Attachment_6_PSI_Section_M_31AUG23.pdf

Solicitation Number: FA8232-23-R-3000 Attachment 6: Section M

31 August 2023

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology:

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision.

The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of the funds.

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation criteria and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost/price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information in their first proposals, in the format and meeting the requirements specified in Section L of this solicitation. The Government may incorporate the successful Offeror’s proposal, or parts of the proposal, into the contract by reference. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP), has acceptable Small Business Participation, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor One: Technical Approach and Capability

Subfactor Two: Program Management

Factor II. Technical Risk

Factor III. Past Performance

Factor IV. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: The evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision are rated in order of relative importance, from most important to least important:

Factor I: Technical EQUAL TO Factor II. Technical Risk Factor III. Past Performance Factor IV. Cost/Price

Technical, Technical Risk, and Past Performance when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. However, cost/price will contribute to the selection decision. Technical and Technical Risk, when combined are more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is more important than Cost/Price. However, cost/price will contribute to the selection decision. (FAR 15.304(e) and DFARS 215.300 paragraph 2.3.2)

II. Proposal Evaluation:

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the PCO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (EN) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR), if any, will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation by the Government.

2. Clarifications: 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 to which the Offeror may not previously have had an opportunity to respond. Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors and address adverse past performance to which the offeror has not previously had opportunity to respond will constitute clarifications, not discussions.

3. Proposal Rejection: The Government may reject any proposal that is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program resources, schedule commitments, contract terms and/or conditions. Proposals may also be rejected due to unreasonably high or unbalanced pricing 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. The

Government may reject any proposal from this competition if determined to be grossly noncompliant prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment shows the proposal fails to address requirements of the Request for Proposals (RFP), fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP, or does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the

RFP.

4. Correction Potential: 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 correctable by conduct of meaningful discussion or is not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, the Offeror’s evaluation may be completed without discussions or the proposal 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 or higher in rating.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix (attachment number L-5) will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents, Performance-Based Work Statements (PWSs), Section L (Instructions to Offerors), and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help Offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only; the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Factor I - Technical AND Factor II – Technical Risk

1. Evaluation Process: Each Offeror’s technical subfactors will be rated separately from the risk associated with their technical approach.

1.1. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures as excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of the Governments stated requirements.

1.1.1 Each technical subfactor will be evaluated by the Government and assigned a rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. All technical subfactors will utilize ratings listed in Table 1 below except for the requirements listed in Section L paragraph II.C.3.2.1 Small Business Participation and II.C.3.2.4 Web-Based Management System – these will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis IAW Table 2 below. Offeror is advised that a rating of Red/Unacceptable in any factor or subfactor will cause the proposal to be un-awardable.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the government during contract performance.

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (COLOR RATING)

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

1.2 Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Government’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation

(if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Evaluators will make an independent judgment of the probability of success, the impact of failure, and the acceptability of the Offeror’s proposed risk mitigation solutions when assessing technical risk. A higher technical risk rating may be given to those Offerors who currently do not possess capability for the requirements of the PWS.

1.2.1 Each technical subfactor will be evaluated by the Government and assigned a Technical Risk rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below in Table 3.

Offeror is advised that a rating of Unacceptable in any factor or subfactor makes the proposal un-awardable.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable risk of unsuccessful performance.

2. Evaluation: Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWSs, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

2.1 Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach and Capability: The Technical Approach and Capability elements will be rated based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal to Section L paragraph II.C.3.1, as follows:

2.1.1 Sample Task #1 – R&R: The sample task evaluates the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its capability to perform Repair and Return IAW the R&R PWS and as required in Section L para II.C.3.1.1. This element is met when the offeror’s proposal provides:

a. Identified sources of repair and proof of vender qualification for each part listed in the Sample Repair List (Attachment L-7) or states why a source of repair has not been provided. If a source of repair is unable to be located, details are provided of the Offeror’s efforts to locate a source.

b. A thorough and viable repair and return process that includes a flow diagram with estimated timelines for each step of the process, excluding the time required for the actual repair. At a minimum the process includes:

If using subcontractors, identification of which position of the Offeror’s team will perform the overall subcontractor repair and return management.

Detailed description of how repair and return sources of repair will be managed.

How sources of repair will be identified and selected How parts will be shipped and tracked to and from the repair sources How parts will be tracked and accounted for during the repair process Describe oversight processes the Offeror will implement to ensure parts are repaired and returned in a timely manner in order to meet schedule requirements.

2.1.2 Sample Task #2 – E&TS: This sample task evaluates the degree to which the Offeror details and demonstrates its capability to perform Engineering and Technical Services (E&TS) IAW the E&TS PWS and as required in Section L para II.C.3.1.2. Design specifics are not required.

This element is met when the Offeror provide details of a thorough and realistic systems engineering process that identifies and provides a detailed description of the necessary steps to successfully complete a minor modification on a fictitious new mounting bracket that:

a. Demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of systems engineering and ability to work through the whole process of a minor modification.

b. The process demonstrates a thorough understanding of the process and at a minimum the process includes:

Engineering Services – to include reviewing, formalizing, and incorporating F-16

SPO approved engineering and technical solutions into country specific F-16 aircraft.

