical proposal. For those offeror’s which are deemed technically acceptable, the Government will then proceed with the Past Performance and Cost/Price evaluations. Therefore, the Government considers the Technical Factor as the most important. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

The Government intends to award one contract for the T-38 Structural Component Re- Engineering program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more, fewer, or no contract(s) at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government's best interest. The SSA will consider the Government's expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best value proposals.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any aspect of an Offeror’s proposal not meeting the Government’s requirements. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal is not considered correctable, the Offeror will be eliminated from the competitive range. This determination will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.001.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. General

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

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 2

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 and ineligible for award.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP and Pricing Volume I will be evaluated for overall completeness and any exceptions taken to the terms and conditions of the solicitation/attachments.

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offeror’s) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offeror’s ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

2. Pricing Criteria: The Pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Price Factor are: (1) Price Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. For the Price Factor, the Government will use the prices submitted for each CLIN to calculate the TEP. The TEP will be computed and provided to the SSA for award purposes and becomes part of the contract at award. Evaluation of option periods or ordering periods will not obligate the Government to exercise such option or place an order during each period.

2.1. Reasonableness: The determination of reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs (0001, 1001, and 2001) and the Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLINs (0002, 1002, and 2002). The CR CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative CO. All other CLINs will be reviewed for reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404. It is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy reasonableness for this effort. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price 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. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. For additional information see

FAR 31.201-3.

2.2. Balance: Offeror’s are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing.

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. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated for award purposes and will be contractually binding;

the offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based on the offeror’s populated CLIN prices in the solicitation.

2.3.1. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

2.3.1.1. CLINs 0003, 1003, 1004, 1005, 2003, and 2004: The total CLIN prices will be used to calculate the TEP.

2.3.2. The Cost Reimbursable Travel CLINs (0001, 1001, and 2001) will be normalized at zero dollars for all offeror’s. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable at the time of contract award and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 3 incurred.

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

4. A no bid or an omitted unit price/rate(s) may result in an incomplete price submission and is therefore un-awardable. An offeror whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced, may not be considered for award.

C. Volume II, Technical

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 this Solicitation, PWS (including attachments), CDRLs, and has proven/demonstrated a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any; associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. The offeror shall describe the impact of each identified risk in terms of its potential to interfere with or prevent the successful completion of potential contract. The offeror shall provide: rationale for each identified risk, a quantitative estimate of the impact to cost, schedule and performance, and risk mitigation. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

2. Technical Factor

2.1 Subfactor A: Component Structural Analysis Plan

This subfactor is met when the written proposal describes the hardware analysis techniques that will be used for reverse engineering to develop the technical data required to reproduce the parts listed in the T-38 Structural Component Re- Engineering Request for Proposal (RFP). This subfactor will be rated by the degree in which the proposal follows reverse engineering processes such as those outlined in MIL-HDBK-115A, the Defense Logistics Agency Appendix B37 (Reverse Engineering), or equivalent document (must be referenced in proposal).

Additionally, the proposal will be evaluated on how well it defines the process for establishing dimensional tolerances, manufacturing processes, and technical specifications.

This subfactor is met when a detailed explanation of the offeror’s expertise and capabilities to perform component structural analysis for the selected structural components. Address the following elements and detail how offeror capabilities correlate with the technical requirements of this solicitation, i.e., Sections L&M, PWS, TDP and CDRLs and provide specific examples of similar tasks/capabilities:

(a) Required facilities, personnel, and resources to perform structural analysis on the selected components.

(b) Training, certifications, resources available, and/or existing training/qualification programs that ensure critical tasks are handled by qualified technicians.

(c) Ability to determine and identify stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, etc., especially at critical interfaces.

(d) Ability to determine and define component loft and contour as defined via model-based definition.

(e) Ability to define the controls and inspection of bonded metallic composite structure (e.g. bonded honeycomb structure etc.) and bonded non-metallic composite structure (e.g. epoxy resin composite laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.).

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 4

(f) Ability to determine inspections and manufacturing processes required to guarantee quality high-strength fatigue critical parts and assemblies.

2.2 Subfactor B: Parts Reverse Engineering and Re-Engineering/ManufacturingPlan

This subfactor is met when the written proposal provides a detailed parts Reverse Engineering and/or Re- Engineering/Manufacturing and procurement plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability to develop a technical data package sufficient for the production of parts that are Fit and Function replacements of the parts listed in the T-38 Structural Component Re-Engineering RFP. The subfactor is met when the plan clearly portrays the facilities, equipment, capabilities and plan layout pertaining to processes associated with the reverse and/or re-engineering and manufacturing of the select structural parts.

