RFP_Atch_8_C130_UDLM_PDM_Section_M_dtd_4 Nov 19.pdf

Section M – For Official Use Only (FOUO)

FA8504-20-R-0001

RFP Attachment 8

Section M

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. 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 factors 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 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. 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 RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section M, 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:

1.1. Factor I: Technical

1.1.1. Subfactor One: Production Plan (Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

1.1.2. Subfactor Two: Facilities (Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

1.1.3. Subfactor Three: Small Business Participation (Technical Rating)

1.2. Factor II. Past Performance

1.3. Factor III. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Among the Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between technical risk (Factor I), past performance (Factor II), and cost/price (Factor III).

Past performance (Factor II) is considered greater than Technical Risk (Factor I), which when combined are both (Factor I and II) significantly more important than Cost/Price (Factor III). However, Cost/Price

(Factor III) is an important consideration in the best value award decision. Within Technical (Factor I), Subfactor 1, Production Plan, and Subfactor 2, Facilities, are of equal importance. Both Subfactors 1 and

2 are more important than Subfactor 3, Small Business Participation. The Offeror must have an acceptable Technical proposal and Small Business Participation proposal to be considered in the tradeoff decision.

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 Contracting Officer 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

Contracting Officer, 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. The Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of

Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: 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 PWS, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. 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.

1.1. Subfactor One: Production Plan (includes risk rating): This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a written technical proposal that includes an adequate production plan, which describes how the

Offeror intends to sufficiently organize, manage, and perform PDM/D-CHECK and Mid-Cycle Paint. For this subfactor, a production plan must be found technically acceptable and must address the following:

1.1.1. Production Plan:

Schedule of Tasks/IMS: A sound production approach and an adequate schedule of tasks/IMS from first task order award to induction of first aircraft for PDM/D-CHECK NLT 120 days and induction of the first Mid-Cycle Paint aircraft NLT 90 days. The schedule of tasks/IMS portion of the production plan must include work control document development and delivery for PDM NLT 90 days after first task order award and for Mid-Cycle Paint NLT 60 days after first task order award. The schedule of tasks/IMS must include adequate identification of critical path and must sufficiently define the flow of an aircraft through defined PDM/D-CHECK/Mid-Cycle Paint phases to DD-250 signature within the flow day requirement (PWS Table 1).

Narrative Description: A narrative description shall accompany the schedule of tasks/IMS portion of the Production Plan and must describe a sound plan for addressing manpower (to include quantity of required personnel, skill mixes, personnel available, and plan for hiring additional personnel). This narrative description may also include any information necessary to describe the required components of the production plan.

Assumptions: For technical evaluation purposes only, assume the following when responding to this subfactor: The plan shall describe the approach for eight C-130H (83+) PDM aircraft, four C-130J-30

PDM/D-CHECK aircraft, and six Mid-Cycle Paint. When responding to this subfactor, assume the first PDM aircraft will be inducted on 1 March 2021 and subsequent PDM/D-CHECK aircraft will be inducted at even/equal intervals across the rest of FY21. When responding to this subfactor, assume the first Mid-Cycle Paint aircraft will be inducted on 1 February 2021 and subsequent Mid-Cycle

Paint aircraft will be inducted at even/equal intervals across the remaining FY21 period.

1.2. Subfactor Two: Facilities Plan (includes risk rating): This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a written technical proposal that includes an adequate and acceptable approach for having, or for having access to facilities for ground operations and maintenance of C-130 aircraft. For this subfactor, a facilities plan must be found technically acceptable and must address the following:

1.2.1. A sound and adequate facilities plan that meets the requirements of the work described in the

PWS to include a facilities approach for hangar(s) (PWS paragraphs 4.27.2.1 and Table 2), ramp space, runway(s), and paint facilities to complete PDM/D-CHECK and Mid-Cycle Paint. The facilities plan must demonstrate that the facilities have ground and flight operation procedures approved by

DCMA or a sound plan for these procedures can be approved by DCMA before the first aircraft induction. The Government may choose to perform a pre-award survey prior to basic contract award to verify facilities can meet the requirement for PDM/D-CHECK aircraft induction 120 days after first task order award and Mid-Cycle Paint induction NLT 90 days after first task order award. Assume the following when responding to this subfactor:

1.2.1.1 Eight C-130H (83+) PDM aircraft, four C-130J-30 PDM/D-CHECK aircraft, and six Mid-

Cycle Paint. When responding to this subfactor, assume the first PDM/D-CHECK aircraft will be inducted on 1 March 2021 and subsequent PDM/D-CHECK aircraft will be inducted in even/equal intervals across the rest of FY21. When responding to this subfactor, assume the first Mid-Cycle

Paint aircraft will be inducted on 1 February 2021 and subsequent Mid-Cycle Paint aircraft will be inducted in even/equal intervals across the rest of FY21.

