Section_M_F_16_SLEP_Mod_Kit_v2.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Source Selection – 4 December 2017

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 C, 31 March 2016; and Air Force Mandatory Procedures

5315.3, 27 January 2017. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF)

FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

This effort is a firm-fixed price, Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract, with a

5 year initial ordering period and 5-year ordering period option. 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 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) 121.406 with regards to small business size.

Where the manufactured item being acquired is a kit of supplies or other goods provided by an offeror for a special purpose, the offeror that is a “Kit Assembler” cannot exceed 500 employees, and the offeror that is a “Manufacturer” cannot exceed 1,250 employees. The following also apply:

1. 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 North

American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code of the components being assembled.

2. The offeror need not itself be the manufacturer of any of the items assembled.

3. All tiers of subcontracting levels apply toward the determination of small business utilization.

4. 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 for “kit assemblers only.”

5. Miscellaneous common nuts, bolts, washers, bushings, etc., can be considered material costs.

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 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 five (5) 5”x

33”x 85” aluminum-lithium rolled plates (Al 2.8 Cu – 1.5 Li) per FMS-4097 to manufacture five

(5) FS479 bulkheads. Therefore, offerors shall exclude the cost of procuring the aluminum-lithium rolled plate material from their proposals for the initial four (4) kits purchased.

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 a

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (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 proposals according to Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and, will begin full evaluations starting with the lowest price offer (or a segment of the lowest price offerors), based on the 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 establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c); conduct discussions with all offerors within the competitive range; and 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 and/or 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 in Table 1 for each subfactor. The technical evaluation for acceptability will be in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. 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.

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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors and minimum levels of acceptability:

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 provided in the TDP with this solicitation.

1. Minimum Level of Acceptability: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s written technical proposal demonstrates, by correctly addressing the following statements, the ability to accurately read, understand, and interpret F-16 engineering drawing packages and associated dimensional data as defined in the Technical Data Package (TDP), which is provided in the solicitation.

a. Describe the features or surfaces of 16D2700-671 (C-Model Canopy Sill Longeron), which are required for electrical bonding as required by FPS-3024.

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

c. Define FPS-3008, Class 2E marking requirements for the 16B5250-485 (FS341

Bulkhead).

d. State the critical characteristics for the 16B5250-485 (FS341 Bulkhead). Describe how often these characteristics are non-destructively inspected. Explain any exceptions.

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

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

Explain the roundness requirements for diameter C.

g. Describe the FS479 Bulkhead (16B6224-35) Item Unique Identifier (IUID) labels, as directed by the TDP.

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

Technical Data Package (TDP).

1. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The 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, and/or subcontractors, ability to meet the following requirements in compliance with the TDP:

a. Acquire and/or produce the Critical Safety Items (CSI) and non-CSI manufactured components

b. Obtain required materials given the applicable material specifications

c. Machine parts (i.e., form, contour, manipulate large and small unformed stock) in accordance with defined specifications

d. Conduct post-manufacturing processes (e.g., heat treat, peen, anodize, plate, coat, etc.) to meet specification requirements

e. Apply metrology and inspection to ensure dimensional conformity according to the specifications

f. Perform non-destructive testing to ensure specifications are met

2. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the Offeror identifies all long-lead material and manufactured components, which place at risk their ability to meet the

Government’s delivery need date of 365 days after receipt of order, and develop effective mitigation steps that ensure an on-time delivery.

3. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the Offeror lists their manufacturing sources for all CSI components, and they are confirmed by the Government as approved sources, as identified in the TDP. If an offeror proposes a non-qualified CSI source, the offeror shall clearly define their plan and schedule to ensure the CSI source is qualified before contract award. If the source is unable to qualify at time of award, the proposal will be evaluated as unacceptable and the offeror will not be eligible for award.

4. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the contractor defines how their processes and any applicable configuration control tools (such as Product Data Management

(PDM); Product Lifecycle Management (PLM); Enterprise Resource Management (ERP); or similar engineering document control system) are effectively integrated to maintain configuration control of manufactured and/or procured structural components to effectively manage engineering change orders (to include Class 1 and Class 2 change processes). The plan must include/address as a minimum:

a. As-designed and as-planned configurations: historically for items already built as well as prospectively for items planned to be built

b. As-built configurations including authorizations for any variances from the as-planned configuration

c. The status of both proposed and approved changes

d. Change traceability: changes proposed, approved, and implemented for an item number (including effectivity); and the items affected by a given proposed, approved or obsoleted change

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 TDP and the Government’s delivery need date of 365 days after receipt of award.

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

Government’s need date of 365 days after receipt of order.

2. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the proposed program management plan demonstrates an approach that clearly identifies the offeror’s subcontractor management and Government relations plan to maintain effective communication; conduct risk identification; develop/implement mitigation strategies; and facilitate problem solving in a timely and responsive manner to deliver all required modification kits in accordance with the TDP and Government’s need date of 365 days after receipt of order.

3. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the program management plan clearly describes the Offeror’s proposed ISO 9001 (or equivalent) quality management approach; compares it to the elements in ANSI/ASCQ-Q9001; explains how it will be applied to reduce program risks; and can quantitatively demonstrate the ability to deliver:

a. Fully conforming modification kits 95% of the time with a 95% confidence level

i. CSI components must be fully conforming 100% of the time with a 95% confidence level

ii. Non-CSI manufactured components must also be fully conforming 100% of the time, with a 95% confidence level.

4. Minimum Level of Acceptability: The subfactor is met when the results of a quantitative schedule simulation (such as, Monte Carlo), performed against their proposed Integrated

Master Schedule (IMS), clearly demonstrates an overall schedule variance of <5% at the 95% confidence level.

Subfactor 4: Small Business

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s compliance with small business utilization requirements.

Minimum Level of Acceptability: This subfactor is met when the Offerors independent written plan demonstrates compliance with 13 CFR 121.406 to meet small business utilization requirements.

Additionally, the government intends to ensure compliance with 13 CFR 121.406 through inspection. The

Government may request the Small Business Administration to review the potential awardee for a

Certificate of Competency (COC) prior to contract award. If the offeror is not able to demonstrate compliance with 13 CFR 121.406 or do not receive the COC the offeror will be deemed un-awardable.

c. Past Performance Factor

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s ability 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 in Table 2 below.

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

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.

a. 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.

b. 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 structural modification kitting programs which:

(1) Manage DoD aerospace CSI; and

(2) Manufactured and/or procured structural components; and

(3) 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 definitions (Table 3) when assessing recent and relevant contracts.

the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RECENT & RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

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.

NOT RECENT The effort was not ongoing or performed during the past three (3) years from the date of this solicitation.

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.

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 proposed

CLIN prices shall be contractually binding.

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 Administration

(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.