EVALUATION_BASIS_FOR_AWARD_Section_M_Rev_1.pdf

RFP F-16 USAFE DEPOT CONTRACT SECTION M

1 | P a g e

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and the Air Force Source Selection Mandatory Procedures (MP5315.3) dated 4 May 2011. The DOD mandatory procedures released 4 Mar 2011 also apply. These publications are available electronically through the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A tradeoff methodology will be used. Technical Acceptability sub factors are considered of equal importance and no special weighting is applied. The Government may be willing to pay more than the lowest evaluated price for an offeror that has a more favorable Technical Acceptability rating. Past performance is considered equally in importance to price. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined incomplete, and therefore, unacceptable.

3. The Agency may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program resource or schedule commitments, contract terms and conditions, unexpectedly high or unrealistically low in price compared to Government estimates and competing offers to the extent that when considered as a whole, including the evaluation of the technical proposal, the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity of the program.

4. The Government intends to award one contract for the United States Air Forces in Europe Command (USAFE) Outside Contiguous United States (OCONUS) F-16 Depot Maintenance Program to an Offeror located within the competition region identified in PWS Attachment 3-Competition Area.

5. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information at the outset, in the format and meeting the requirements specified in Section L. The Government intends to incorporate the successful proposal into the contract by reference. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information). Offerors will be notified and given an opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information for which the Offeror may not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Exchanges 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. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of the proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and represents a deficiency of a magnitude not considered correctible by conduct of meaningful discussion or is not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, the offer may be eliminated from further evaluation, either as a result of initial evaluations, or after clarifications, communications, and/or meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable.

6. The Government may conduct or authorize other agencies to conduct site visits to gather and report information for judging the Offeror’s capability and the existence of facilities or infrastructure. This information will be used in conjunction with the evaluation criteria in review of proposal plans to verify that the requirements of the work statement are met, that the offer complies with the Instructions to Offerors (ITOs) in section L of the RFP, and that the Offeror can comply with the infrastructure and other handling requirements of Defense Contract Management Agency Instruction (DCMA INST) 8210-1C and that other http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

2 | P a g e terms and conditions are met. Information will also be used in judging the potential for correcting proposal deficiencies. The Government reserves the right to exclude a proposal as unacceptable based on this facility review. Information from the review may also be used in conjunction with other evaluations.

7. The Government will seek past performance information to make an assessment of performance confidence for each Offeror as described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.3.2, Table 3, focusing on performance that is recent and relevant to the technical sub factors. This review will result in a rating under Factor 2, Past Performance Confidence.

8. The Government will evaluate the price of all proposals.

9. For purposes of trade-off to price/cost, the Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer. The Government may be willing to pay more (a higher price) for an otherwise acceptable compliant offer from a responsible and responsive source that receives a higher rating of Technical Acceptability. The Government may also be willing to pay more for a similarly acceptable offer with a higher past performance confidence rating.

10. The Government will base the source selection decision on an assessment of all proposals against the evaluation criteria in Section M of the RFP. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the process. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, the opportunities for trade-off or “trade-space” and where the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines with an integrated assessment and best value decision that the Technical Acceptability and/or past performance associated with the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions or trade-off if the lowest evaluated price offer also receives both the most favorable Past Performance and Technical Acceptability ratings in the initial evaluation. Trade-off to cost/ price for either or both of these factors is possible, however.

11. Factor 1, Technical Acceptability:

A. Evaluation Process:

(1) The Technical Acceptability rating reflects the degree to which the proposed approach meets, does not meet, or exceeds the performance or capability requirements through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies and risks of a proposal. Each sub factor will contribute to the overall evaluation and will be evaluated on a technical ability and technical risk basis. The Government will evaluate the technical ability of a proposal for each sub factor and assign a rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal or Unacceptable (as defined in Table 1 below) for each sub factor. The Government will evaluate the technical risk of a proposal for each sub factor and assign a rating of low, moderate, or high (as defined in Table 2 below) for each sub factor.

(2) The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR

15.306 and provision 52.215-1 of this solicitation, to the possible exclusion of offers that are judged to be outside the competitive range, not correctable, not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, or not correctable even after meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable. Technical proposals initially rated marginal or unacceptable will need to meet all technical requirements after clarifications or discussions and be rated acceptable in order to be retained in the competitive range and considered in the best value decision.