Note: Soundness will be interpreted to mean that identified tasks or information are rooted in fact, reason, or good sense. Tasks or information presented are founded on well-established grounds, free from error, fallacy, or logical defect.

Note: Adequateness will be interpreted to mean that identified tasks represent achievable timelines, predecessors/successors are appropriately linked, and that the proposed schedule of tasks conveys a logical understanding of the program and sequencing to the flow of work required.

1.3. Subfactor Three: Small Business Participation (does not include risk rating): Each Offeror’s Small

Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the

Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

1.3.1. An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the

Offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract.

1.3.2. An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided.

1.3.3. The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

Note: The associated goals in paragraph 1.3.3. above in the Offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY19 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2019 goals are as follows:

Business Size Sub

Small Business 32%

Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

5%

Historically Underutilized

Business Zone Small Business

(HUBZone)

3%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5%

Service-Disabled Veteran-

Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

3%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

3%

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the acceptability of the Offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

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.

3. 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 Source Selection Team’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. Technical subfactor one and two will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

4. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the

Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business

Participation subfactor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the Offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’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 (with at least one year of performance history) 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:

2.1. 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 Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). 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.

2.2. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the Offeror and/or joint venture member 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 assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

2.3 Critical Subcontractors: The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

2.4 Key Personnel: The evaluation of the Offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance

WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a 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 should have submitted an individual 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.

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 repaired, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

3.1.1. The Government shall add up all total U.S. 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.

3.1.2. 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.

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

3.1.4. 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.

3.1.5. The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity 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 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. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical 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 of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Repaired, Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the

Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 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 three submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an Offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have been

Maintenance Support to C-130, or similar aircraft and include PDM/D-Check (or equivalent).

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have been a Maintenance Support to U.S.

Government fixed wing aircraft and include PDM/D-Check (or equivalent).

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have been

Maintenance Support to aircraft and include PDM/D-Check (or equivalent).

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: When assigning a relevancy rating, the scope, magnitude of effort, and magnitude of complexity are each considered as separate aspects. If all of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract, the relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but in terms of scope and magnitude of effort it only involved some of what the solicitation requires, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned. Magnitude of effort and complexities not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified above, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations, including but not limited to length of effort and the following:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Quantities: 12 PDMs/D-Checks

Duration of Time: 1 year (total 5 years)

Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable;

however, the Offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

4.2. Quality: As described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.304 (c) (2), the past performance evaluation shall evaluate quality. The Government will assess the past performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance information collected, the

Government will assign a single quality rating of the Offeror’s performance based on demonstrated processes that resulted in 1) deliverables that met the contract schedule and 2) subcontractor management.

If an Offeror’s past performance submission does not contain subcontractor management, then the

Offeror’s quality rating will only consider element 1- deliverables that met the contract schedule. A separate quality assessment rating will be assigned to each recent, relevant past performance effort based on quality rating scale in the table below. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Quality Ratings:

Adjectival

Rating Description

Exceptional Performance exceeded many contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good Performance exceeded some contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements to the

Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance met contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance did not meet some contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements. The contractual performance reflected a serious problem for which the contractor did not identify corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Unsatisfactory

Performance did not meet most contractual schedule and subcontractor management requirements and recovery did not happen in a timely manner. The contractual performance contained a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. A more recent and a more relevant performance will have greater impact on the Past Performance Confidence Assessment than a less recent or less relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Past Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings:

Adjectival

Rating Description

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 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’ 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 three respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the Offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the Offeror/joint venture member 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 included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the Offeror/joint venture member’s 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

1. Price Factor. The Offeror’s proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs 1.1, and 1.2below. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 1.3.

1.1. Reasonableness: 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 in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

1.2. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items

(including the Basic and Option periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The

Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each Offeror’s response to the pricing structure

‘C130 PDM_UDLM Pricing Model’. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

1.3. TEP: The sum of the evaluated prices for each CLIN will represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN prices will be calculated as follows:

1.3.1. CLIN x001 includes quantity ranges for the various aircraft types. The Offerors will propose a unit price for each quantity range for each type of PDM in the ‘CLIN x001’ tab of the ‘C130 PDM_UDLM

Pricing Model’. The government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN. All PDM-type evaluated prices will be added together to calculate an evaluated price by the year (basic and all option years). The evaluated price, by year, will then roll up into the CLIN x001 total evaluated price. The CLIN x001 total evaluated price will then flow into ‘TEP Summary’, that is part of the Government’s internal evaluation (as shown in the example below). FMS and HC-130H under CLIN x001 will be To Be Negotiated (TBN). An example quantity range and TEP calculation is provided below.

