Attachment_3_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

AEROSPACE GROUND EQUIPMENT (AGE)

SOURCE SELECTION

1. BASIS FOR AWARDS

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection 1.1.

procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability.

Award will be made to the acceptable offeror(s) with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. 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 1.2.

Aerospace Ground Equipment (AGE) support program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract the Government is not liable for costs incurred. The Government reserves the right to award a contract without discussions.

Proposal Revisions - If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and 1.3.

will require revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range and/or contract award.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

The Government will evaluate the factors and sub-factors described below: 2.1.

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical

Sub-factor One: Management Approach Sub-factor Two: Resource Management and Staffing Plan

Factor Three – Past Performance

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY 2.2.

2.2.1. An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors IAW this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price

(TEP).

M1 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm%23P25_3805

2.2.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror(s).

2.2.2.1. If the lowest price offeror is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance and meets all other requirements of this solicitation, award will be made to that offeror.

2.2.2.2. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.2.2.2.1. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.2.2.2.2. Set a competitive range that may include some of the offerors

2.2.2.2.3. Continue evaluating additional offerors

2.2.2.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.2.2.4. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

FACTOR ONE – PRICE (Volume I) 2.3.

2.3.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3)

Balance, and (4) Total Evaluated Price.

2.3.2. Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L, ITO, of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.3.3. Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed fully burdened rates to include profit for all per piece category rates and Over and Above (O&A) rates. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.3.4. Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements, such as labor rates for the basic ordering period is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced labor rates within the proposals. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

M2

2.3.5. Total Evaluated Price – The TEP Worksheet Utah and Arizona (Section J Attachment 4) will be calculated for the evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision. The TEP is the sum of the six years and six months of yearly totals (to include the option period) within the TEP worksheet which will include fully burdened unit prices and rates to include profit for all per piece Preventive Maintenance Inspection (PMI)/Unscheduled Maintenance and Repair category unit prices and Over and Above (O&A) rates. The offeror’s TEP will be computed and evaluated by the Government and will include a distribution of notional quantities per category from the entire projected term of the contract, to include base period plus option period. The notional quantities will be applied to the offeror’s proposed per piece PMI/Unscheduled Maintenance and Repair category unit prices. The notional O&A hours will be applied to the offeror’s proposed O&A rate. The distribution of notional category quantities and number of O&A hours will be based upon the Government’s best estimate of projected workload over the term of this contract. The formula for application of notional quantities and hours used will not be disclosed to offerors. A no bid or an omitted unit price and rate may result in an incomplete price submission. The TEP is for evaluation purposes only, however all proposed unit prices and rates regardless of pricing arrangements are contractually binding.

FACTOR TWO - TECHNICAL (Volume II) 2.4.

2.4.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. The proposals must demonstrate a thorough understanding of the requirements as listed and offer complete technical solutions to the Performance Work Statement (PWS) sections required in Section L – ITO. The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. 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. The offeror’s proposal shall not merely copy and paste, rephrase, or restate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

2.4.2. Technical Acceptability - The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.”

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

M3

2.4.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

Identify any best practices/innovations proposed. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following Sub-factors:

2.4.4. Sub-factor One: Management Approach

2.4.4.1. Management Approach consists of three plans: (a) Program Management Plan; (b) Quality Control Plan; and (c) Property Management Plan.

(a) Program Management Plan (PMP): The offeror’s proposed PMP shall be evaluated based on the offeror’s demonstrated approach to accomplish the timelines and to meet requirements set forth in PWS Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 9, as identified below:

i. Scope (Section 1)

ii. Description of Services (Section 2)

iii. Contractor Identification Badges (Section 2.7.20 and 9.4)

iv. Contractor Employees (Section 3.1 through 3.3)

v. Tool Control (Section 4)

vi. Environmental Controls (Section 6.6)

vii. Training (PWS Section 3.5)

viii. Security Classification (Section 9.3)

The PMP is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in each of the Sections listed above have been defined and satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach to all contractor management aspects of the AGE support program; and (C) that the plan is realistically achievable.