3 | P a g e

Table 1 – Technical Ability Rating

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 2 – Technical Risk Rating

Rating Description

Low Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

4 | P a g e

B. Sub factor 1, Technical Capability / Certified Facilities and Personnel:

(1) The requirement is met when the Offeror presents a thorough and feasible plan outlining its ability to provide the necessary facilities, infrastructure, equipment, skills and functional capabilities to meet the following requirements:

A. Compliance with the infrastructure and other handling requirements of Defense Contract

Management Agency Instruction, DCMA-INST-8210-1C in accordance with (IAW)

PWS, 1.4.4

B. Recovery, tow, taxi, servicing, handling, parking, safing and launch of aircraft IAW

PWS, 1.13.1.4

C. Plastic Media Blast (PMB), scuff-sand and paint IAW PWS, 1.14.7

D. Drop-in maintenance which includes all inspections, maintenance actions, repairs, and modifications outlined in the PWS IAW PWS, 1.14.3

E. F-16 wing repair capability IAW PWS, 1.14.12

i. *Note- Contractors without this capability need to provide a detailed plan of how this capability will be achieved within 12 months of contract award date.

F. Contractor Field Teams with the ability to obtain visas and enter any country within

Europe IAW PWS, 1.14.10

G. Egress and escape system handling and storage capability IAW PWS, 1.11.2.3

H. Weight and Balance IAW PWS, 1.15.3

I. Fuels Maintenance IAW PWS, 1.14.13

J. High power engine run capability IAW PWS, 1.15.5.5

K. Local manufacturing capabilities IAW PWS, 1.14.20

L. Performance of functional check flights IAW PWS, 1.15.7 and 1.15.8

**If the Offeror does not currently have facilities or infrastructure, the proposal must present a reasonable and effective plan to have a capable depot in place within 90 days of award.

Should issues of lack of infrastructure arise, the contractor may be notified in writing in the form of evaluation notices derived from the proposal.

(2) The requirement is met when the Offeror provides specific examples of past experience and procedures that are deemed acceptable by the Technical Evaluation Team, related to the following. Please note, lack of experience with fighter aircraft may receive a less favorable risk rating.

A. Wing carry-through bulkhead replacement (e.g. 341-Bulkhead replacement) IAW PWS, 1.14.3

5 | P a g e

B. Aircraft Phase Inspection IAW PWS, 1.14.11

C. Inlet Radar Absorbing Material (RAM) removal and replacement (TCTO 2699) IAW

PWS, 1.14.3

D. Wing repair IAW PWS, 1.14.12

(3) The requirement is met when the Offeror provides documentation or a detailed plan to obtain the following no later than 60 days after contract award:

A. Current International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 9001:2008 tailored as Aeronautical Standard (AS) 9100. Certification must be from an accredited certification body (or US Government-approved work source) for the facility or facilities’ location(s) that will be performing the work requirements. Equivalent certifications for the above are acceptable but must be justified. Offeror is required to have or maintain AS 9100 (or approved equivalent) certification at the time of award IAW PWS, 1.10.1

B. Provide Level II Nondestructive Inspection (NDI) certifications or a plan to obtain such certification in accordance with Aerospace Industry Association (AIA)/National Aeronautical Standard (NAS) 410 for the personnel who will perform these inspections

IAW PWS, 1.11.2.2

(4) The requirement is met when the Offeror shows a reasonable process for ensuring that all contractor personnel are properly trained and qualified to perform assigned tasks and duties in accordance with applicable procedures and regulations. The Offeror shall also show a reasonable process for documenting individual training and is able to clearly show that an individual has met all initial training, re-training, certification, and proficiency requirements

IAW PWS, 1.11.1.

C. Sub factor 2, Quality Management Plan:

(1) The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a thorough and feasible management plan to address the Offeror’s approach and processes for areas listed below:

A. A tool control system IAW PWS, 1.10.2

B. Corrective actions/Non-conformances system IAW PWS, 1.10.3

C. Foreign Object Damage (FOD) prevention program IAW PWS, 1.10.4

D. Electrostatic Discharge Program IAW PWS, 1.10.5

E. Technical Document control and update management IAW PWS, 1.10.7

F. Adherence to all maintenance and operational technical orders IAW PWS, 1.10.8

G. Quality in procurement IAW PWS, 1.12.1

H. Mishap/incident handling and reporting IAW PWS, 1.9.5.1

6 | P a g e

(2) The requirement is met when the Offeror provides an acceptable, generalized plan describing the facilities, systems, processes, and procedures that will be in place to ensure the safety and security of U.S. Government property to include aircraft, equipment, material, and information IAW PWS, 1.8 and 1.9.