Additionally, the proposal successfully explains the Offeror’s capability and capacity to:

(a) Manufacture, at a minimum, the component first article assemblies listed in the RFP

(b) Obtain required materials with applicable materialcertifications

(c) Design/build/obtain specialized tooling to aid in manufacturing of parts

(d) Machine parts

(e) Form/contour/manipulate large and small extrusions andunformed stock

(f) Post process (i.e.; heat treat, peen, anodize, plate, coat)

(g) Application of metrology and inspection fordimensional conformity

(h) Perform Nondestructive testing

This subfactor is met when a detailed explanation of the offeror’s expertise and capabilities to perform and/or oversee the reverse engineering process (and related support activities) for selected structural components has been provided. Address the following elements and detail how offeror capabilities correlate with the technical requirements of this solicitation, i.e., Sections L&M, PWS, TDP and CDRLs and provide specific examples of similar tasks/capabilities:

(a) Required facilities, personnel, and resources to reverse engineer, manufacture FAT components, assemble, inspect (highlight FAI IAW AS9102), test, repair, and package components.

(b) Training, certifications, resources available, and/or existing training/qualification programs that ensure critical tasks are handled by qualified technicians.

(c) Ability to develop and implement a comprehensive manufacturing concept/process (to include necessary tooling development and manufacture).

(d) Ability to control stringent manufacturing tolerances including hole diameter, hole location, surface finish, surface profile, etc., especially at critical interfaces.

(e) Ability to control component loft and contour as defined via model-based definition during manufacturing and assembly on FAT articles.

(f) Ability to manufacture and procure Critical Safety Items (CSI) and manage CSI requirements at all levels of manufacture and assembly.

(g) Ability to fabricate, control and inspect bonded metallic composite structure (e.g. bonded honeycomb structure etc.) and bonded non-metallic composite structure (e.g. epoxy resin composite laminate, honeycomb sandwich construction, etc.).

(h) Ability to manufacture, inspect and test high-strength fatigue critical parts andassemblies.

2.3 Subfactor C: ProgramManagement

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s written technical proposal provides a supply chain management approach that clearly identifies the supply chain process and logistical capacity for obtaining the parts listed in

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 5 the T-38 Structural Component Re-Engineering RFP as well as any materiel needed for the reverse engineering process and/or prototype production. The proposal shall clearly identify/provide:

(a) Resource Management

The prime contractor’s organizational structure, which identifies key personnel. The proposal shall clearly document the primary roles and lines of responsibility, and technical interface with subject matter experts.

The proposal shall identify personnel with experience in TDP development. The proposal shall include a draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that details the Offeror’s proposed process for parts procurement (to include long lead items), teardown and engineering analysis, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing) and with sufficient detail to depict program execution from contract award to completion of all deliverables. The IMS shall address lead times for the delivery of First Article Test components and outline schedule recovery processes to address possible critical path schedule slip. The proposal shall illustrate all planned subcontractor relationships to include name and CAGE code with letter of intent between prime and sub agreeing to be on contract within 90 days of contract award.

(b) Subcontractor Management

A clear and feasible management approach for meeting quality system requirements on work performed by subcontractors, partners, and sub-tier subcontractors/partners. This management approach should include the process for evaluating and selecting supply chain partners for this effort.

(c) Risk Management

An acceptable risk management plan will identify and address specific risks that may impact this program, its successful implementation, and the delivery of required data. The plan must demonstrate the ability to identify specific quantitative and qualitative risks and mitigation strategies that demonstrate the clear ability to ensure an on schedule delivery of a technically acceptable TDP as well as FAT components.

This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a draft Integrated Management Plan which will enable 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 plan should provide or demonstrate:

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

(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 thorough understanding of the processes, procedures and communication tools required to effectively manage and successfully implement this program.

(d) A draft Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) that at a minimum graphically details the Offeror’s proposed process for parts procurement (to include long lead items), teardown and engineering analysis, first article production (manufacture, inspection, and testing) and with sufficient detail to depict program execution from contract award to completion of all deliverables. The draft IMS shall reflect program milestones and CDRL deliveries as required by the PWS. The draft IMS will not be included in the page count limitation for the Technical Proposal Volume.

(e) The integrated plan, if any, to meet delivery schedule: planning and production approaches, expedite options for long- lead items, and production and planning risks and mitigations.

