Draft_Section_M_F-16_SLEP_Mod_Kit_Contract_Draft_RFI_Release.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

F-16 Service Life Extension Program (SLEP) Production Modification Kit Contract Source Selection

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures 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, 01 April 2016; and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 27 January 2017. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

This effort is a firm-fixed price, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract, with a 10 year period of performance. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability requirements.

This acquisition is set-aside for all small business concerns in the United States and will utilize 13 CFR 121.406 with regards to small business size.

1. Kit Assemblers: Where the manufactured item being acquired is a kit of supplies or other goods provided by an offeror for a special purpose, the offeror cannot exceed 500 employees, and 50 percent of the total value of the components of the kit must be manufactured by business concerns in the United States which are small under the size standard for the NAICS code 336413 of the components being assembled. The offeror need not itself be the manufacturer of any of the items assembled.

2. Where the Government has specified an item for the kit which is not produced by

U.S. small business concerns, such item shall be excluded from the calculation of total value in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.

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 the F-16 SLEP Production modification kit competitive effort. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted and the availability of funds.

c. Use of Government Furnished Material (GFM). The Government will provide sufficient aluminum-lithium near-net shapes to manufacture the intial required quantity of FS479 bulkheads. Therefore, in accordance with FAR 45.202, offerors shall exclude the cost of procuring aluminum-lithium material and manufacturing near-net shapes from their proposals for the initial order.

d. Discussions It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that 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 Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

e. 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.

f. Source Selection Process The Government is anticipating a high level of participation for this acquisition. As this is an LPTA non-recurring effort, the source selection process may limit the number of proposals that are evaluated. The team will first verify that proposals are adequate (i.e. on time, all volumes included, proper format, etc.). The team will then rank Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and, will begin full evaluations beginning with the lowest price offer based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The team will continue to evaluate in order of lowest TEP to highest TEP until at least two technically acceptable offerors are identified. After at least two technically acceptable offerors are identified, the Government may choose to award without discussions and may refrain from evaluating the remaining proposals.

If discussions are needed to establish acceptability then the team will most likely establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c), would conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range, and then solicit final proposal revisions from those within the competitive range. In accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the competitive range can be limited for purposes of efficiency.

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: Drawing Interpretation Subfactor 2: Manufacturing/Procurement Subfactor 3: Program Management Subfactor 4: Small Business

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 (Table 1) for each subfactor. The technical evaluation for acceptability will be in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. Therefore, the Offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror is capable, experienced, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely manner to satisfy the requirements in this solicitation. To that means, the Offeror shall specifically state how that capability will be used for this effort. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure it sufficiently explains how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements of each technical subfactor listed below. 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.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Drawing Interpretation

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s/subcontractors ability to correctly read, understand, and interpret F-16 engineering drawing packages and associated dimensional data.

1. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal demonstrates, by correctly answering the following questions, the ability to correctly read, understand, and interpret F-16 engineering drawing packages and associated dimensional data as defined in the Technical Data Package (TDP).

a. What features or surfaces of 16D2700-671 (C-Model Canopy Sill Longeron) are specified for electrical bond per FPS-3024?

b. Define the test requirements for 16K0623-11 (C-Model Canopy Sill Longeron).

c. Define FPS-3008, Class 2E marking requirements (FS341 bulkhead).

d. State the critical characteristics for the 16B5250-485 (FS341 Bulkhead). How often are these characteristics non-destructively inspected? Are there any exceptions?

e. Define finish requirements for 16P1710-33 (FS341 Bulkhead).

f. State the surface finish and tolerance requirements for 16L009-33 (FS341 Bulkhead).

What are the roundness requirements for diameter C?

g. Describe the IUID labels for the following parts, as directed by the TDP and/or contract

(FS479 Bulkhead, and one non-CSI manufactured part).

Subfactor 2: Manufacturing and/or Procurement

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to source material, manufacture, and/or procure the necessary manufactured components, in compliance with the F-16 SLEP PKI Technical Data Package (TDP).