(b) Quality Control Plan: The offeror’s proposed Quality Control Plan shall adequately address Quality Control requirements outlined in PWS Section 5.

Quality Control Plan is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology to ensure quality effectiveness and comprehensive management; (B) an established, comprehensive, and feasible process to identify, track, report on, and analyze quality issues, risks, and trends; and (C) a feasible strategy to identify and resolve deficiencies, identify potential improvements, maintain inspection documentation, and make quality control inspections and corrective actions available to the Government.

(c) Property Management Plan: The offeror’s proposed Property Management Plan shall adequately address Property Management requirements outlined in PWS Section 8. Property Management Plan is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate a method to

M4 maintain accountability and safeguard property including Government Furnished Facilities (GFF), Government Furnished Equipment (GFE), and contractor furnished property is accounted for and safeguarded.

2.4.5. Sub-factor Two: Resource Management and Staffing Plan

2.4.5.1. The Resource Management and Staffing Plan Sub-factor shall adequately address

Resource Management and Staffing requirements in the PWS to clearly demonstrate ability to:

(a) Staff at a level which accomplishes requirements outlined in the PWS Sections

2 and 3 to include functions outlined below:

i. Contract Manager

ii. Production Manager

iii. Quality Control Manager

iv. Technical Order (TO) Librarian

v. Hazardous Material (HazMAT) Manager

vi. Hazardous Waste Site Manager

vii. Air Quality Manager

viii. Security Manager

ix. Flight-line Driving Program Manager (FDPM)

x. Foreign Object Debris (FOD) Manager

xi. Voluntary Personal Protection (VPP) Manager

xii. Safety Manager

(b) Recruit qualified personnel possessing current skills, experience, and certifications within required timeframes to include a detailed description of hiring.

(c) Retain the necessary personnel to staff task orders and meet requirements of cost, schedule and performance. Specifically address:

i. Employment agreements or contracts to retain or have available workers in job classifications you consider hard to fill.

ii. Proposes a reasonable number of personnel to maintain required production (repair, dispatch, etc.,) timelines.

2.4.5.2. The Resource Management and Staffing Plan is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) a methodology for staffing to meet all requirements in the time frame required; (B) a comprehensive, realistic, overall strategy to include timeframes, training and security considerations.

FACTOR THREE - PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume III) 2.5.

2.5.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or

M5 through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires.

Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.5.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.5.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP as well as any work performed under a Federal Government contract.

2.5.2. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Rating Description Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable 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 so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” past performance shall be considered “Acceptable.”

CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION (Volume IV) 2.6.

2.6.1. 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/or award.

2.6.1.1. 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.

2.6.1.2. The Minimum Guarantee, in the amount of $1,000, will be satisfied through the award of the first task order.

2.6.1.3. The proposal shall contain evidence that the offeror will be able to comply with the limitations on subcontracting in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-14.

M6

2.6.1.4. Total Case Incident Rate (TCIR) and Days Away, Restricted and/or Transferred

(DART) rates, or, injury and illness rates should be equal to or lower than the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 336413. For offerors that do not possess three years of consecutive recording data, submit this information for the time period you do possess. Other comparable data from a recognized agency, such as workers compensation, insurance rates, etc., for the same time period is also acceptable.

2.6.1.5. Mission Essential Plan shall comply with applicable clauses, regulations and PWS requirements IAW PWS paragraph 20.

2.6.1.6. Safety Plan shall comply with applicable clauses, regulations and PWS safety requirements IAW PWS paragraph 6 and Appendix C - Safety, Fire Protection and Health Specification Industrial Safety Requirements.

2.6.2. IAW FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), a contractor’s accounting system shall be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order for Cost Reimbursable contract types 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 Contracting Officer (CO) determines the contractor’s accounting system to be inadequate.

3. DISCUSSIONS

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that 3.1.

offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

4. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, 4.1.

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.

M7