(3) The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates empirical evidence of an existing storage vault or a practical and reasonable plan to obtain a storage vault IAW PWS, 1.8.2.2.

**Reference DODI 5200.01-Volume 3 and FED-STD 832 for applicable guidance on how the vault will be constructed and the participation and control by the U.S. Government. If an Offeror has a suggested vault solution, i.e., local bunker, the Government will be open to alternative solutions as long as they meet the qualifications set forth in the referenced DODI.

D. Sub factor 3, Schedule Management / Efficiency & Risk Management Plan:

(1) The requirement is met when the Offeror provides a feasible schedule management plan with contract milestones and significant tasks/activities. The plan must demonstrate achievability of contract objectives and must integrate program activities, which include workload transition activities from contract award date to first aircraft induction, and the remainder of the first year of contract performance.

(2) The Offeror must provide a representation showing an accelerated schedule to meet USAFE contingency operations such that U.S. Government evaluators can reasonably conclude that the Offeror will be able to provide a surge capability. To successfully meet this requirement, the Offeror must demonstrate how they will be able to:

A. Bring all available aircraft, as determined by the ACO/PCO, to FMC status within 72 hours if directed and if deemed feasible

B. Provide a surge capability of battle damage repair to at least 10 aircraft

(3) Efficiency: To meet the requirement and be evaluated under this sub factor, proposals must include representations of flow days and labor hours required for five (5) discrete work packages as outlined below, such that U.S. Government evaluators can reasonably conclude that the Offeror understands these requirements as they relate to depot aircraft flow.

A. Induction, PMB/Paint, and Outgoing services

B. Induction, PMB/Paint, RAM repair, and Outgoing services

C. Induction, PMB/Paint, CSL replacement both left and right (reference CSL technical data package), and Outgoing services

D. Induction, PMB/Paint, 341-Bulkhead replacement (reference 341-bulkhead technical data package), and Outgoing services

E. Induction, PMB/Paint, Phase inspection (phase inspection only, do not include time to repair), and Outgoing services

(4) Risk Management Plan: The requirement is met when the Offeror provides an effective plan that describes a practical and reasonable approach to managing risk. This includes

7 | P a g e identification of five (5) or more realistic risk elements that impacts schedule, performance, or cost control related to compliance with the requirements of the PWS and the conduct of the overall program. Of the five (5) risk elements, three (3) shall relate to sub factor 4 Country-Specific Concerns. The plan shall also be evaluated for the Offeror’s approach to ongoing risk identification, mitigation, and management.

(5) The requirement is met when the Offeror provides an effective and reasonable risk mitigation strategy for each of the five (5) risk elements.

E. Sub factor 4, Country-Specific Concerns:

(1) Customs regulations: The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a reasonable and thorough plan pertaining to importation of Government Furnished Equipment, material and entry/transit of personnel. A highly rated plan conveys thorough understanding of customs regulations specific to an Offeror’s country and contains efficient processes for handling importation of material, equipment, and any other items that may be required for performance under this contract. Additionally, the plan must identify what agreements are in place via Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which make the Offeror’s depot a port of entry and thereby precludes the involvement of US Embassy support personnel and additional taxes. Should a SOFA not exist in the Offeror’s country, the Offeror will be considered unacceptable to the Government.

(2) Taxes: The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a detailed plan that conveys a thorough understanding of their country specific taxes relevant to performance under this contract and details what taxes, if any, would be incurred by the U.S. Government during contract performance. Specifically, explain why the U.S. Government would or would not have a tax liability for import of material or manpower to the host nation.

(3) Visas: The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a feasible and thorough plan detailing the processing of Visa paperwork or how Visa’s would be handled (if needed) for Contractor Field Teams to perform work within Europe, as required.

