AIS_Section_M_Amed_01.pdf

Section M - Page 1 of 10

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

Evaluation Criteria

For the

Avionics Intermediate Shop (AIS) / Product Support Integration (PSI) Program

March 2017

Section M - Page 2 of 10

SECTION CONTENT

1 – Source Selection

2 – Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

3 – Volume I – Executive Summary

4 – Volume II – Price

5 – Volume III – Technical

6 – Volume IV – Contract Documentation

7 – Pre-award Survey

8 – Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.101-

2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding technical acceptability. Past Performance will not be evaluated.

Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that is deemed responsible IAW the FAR 9.104-1 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to select one (1) contractor for the AIS program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the

Government’s best interest. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the

Government is not liable for any costs incurred.

1.3. Rejection of Offers: The Government may reject any proposals that DO NOT conform to the instructions provided in the Request for Proposal (RFP).

1.4. Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government may consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. “Deficiency” is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement. The judgment of such

"correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If the Government determines that an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet its requirements and is not easily correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competition in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(c).

1.5. Major Proposal Revisions: If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the

Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm#P25_3805

Section M - Page 3 of 10

1.6. Discussions: The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. During the evaluation period it may be determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) shall be reflected in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final

Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor One – Price

Factor Two – Technical

Sub-factor One: Sample Task One (USAF)

Sub-factor Two: Sample Task Two (FMS)

Sub-factor Three: Program Management

2.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY: Proposal will be evaluated as follows:

2.1.1. Upon receipt of proposals, the Government’s evaluation team will begin evaluating all proposals against all factors and sub-factors contained in this document

(Technical and Pricing). Additionally, the Contract Documentation Volume will be evaluated to ensure a complete proposal is received. Each Offeror will be evaluated on an individual basis. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal and will not be determined using comparative techniques. The Procurement

Contracting Officer will notify offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range or from consideration for award.

2.1.2. Factor One – Price – The SSEB shall calculate the submitted Total Evaluated Price

(TEP) IAW procedures listed in paragraph 4 to allow the SSEB to evaluate pricing.

The SSEB shall evaluate the pricing volume for: (1) Price Reasonableness (2)

Balance, (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), (4) Evaluation of Compensation for

Professional Employees.

2.1.3. Factor Two – Technical – The SSEB shall evaluate the Technical Factor (sub-factors) assigning rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” If any sub-factor is

Unacceptable, the entire factor will be rated Unacceptable and will render the entire proposal as Unacceptable and un-awardable.

Section M - Page 4 of 10

3. VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

3.1. The Government shall ensure that each proposal includes the general outline stated in the

Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors in Volume I.

4. VOLUME II - PRICE (Factor One)

4.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) Price Reasonableness, (2) Balance, (3)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP), and (4) Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees. The TEP will be computed and provided to the SSA for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, all offeror proposed rates in the TEP will be fixed and contractually binding.

4.1.1. Price Reasonableness: 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 and its affordability. Generally, adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. All CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness

IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

4.1.2. Balance: 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, Proposal Analysis Techniques. The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to rates, disclosed elements of price, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.1.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated for award purposes only and will not be contractually binding; however, the Fully Burdened Labor Rates

(for both Government Site and Contractor Site) and the Material Burdened Rates will be contractually binding for future orders. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the following:

4.1.3.1. Multiplying Government generated notional hours against each offeror’s proposed fully-burdened not-to-exceed (NTE) labor rates for the base and all ordering periods (for both Government Site and Contractor Site). The

Government generated notional hours and labor distribution will not be disclosed outside of the Government at any time.

4.1.3.2. Multiplying Government generated notional material dollars against each offeror’s proposed fully-burdened not-to-exceed (NTE) material burden rates

Section M - Page 5 of 10 for the base and all ordering periods. For purposes of TEP calculation only, the following notional material dollars will be multiplied by the offeror’s proposed fully-burdened NTE material burden rates:

Contract Year Notional Material Total

1 $12.43M

2 $103.55M

3 $107.69M

4 $103.55M

5 $86.98M

4.1.3.3. The Cost Reimbursable Travel CLIN will be normalized at zero dollars for all offerors. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable at the time of task order award and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred.