Minor Modification – to include development, testing, materiel purchase and delivery, kit proofing, implementing deficiency resolutions found in kit proof, and installation with Offeror provided Contractor Field Team (CFT).

2.1.3 Sample Task #3 – DMSMS: The sample task evaluates the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates its capability to perform Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) work IAW the DMSMS PWS and as required by Section L para II.C.3.1.3.

This element is met when the Offeror provides a thorough and realistic DMSMS process that:

a. Demonstrates the Offeror’s understanding of DMSMS and its ability to analyze and present courses of action to resolve DMSMS issues. At a minimum the process must detail:

Process to understand the origin of a DMSMS issue including possible interface related issues.

Needed information to potential courses of action, how to obtain needed information and provide recommended courses of action.

2.2 Subfactor Two – Program Management. The Program Management elements will be rated based on the evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal to Section L para II.C.3.2, as follows:

2.2.1 Small Business Participation: The Small Business Participation element is considered to be acceptable when the Offeror’s Small Business Participation submission clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the Small Business Participation Requirements as defined in the Basic PWS para 4.2.5. The Small Business Participation submission is not to be confused with Small Business Subcontracting Plan (as required by FAR 52.219-9). All Offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Participation submission. The evaluation of the Small Business Participation submission will also include the following:

a. The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals.

b. The extent of commitment to use such firms.

2.2.2 Management and Organizational Structure: This element is met when the Offeror's proposed organization chart and narrative fulfill all requirements as stated in Section L para II.C.3.2.2. Offeror’s response demonstrates at a minimum:

a. Organizational Structure detailing an integrated comprehensive leadership and technical team that includes joint venture partners, teaming partners, and critical subcontractors (as defined in Section L D.III.2). Clear lines of authority and paths of communication are sufficiently detailed. Teaming arrangements in place or proposed are detailed.

b. Procedures to proactively manage and monitor subcontractor, teaming partner, and associate contractor relationships are adequate and provide confidence in ability to ensure execution of all PWS requirements and meet contract requirements.

c. Functional relationships, roles and responsibilities that ensure effective processes critical to execution are implemented and sufficiently explained.

d. Communication within the company and with the Government are detailed with appropriate responsiveness to government requests, effective problem resolution, and successful completion of all requirements.

e. Program Manager (PM) and Contracting Officer positions demonstrate appropriate visibility to senior decision makers and sufficient authority, responsibility, and resources to execute the program. Key positions are identified and detailed on how they are considered essential to successful contract performance.

2.2.3 R&R Execution Plan: This element is met when the Offeror's proposed execution plan demonstrates a comprehensive execution plan that includes all elements to receive and process orders no later than 30 calendar days after contract award (R&R PWS para 1.3). At a minimum the plan includes:

a. Activities, and processes required to be prepared to receive and process orders no later than 30 calendar days after contract award.

b. Standup of Web-Based Management System (R&R PWS para 7)

c. Training on the Web-Based Management System for Government personnel

d. All key positions filled, and ready to execute including the Offeror’s PM and Contracting

Officer

2.2.4 Web-Based Management System: This element is met when the Offerors proposal demonstrates a detailed description including functions and capabilities, of the Web-Based Management System IAW the R&R PWS para 7. The system must be able to manage and streamline the R&R process from repair request to final shipment to country. The proposed system performs the following capabilities, at a minimum:

a. Provide secure logistics system access for Government and Contractor. Shall be accessible by all Government personnel as identified by Government.

b. Requests and data shall not be user dependent. All users shall be able to access all data and modify all requests.

c. Government shall identify POCs that shall have administrative access to add and remove users.

d. Sort all data and requests by country

e. Submit/cancel repair requests and receive response (PWS para 4.3).

f. View current status of individual repairs (by country) per CDRL monthly status report

(CDRL B004).

g. Generate CDRL deliveries for Status and Cost/performance (CDRL B005)

h. Generate reports, including ad hoc reports with most recent data.

i. Submit Part Number Addition Requests. (R&R PWS para 4.6.1)

j. Ability to access the most current/updated repair table. (R&R PWS para 4.6)

k. Exporting data to Microsoft Office suite.

l. House and make accessible all training material. (R&R PWS para 7.2).

m. House and collaborate on documents and management activities including but not limited to action items, PMR slides/agenda/minutes, etc.

2.2.5 Risk Management Plan: This element is met when the Offeror provides a Risk Management Plan that demonstrates a practical and reasonable approach to managing risk. The plan includes identification and mitigation of the five (5) highest rated risks that impact schedule, performance, or cost control related to compliance with the requirements of the PWSs and the conduct of the overall program. Of the five (5) risks identified, at least one (1) shall address to loss of source of repair, source of repair quality, source of repair schedule, or compliance with contractual requirements. (Basic, R&R, E&TS, and DMSMS PWSs).

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor The Government will seek past performance information to make an assessment of performance confidence for each Offeror as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures 3.1.3.3, focusing on performance that is recent and relevant to the technical subfactors. This review will result in a performance confidence assessment rating under Factor 3, Past Performance.

