Section_M_Fuels_28_January_2016.pdf

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with 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, Appendix A, dated 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 dated 21 April 2014. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. 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.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Universal Fuel Control Test Stands.

c. Discussions 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.

d. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Design Requirements Subfactor 2: Software Requirements Subfactor 3: Safety Requirements Subfactor 4: Technical Manual Requirements Subfactor 5: Technical Drawing Requirements Subfactor 6: Program Manageemnt/Schedule Subfactor 7: Lifecycle Sustainment Requirements

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

b. Technical Factor The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Design Requirements

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach is established, sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrates with explicit evidence the full capability and

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal provides in detail, an effective approach/methodology demonstrating ability to comply with the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

experience their team (including subcontractors) processes for meeting the design requirements found in the Purchase Specification and the items listed in Section L under subfactor one.

Subfactor 2: Software Requirements

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach is established, sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrates with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team (including subcontractors) processes for meeting the software requirements found in the Purchase Specification, associated CDRLs and DIDs, and the items listed in Section L under subfactor two.

Subfactor 3: Safety Requirements

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach clearly defines and identifies safety concerns with their design while meeting the requirements in the Purchase Specification and addressing the items listed in Section L under subfactor 3.

Subfactor 4: Technical Manual Requirements

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach is established, sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrates with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team (including subcontractors) processes for meeting the technical manual requirements found in the Purchase Specification and the items listed in Section L under subfactor four.

Subfactor 5: Technical Drawing Requirements:

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach is established, sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrates with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team (including subcontractors) processes for meeting the technical drawing requirements found in CDRL #A004 and the items listed in Section L under subfactor five.

Subfactor 6: Program Management/Schedule:

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror thoroughly describes their program management approach and fully demonstrates an established, sound, feasible, and effective approach to meet all of the PS requirements with emphasis on the elements listed in Section L under subfactor six.

Subfactor 7: Lifecycle Sustainment Requirements:

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposed approach is established, sound, feasible, and effective and clearly demonstrates with explicit evidence of how their design will minimize the lifecycle cost of the test stands and allow the Government to competitively select service providers for all future repairs without involving the original manufacturer.

c. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the 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, to include, but 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 Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. 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.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 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” shall be considered “acceptable.”

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to test stand (preferably aircraft component test stand) design and fabrication, data acquisition, program management, and technical data package creation. If the offeror feels they have other related past performance in an area not mentioned for consideration they may submit those examples and the government evaluator will determine the relevancy. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED 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.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available.

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2). More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

d. Price Factor

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the total price proposed for basic requirements.

(2) Reasonableness: 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.