(4) Shipment: The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a detailed and reasonable plan for handling goods in transit from the Port of Entry to the actual site of work. A highly rated plan conveys efficient processes and streamlined logistics for transporting assets from the Port of Entry to the actual site of work.

(5) Local Conditions: The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a detailed and reasonable plan that demonstrates an effective and feasible approach to overcome any labor interruptions to include vacations, labor disputes, or union strikes which could impact production and on-time completion of F-16 work. A highly rated plan presents detailed actions and steps the Offeror would take to mitigate any labor interruptions. Additionally, include a disclosure of the Offerors depot ownership specifically the degree to which the Depot is owned by a host nation or private bond holders and the fiduciary risk of capital reclamation in the event of a financial collapse of local or regional currency.

F. In addition to meeting the requirements stated above, please note that the Government will also assess technical risk to cost, schedule or performance, as applicable, under each sub factor. This assessment will be included, along with technical ability, in the overall rating under Factor 1, Technical Acceptability.

8 | P a g e

12. Factor 2, Past Performance Confidence Assessment:

A. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance on past efforts that are recent and relevant in accordance with the following definitions:

(1) A past effort is defined as recent if performance occurred within the period of five (5) years prior to the RFP issuance date.

(2) A past effort is defined as relevant where there has been sufficient work of a like or similar nature as described in this RFP that would afford a meaningful and comparable review by the U.S. Government.

(3) Critical subcontractors are defined as subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners proposed to perform at least 10 percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price, or, perform aspects of the effort the Offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. Work done in the role of subcontractor and deemed by the Government as not critical to overall successful performance may be considered as less relevant. Past performance will be assessed to determine the ability to successfully accomplish the requirements of this solicitation.

(4) In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to sub factor 1, Technical Capability /

Certified Facilities and Personnel, a past effort must demonstrate the capability to inspect, service, and perform repairs of similar or greater scope, magnitude, and complexity when compared to the work effort defined in the PWS. Examples include:

• Depot-level maintenance on 1980’s and/or 1990’s design military fighter aircraft similar to the F-16

• Major structural repairs and/or replacements (e.g. wing carry-through bulkhead replacement)

• Application of RAM (or similar spectrally selective coatings) to aircraft (does not have to be fighter aircraft)

• Built or overhauled F-16 (or similar fighter aircraft) wings

(5) In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to sub factor 2, Quality Management Plan, the Offeror must demonstrate effective quality management practices and overall quality assurance on an effort that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the history of the Offeror’s methods and processes for ensuring an effective quality management program.

(6) In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to sub factor 3, Schedule Management/

Efficiency & Risk Management Plan, the contractor must demonstrate a proven track record of effective schedule and risk management on an effort that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

(7) In order to be deemed Very Relevant in relation to sub factor 4, Country-Specific Concerns, the contractor must show a proven track record of effectively managing the challenges and concerns specific to this sub factor as described in section 11 (E) of this document, and in

9 | P a g e regards to an effort that is similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

(8) In assessing past performance, the Government may employ several sources of information, including, but not limited to: Past Performance Information Sheets (PPIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), PPIRS information, questionnaire responses, interviews, and other sources available to the Government. Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Although Section L asks the Offeror to address no more than seven (7) of the most relevant contracts for each critical subcontractor, the Government may include performance information from other sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. Evaluation of past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction, performance in regard to the established Technical Acceptability sub factors, and conclusions of informed judgment.

(9) The relevancy of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. The Offeror and its critical subcontractors do not need to have specific F-16 experience in order for the past performance to be relevant.

(10) The past performance team may consider the relevancy of an Offeror's performance in the aggregate as well as on an effort-by-effort basis. If the past performance efforts submitted are not considered relevant, communications may be opened. For example, an Offeror's work on three (3) recent past efforts may represent only "Somewhat-Relevant" effort. However, if all three (3) efforts are/were performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a "Very Relevant" effort.

The following relevancy criteria apply:

Table 2 - Past Performance Evaluation of Relevancy Ratings Rating Criteria 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.

(11) Offerors will be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to determine if corrective measures have been implemented.