1. This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s written technical proposal provides a single detailed parts manufacturing and/or procurement plan that demonstrates the Offeror’s ability, to include subcontractors, to acquire and/or produce the Critical Safety Items (CSI), as well as the non-CSI manufactured components, compliant with the F-16 SLEP PKI TDP. The plan shall also describe the Offeror’s, and their subcontractors, capability and capacity to:

a. Obtain required materials with applicable material specifications

b. Machine parts (i.e., form, contour, manipulate large and small unformed stock)

c. Conduct post process (e.g., heat treat, peen, anodize, plate, coat, etc)

d. Apply metrology and inspection for dimensional conformity

e. Perform non-destructive testing

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

f. Acquire and/or produce the Critical Safety Items (CSI) and non-CSI components identified in the TDP

2. The subfactor is met when the Offeror lists their quoted sources for all CSI parts from approved sources.

3. The subfactor is met when the contractor provides their top three (3) risks and/or issues associated with the manufacturing and/or procurement of manufactured parts, along with pre-and post-mitigation probability (likelihood) and impact (Consequence) scoring, and when proposed mitigations are deemed acceptable.

Subfactor 3: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to clearly demonstrate an understanding of the supply chain process, management of, and logistics capacity for, obtaining, integrating, and kitting parts and components for delivery of modification kits, in compliance with the F-16 SLEP PKI Technical Data Package (TDP).

1. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposed program management plan demonstrates an approach that clearly identifies the supply chain and logistics processes and capacity for obtaining, integrating, kitting, and packaging and shipping for delivery, all required modification kits in accordance with the TDP.

2. The subfactor is met when the plan clearly demonstrates an understanding for the management of subcontractors and suppliers for the procurement, integration, and/or kitting of parts and components for the delivery of modification kits in accordance with the TDP

3. The subfactor is met when the plan clearly defines the processes, procedures, and management of Critical Safety Items (CSI) in accordance with published quality management and handling standards for the delivery of modification kits in accordance with the TDP. It shall also describe their proposed ISO 9001 (or equivalent) quality management approach and compare it to the elements in ANSI/ASCQ-Q9001, and explain how it will be applied to reduce program risk.

4. The subfactor is met when the proposaed Integrated Master Schedule for program execution clearly demonstrates an understanding of critical milestones and critical path to deliver first article test components on-time, as well as delivery of subsequent production kits.

5. The subfactor is met when the contractor provides their top three (3) risks and/or issues associated with management of the supply chain and logistics processes and capacity for obtaining, integrating, kitting, and packaging and shipping for delivery, along with pre- and post-mitigation probability (likelihood) and impact (Consequence) scoring (on a standard 5x5), and when proposed mitigations are deemed acceptable.

Subfactor 4: Small Business

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s compliance with 13 CFR 121.406.

1. This subfactor is met when the Offerors independent written plan demonstrates compliance with 13 CFR 121.406 to meet small business requirements.

c. Past Performance Factor The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Past performance will be evaluated against prime contractors as well as, subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” (Table 2) 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 Government 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 three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

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.”

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm

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 structural kit integrator programs which:

a. Manage DoD aerospace Critical Safety Items (CSI); and

b. Manufactured and/or procured structural components; and

c. Performed kitting, handling, and management of supply chain/logistics programs of similar complexity and time constraints.

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 (Table 3) 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 structural kit integrator programs which:

a. Manage DoD aerospace Critical Safety Items (CSI); and

b. Manufactured and/or procured structural components; and

c. Performed kitting, handling, and management of supply chain/logistics programs of similar complexity and time constraints.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels (Table 4) when assessing recent, relevant efforts.

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S) 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) 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) 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 or unbalanced may not be considered for award. The Government will rank all technically acceptable offers by the proposed Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the following:

(1) Reasonableness Price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR

15.404. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR

31.201-3. In general, price reasonableness is an assessment of whether or not the price is too high. Unreasonably high pricing may give the government cause to eliminate a proposal from consideration.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or unit ordering quantities is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

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

(3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for award purposes only and will not be incorporated into the contract at award;

however, the most current proposed CLIN prices will be contractually binding.

For CLINs 0001- 0022 The Government will multiply the proposed unit prices times:

• Probability factor times unit quantities (as depicted in the pricing sheet)

• Probability factor times unit quantities

• Probability factor times unit quantities This will be repeated for all CLINs for all years of the contract.

M003 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey(s) (PAS) as part of this source selection.

Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.M004 REVIEWS and VISITS The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may request a Small Business Adminstration (SBA) Certificate of Competency (CoC) for an apparent successful awardee. If the SBA will not issue the certificate, the contractor may be considered not responsible and may not be eligible for award.

M004 REVIEWS and VISITS