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

2.4 Subfactor D: Producibility of Design

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s written technical proposal has addressed components’ producibility through their manufacturing processes in the following categories:

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 6

(a) Ease of manufacturing

(b) Complexity of processes utilized

(c) Availability of materials (current and projected)

(d) Storage of materials

(e) Required qualifications/specialized skills

(f) Complexity of tooling

(g) Material property development (i.e. B-basis)

(h) Hazardous materials/processes

3. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for every subfactor identified in section 2. Technical proposals that receive an unacceptable rating, may be consideredunawardable.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings for Subfactors A, B, and C:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability which includes, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement to successfully accomplish the proposed effort to re-engineer aluminum bonded honeycomb structural components based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform at least 20% of the reverse or re-engineering or manufacturing and/or assembly work by part quantity. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation, with at least one year of performance history. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will providethe offeror with resources for the proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed effort.

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

(a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, discussions with other government entities, or

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 7 commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(b) Adverse Past Performance: Offeror’s shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunityto respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

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

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror should have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, andquality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

(a) The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

(b) The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

(c) The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

(d) The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the seriesof orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4.1. Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Managed, and Complexity/Type of Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 8 be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

□ VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitationrequires.

□ RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitationrequires.

□ SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitationrequires.

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

An example for each relevancy rating has been provided below:

A rating of VERY RELEVANT will be the result of an assessment in which the previous contract(s) were essentially equivalent in magnitude, effort as well as complexity. For this solicitation, an equivalent contract would be one that included the Reverse Engineering/Re-Engineering of aircraft bonded honeycomb flight control components in a similar quantity for the purpose of reducing the cost of the components. An offeror’s performance may considered in aggregate in addition to an effort-by-effort basis. As an example, if three SOMEWHAT RELEVANT contracts were performed concurrently, they could be assessed in aggregate and as a result be assessed as VERY RELEVANT.

For a rating of RELEVANT to be assessed, the previous contract(s) must have included, at a minimum, Reverse Engineering/Re-Engineering of any bonded honeycomb aircraft parts of a mostly similar magnitude and complexity and scale.

A rating of SOMEWHAT RELEVANT will be awarded for successful contract completion for Reverse Engineering/Re- Engineering of aircraft components using methods other that bonded honeycomb. There will have had to have been at least some of the magnitude of effort and complexity this solicitation requires.

For a rating of NOT RELEVANT examples may include such things as providing contractual examples with a lesser experience than those skills and experience noted in the above definitions.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Managed, and Complexity/Type of Deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, T-38 Structural Component Re- Engineering. They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

• Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’sestimate.

□ Total Period of Performance: Performing contracts of similarlength.

o Example: 1-3 Years

□ Total Quantity Produced/Managed: Performing Reverse Engineered/Re-Engineered contracts of

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 9 similar quantities produced or managed and at similar levels of complexity:

o Example: The proposed Re-Engineering effort has 7 Top Level assembly drawings each with associated sub- component drawings (approximately 130 sub-component drawings total). These assemblies/sub- components include formed sheet metal panels, formers, ribs, stringers, hinges, forgings, complex geometry, critical safety properties, and a multitude of interfaces with other aircraft assemblies.

□ Complexity/Type of Deliverables: Performing contracts with similar Deliverables.

o Similar levels of re-engineering, reverse engineering and manufacturing processes.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), where applicable, the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offeror’s, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contractperformance.

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

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Page | 10

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. Although the SSEB may not rate an offeror that lacks recent, relevant past performance favorably or unfavorably with regard to past performance, the SSEB may recommend and the SSA may determine, that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating. Past Performance proposals which receive a rating of Limited Confidence or No Confidence, may be considered unawardable.

E. Volume IV, Small BusinessParticipation

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation approach shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business participation approach is not to be confused with an offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Small Business Participation approach addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

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

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

(c) An adequate description of how their Small Business participation approach will address the goals within PWS para

2.4.4 is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio- economic entities. Offeror’s are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable.

Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: If applicable to the Contractor, the offeror shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan, to be incorporated into the resultant contract that describes how it plans to comply with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The plan shall outline how the contractor plans to track their compliance in subcontracting with small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

Subcontracting goals shall also be expressed in terms of percentage of total contract dollars. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must be determined to be “Acceptable” in order for the offeror to be eligible for contract award.

Information concerning its subcontracting plans already submitted and approved does not need to be redeveloped or renegotiated.

3. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below IAW CFR 52.219-8. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participationfactor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.