4.1.4. Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: IAW FAR 52.222-46, The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it complies with FAR 52.222-46.

4.2. Accounting System Approval: Since portions of the contract are contemplated as a contract type other than Firm Fixed Price, the Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to ensure the offeror’s accounting system is adequate. If accounting system approval is not present at the time of proposal, award may be, at the Government’s discretion, contingent upon positive resolution of a pre-award survey of the offeror’s accounting system.

4.3. A no bid or an omitted rate(s) may result in an incomplete price submission and is therefore un-awardable.

5. VOLUME III - TECHNICAL (Factor Two)

5.1. Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase, or restate PWS or Technical Order language for the technical volume.

The successful offeror’s technical proposal shall be incorporated into the contract by reference.

5.2. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an

Acceptable/Unacceptable basis, assigning one of the following ratings:

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Section M - Page 6 of 10

5.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable”. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following sub-factors:

5.4. Sub-factor One, Sample Task One (USAF)

5.4.1. This sub-factor will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror has demonstrated the capability of satisfying Sample Task One – see Section L, Attachment 1.

This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to demonstrate the following:

5.4.1.1. ATE Hardware: evidence that material is sourced from correct OEM, evidence of an Obsolescence Mitigation process that identifies all tasks, a

Delta Function Configuration Audit, and evidence of a process to analyze predicted assembly failure data with the function of developing changes to

Operational Readiness Spares Kit and Depot Readiness Spares Kit.

5.4.1.2. ATE Software: evidence of approach to perform integration, qualification testing of replacement parts, development, and delivery of modified Control and Support (C&S) software to enable on-system testing of replacement assemblies.

5.4.1.3. TPS Software: evidence of approach for software integration reflects minimizing impacts to existing F-16 Test Program Sets (TPS) Software, identifies redlines for TPS software, and documentation for affected TPS programs (System Test Specification [STS] Vol I & Vol II).

5.4.1.4. Integration: evidence of approach to perform integration and qualification testing of replacement parts to ensure the IAIS/VXI-IAIS/R-IAIS configurations execute TPS(s) as outlined in the Test Plan. In addition, identifies all parties/organizations, their required function, and explains the process of de-conflicting potential C&S and TPS Software discrepancies in order to complete integration.

5.4.1.5. Data Requirements: show approach to develop a Test Plan, approach to develop all required Field Service Bulletins, and show that ATE data to be

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Section M - Page 7 of 10 updated includes the following: specifications, Technical Orders, engineering data, provisioning documentation, and Calibration and

Measurement Requirements Summary (CMRS).

5.4.1.6. Program Management: evidence of a Program Management approach that adheres to the PWS PMP (para 4.2.1.2) and satisfies this Sample Task One to include addressing AIS hardware, software, and data management IAW a

Configuration Management Plan that satisfies Sample Task One. Additionally, the offeror’s Master Schedule will be reviewed for evidence of incorporating necessary milestones and technical reviews that are required to satisfy Sample

Task One.

5.4.1.7. Contract Data Requirements: evidence that 100 percent of Sample Task One’s

CDRLS are present and accurate.

5.4.1.8. Quality Assurance / Certifications: provide evidence of utilization of a quality system such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

9001:2008 as a means of ensuring that the requisite quality assurance oversight is exercised in fulfilling the requirements of this effort. The contractor shall provide evidence of Capability Maturity Model Integration

(CMMI) Level 3 Certification (appraised and maintained at Level 3) throughout the duration of this effort.

5.5. Sub-factor Two: Sample Task Two (FMS)

5.5.1. The sample task will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror has demonstrated the capability of satisfying Sample Task Two – see Section L, Attachment 2.

This sub-factor is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and

5.5.1.1. ATE, ATE spares, and SERD Hardware: evidence that material is sourced from correct OEM(s), properly configured for use with R-IAIS end items, risk mitigation approach for obsolescence issues, method of handling & incorporating Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) items, method of

Acceptance Test Procedures (ATP), approved means of shipping & transportation procedures.