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement -- to successfully accomplish the proposed effort and meet the Government’s requirement based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming partner), other than the Offeror itself, that will manage shipping or receiving functions. In addition, the Offeror may have subcontractors that they consider critical to overall successful performance. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule.

The recency, relevancy, and quality of the performance, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five

(5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the Offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the Offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the Offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), and Sam.gov (Responsibility/Qualification). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation 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 overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances will not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Key Personnel: For Offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the Offeror/joint venture member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. Offerors are reminded that a letter of intent to hire does not constitute employment.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the Offeror shall submit an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the Offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced/repaired, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Produced/Repaired for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Repaired, and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope, complexity, and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous work of the same or similar scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the Offeror’s of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous work of the same or similar scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced/Repaired, Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude, Scope, and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government may consider an Offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the Offeror’s and all critical subcontractor’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an Offeror’s work experience on three (3) contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when all three (3) contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an Offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity repaired, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of effort, duration, and management of workload. as defined below. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Product Support Integrator (PSI). They are as follows:

Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Product Support Integrator (PSI)

Management of workload: management of multiple orders at a time of similar and different scopes

Estimated Contract Ceiling: $987M

Repair and Return (R&R) Quantities: Approximately 1700 work in progress repairs at any time Duration of Time: 5+ years Magnitude of workload: Multiple orders at a time. Estimated 12 orders per month with approximately 10 assets per order.

Complexity: Management of multiple repair sources and associated shipment requirements.

Management of orders from multiple FMS customers and associated shipment requirements.

Management or completion of repairs with various degrees of complexity, requirements, and timelines.

Engineering and Technical Support (E&TS) Complexities: Successful completion of orders of various complexities. Management of efforts involving multiple FMS partners with multiple aircraft configurations.

Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS) Complexities: Successful completion of orders of various complexities. Management of efforts involving multiple FMS partners with multiple aircraft configurations.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the confidence ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The past performance evaluation will assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully meet the Government’s requirement. The recency, relevancy, and quality of the performance, the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance will be considered. Quality will be determined by the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Table 5: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no 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 is 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 and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractors, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the Offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the Offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL Offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the Offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor (if applicable) included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the Offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s (if applicable) policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal Factor The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

The TEP will be a consideration in the best value tradeoff award decision.

The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award decision purposes only and does not become part of the contract award. However, the Administrative FFP price per repair and the Fully Burdened FFP labor rates (CPFF and FFP) from the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in the TEP Workbook (Section L, Attachment 6) become contractually binding, as detailed below.

1. Price Reasonableness

1.1. The Government will evaluate the pricing elements within the TEP workbook and calculated TEP for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Generally, the existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. 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 may be required to support the proposed price.

1.2. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market.

2. Realism

2.1. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed labor rates for all Cost CLINs. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized.

2.2. Costs shall be 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.

2.3. Evaluation will include assessment of the extent to which proposed labor rate costs are in line with historical data, market rates, Forward Price Rate Agreements (FPRAs)/Forward Price Rate Recommendations (FPRRs), etc., and the extent to which ATO costs are sufficient for the work to be performed.

2.4. If the Government evaluates the Offeror’s probable cost as different from its proposed cost, the probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2).

2.5. It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost-type rates will be identical to the fixed price-type rates as calculated in Attachment 6.

2.5.1. This is anticipated to assist the realism evaluation for these labor rates.

2.5.2. If this is not the case or the Government determines it needs further information to support realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

2.6. Offeror’s are reminded that unrealistically low rates may result in an Offeror’s proposal being removed from consideration of an award.

23. Balance

23.1. The Government will evaluate the balance of each Offeror’s proposed Administrative CLIN prices and labor rates.

23.2. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1.

23.3. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced CLIN pricing or labor rates.

23.4. Offers determined by the Government to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance is determined by the Government to pose an unacceptable risk.

34. TEP

34.1. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

- Administrative Price Per Repair (FFP) x Notional Repairs (1,400 repairs/year).

- Cost Plus Fixed Fee Labor Rates (CPFF) x Notional number of Hours.

- Fully Burdened Labor Rates (FFP) x Notional Hours.

- Repair (CRNF) Cost. This cost is a notional value used to calculate the TEP for evaluation purposes only. It is not contractually binding, nor does it represent a guarantee to the offeror/awardee for the level of work anticipated for this requirement.

The value was based on the historical repairs as presented in Attachment 7.

NOTE: Travel (CLIN 2000) and Material (CLIN 4000) will not be proposed/included in the TEP but will be proposed and negotiated as needed at the order level.

34.2. The Government will use the TEP workbook to compute the TEP.

34.3. The Government will apply pre-determined notional quantities of repairs to the proposed Administrative Price (4.1.1 above) and notional hours Labor Rates (4.1.2 above). The notional number of repairs and notional hours will be established by the Government prior to proposal receipt RFP release and applied the same for all Offerors. The notional labor hours will not be disclosed to the Offerors.