The confidence 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 Offeror’s overall work record.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

10 | P a g e

(12) The Government will consider the performance quality of recent efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality (see chart below) of the work performed will be assessed by each Technical Acceptability sub factor. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance information received from the various sources. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse findings are defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system to which the Offeror has had no opportunity to respond. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes that the Offeror has made will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

(13) The Government will use the following performance quality levels in Table 3 when assessing individual aspects of efforts:

Table 3 – Past Performance Quality Assessment Color Rating Description Blue Exceptional During the contract period, contractor performance outstanding, meeting all contract requirements and consistently exceeded many.

Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Purple Very Good During the contract period, contractor performance very good, meeting all contract requirements and consistently exceeded some.

Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action

Green Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance acceptable, meeting all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Yellow Marginal During the contract period, contractor performance less than acceptable, not meeting some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Government involvement was required.

Red Unsatisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance unacceptable, failing to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Government oversight and involvement was required.

11 | P a g e

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

(14) Information from non-standard source(s), as gathered by the Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET), that do not match the format of questions in the questionnaire in attachment L-5 to the RFP will be reviewed by the Government. The Government will translate or correlate ratings and findings in a manner consistent with our treatment of results from the standard questionnaire in attachment L-5.

(15) Assigning Overall Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Acceptability sub factors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. The Government may consider performance confidence assessment ratings of “substantial confidence” and “satisfactory confidence” more favorably than an “unknown confidence” rating.

The following performance confidence assessment ratings apply

Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offerors recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

No Confidence Based on the Offerors 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 Offerors performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

(16) The Government may find isolated problems. Provided all other reports are favorable, isolated problems will not weigh as heavily in the assessment of confidence as when there is an identifiable trend of questionable performance, whether overall or in a particular area.

12 | P a g e

13. Factor 3, Cost/Price Evaluation:

A. Cost or Price: The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and, (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

(1) Reasonableness

A. The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed

CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs. The CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. All other CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness.

Cost/Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

(2) Balance

A. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the unit price of one or more CLINs are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. An Offeror’s pricing proposal is unbalanced if it is based on CLINs and/or range prices for any CLIN which are significantly less or greater, in relative terms, and a natural progression does not follow. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

A. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP is the sum of CLIN totals as specified below.

The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision. Calculated as follows:

i. The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (X001, X003-X011, X015-X026) at their proposed value for all applicable years of the contract.

ii. The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs (X012 and X027) will be evaluated by applying Offeror proposed fully burdened repair rates against Government generated notional hours for all applicable years of the contract. The notional hours will not be contractually binding and will only be used in calculation of the TEP; however, the rates will be contractually binding and will be used to price future work performed under these CLINs. The notional hours will represent the Government’s best estimate of the expected work under this CLIN and will be equally applied to all offerors. The notional hours will not be disclosed outside the Government.

13 | P a g e

iii. The Time and Material (T&M) CLINs (X002, X013, X028) will be evaluated by applying Offeror proposed T&M repair rates against Government generated notional hours for all applicable years of the contract. The notional hours will not be contractually binding and will only be used in calculation of the TEP; however, the rates will be contractually binding and will be used in future performance of these CLINs. The notional hours will represent the Government’s best estimate of the expected work under this CLIN and will be equally applied to all offerors. The notional hours will not be disclosed outside the Government.

iv. The Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLIN (X014) will not be included in the

TEP. Travel will be authorized and funded by the Government on an as-needed basis. Actual costs incurred under these CLINs will be reimbursed to the contractor as approved by the administrative contracting officer (ACO).

v. All Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLINs (X029) are assumed to be included in the costs for other line items and so will not be separately included in the TEP.

vi. Other Government Costs (OGC): Based on the Government’s assessment of likely costs to the Government due to the offeror’s technical approach, the Government may elect to add other Government costs to the offeror’s TEP for evaluation purposes only. These OGCs may include (but are not necessarily limited to):

flight hours/distance/fuel costs, customs issues, US Embassy costs, TDY costs, etc.

(4) Realism

(a) The Government may evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed costs if, in the event of only one offeror, cost and pricing data is requested. Any realism issues will be resolved through negotiations. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404- 1(d)(1) and 2.101).

B. Approval of Accounting System: As portions of this contract are other-than fixed price, 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 may result in disqualification from award. If the offeror/subcontractors (who will be issued other-than fixed price work under other than fixed price CLINs) do not currently have Government approval of their accounting system, they may be subject to a Pre-Award Accounting System Audit.