5.5.1.2. ATE Hardware: 95 percent identification of correct ATE and ancillary

Support Equipment part numbers and quantities, acceptable approach for the sourcing and identification of required ATE spares, evidence of approved means of Installation and Check-Out (ICO) procedures.

5.5.1.3. SERD Hardware: 100 percent identification of correct part numbers, quantities, and GFE.

Section M - Page 8 of 10

5.5.1.4. ATE and TPS Software: evidence of approach for production and development. Specifically for TPS Software, evidence of proper integration within subsystems and systems of IAIS/VXI-IAIS/R-IAIS systems, TPS software is sourced correctly, approved Acceptance Test Procedures, software delivery requirements are identified and correct.

5.5.1.5. ATE Data Requirements: ATE Data to be updated is identified and defined.

5.5.1.6. SERD Data Requirements: identification of SERD Data to be updated is addressed to include: Technical Order updates, LM Aero Managed Technical

Orders, Automated Technical Order System (ATOS) managed Technical

Orders, SERD updates, ACPINs updates.

5.5.1.7. Program Management: evidence of a Program Management approach that adheres to the PWS PMP (para 4.2.1.2) and satisfies this Sample Task Two to include addressing AIS hardware, software, and data management IAW a

Configuration Management Plan that satisfies Sample Task Two.

Additionally, the offeror’s Master Schedule will be reviewed for evidence of incorporating necessary milestones and technical reviews that are required to satisfy Sample Task Two.

5.5.1.8. Contract Data Requirements: evidence that 100 percent of Sample Task Two’s

CDRLS are present and accurate.

5.5.1.9. Quality Assurance / Certifications: provide evidence of utilization of a quality system such as International Organization for Standardization (ISO)

9001:2008 as a means of ensuring that the requisite quality assurance oversight is exercised in fulfilling the requirements of this effort. The contractor shall provide evidence of Capability Maturity Model Integration

(CMMI) Level 3 Certification (appraised and maintained at Level 3) throughout the duration of this effort.

5.6. Sub-factor Three: Program Management Plan (PMP): This sub-factor will be evaluated to ensure that the proposal includes a Transition Plan (IAW PWS, para 4.2.1.3) that meets the requirement to have operational control of this acquisition within 45 days after contract award.

5.6.1. This plan is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and evidence to demonstrate the following:

5.6.1.1. Necessary equipment and facilities ready for use within the 45-day transition period

Section M - Page 9 of 10

5.6.1.2. Necessary Personnel are (or will be) employed, trained, and able to work accordingly to satisfy the AIS requirements within the 45-day transition period

5.6.1.3. Process to ensure accountability of GFP/GFE (IAW PWS, para 3.1)

5.6.1.4. Identification of key personnel positions and how they will be phased-in for each of their respective areas. Key personnel positions are identified in the

PWS, Attachment 1.

5.6.2. Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Shortages (DMSMS)

Management Plan: This plan will be general in nature to the AIS requirement and not be particular to a National Stock Number (NSN) or Technical Order (TO).

The DMSMS plan is acceptable when it provides methodologies, rationale, and

5.6.2.1. Identify and manage the loss, or impending loss, of manufactures or suppliers of parts

5.6.2.2. Identify material required for sustained operational availability of the AIS

System, to include ATE and TPS system components

5.6.2.3. Identify both the reactive and proactive obsolescence management processes that will be used for DMSMS Management

6. VOLUME IV – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure they have submitted all required documentation identified in Section L para 6.

7. PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) as part of source selection activities. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be used in determining each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation based on current capability observations.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

In addition to meeting the identified factors and sub-factors, in order for Offerors to be rated acceptable, they are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements specifically stated in Sections L and M to be eligible for contract award. Failure to comply with the terms and

Section M - Page 10 of 10 conditions of the complete solicitation may result in the Offeror being rated unacceptable and removed from consideration for award.