1.3.2. For CLIN x003, Offerors will propose a unit price for each quantity range for each type of PDM

Paint in the ‘CLIN x003’ tab of the ‘C130 PDM_UDLM Pricing Model. The government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN. All PDM Paint-type, evaluated prices will be added together to calculate an evaluated price by the year (basic and all option years). The evaluated price, by year, will then roll up into the CLIN x003 total evaluated price. The CLIN x003 total evaluated price will then flow into ‘TEP Summary’, that is a part of the Government’s internal evaluation (as shown in the example below).

1.3.3. CLIN X004 includes quantity ranges for the C-130J Mid-Cycle Paint. The Government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN. All Mid-Cycle Paint evaluated prices will be added together to calculate an evaluated price, by the year (basic and all option years). The evaluated price, by year, will then roll up into the CLIN x004s total evaluated price. The CLIN x004 total evaluated price will then flow into ‘TEP

Summary’, that is part of the Government’s internal evaluation (as shown in the example below). FMS and HC-130H under CLIN X001 will be To Be Negotiated (TBN).

1.3.4. For CLIN X005, Offerors will propose a cost for each task in the “CLIN x005” tab in ‘C130

PDM_UDLM Pricing Model’. The total evaluated price for CLIN x005 will be calculated by summing the cost of all the tasks together to calculate a total evaluated price by the year (basic and all option years). The CLIN x005 total evaluated price will then roll into ‘TEP Summary’ of the Government’s

Internal Evaluation (shown in example below).

1.3.5. For CLIN X007, Offerors will propose a fully burdened labor rate for the Labor Categories contained in tab “T&M Labor Rates” in ‘C130 PDM_UDLM Pricing Model’. A single evaluated price will be calculated by CLIN for the Unique Repairs task based on the proposed labor rate times the

Government’s expected Labor Category Usage. The expected Labor Category Usage will not be disclosed to Offerors.

1.3.5.1. Labor Category Usage: The Government has estimated the total annual hours expected to award during a typical contract year. The Government will assign annual labor hours to each labor category based on the percentage of expected usage of each labor category. The LCU usage percentages will not be disclosed to Offerors. For budgetary purposes, the total annual estimated hours will be provided.

1.3.6. For CLINs X008, and X009, the evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated by multiplying the Offeror’s proposed Add-On Factor times a Government estimated dollar value for that CLIN.

1.3.7. CLINs X002 and X006 will be To Be Negotiated (TBN).

1.3.8. CLIN X010 for Data will be Not Separately Priced (NSP).

1.3.9. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2. Pricing Model: Pictured below is an example of the ‘C130 PDM_UDLM Pricing Model’. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only and is not inclusive of all contract periods. The

Government estimated dollars, hours, rates, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

CLIN x001 (PDM) FFP

TYPE QTY Unit Price TYPE QTY Unit Price

H1 1-3 1,000$ 3,000$ H1 1-3 1,500$ 4,500$

H1 4-6 1,010$ 3,030$ H1 4-6 1,515$ 4,545$

H2 1-3 1,020$ 3,060$ H2 1-3 1,530$ 4,590$

H2 4-6 1,030$ 3,090$ H2 4-6 1,545$ 4,635$

H2 7-9 1,040$ 3,120$ H2 7-9 1,560$ 4,680$

H2 10-12 1,050$ 3,150$ H2 10-12 1,575$ 4,725$

H3 1-3 1,060$ 3,180$ H3 1-3 1,590$ 4,770$

H3 4-6 1,070$ 3,210$ H3 4-6 1,605$ 4,815$

H3 7-9 1,080$ 3,240$ H3 7-9 1,620$ 4,860$

H3 10-12 1,090$ 3,270$ H3 10-12 1,635$ 4,905$

J 1-3 1,100$ 3,300$ J 1-3 1,650$ 4,950$

J 4-6 1,110$ 3,330$ J 4-6 1,665$ 4,995$

J 7-9 1,120$ 3,360$ J 7-9 1,680$ 5,040$

J 10-12 1,130$ 3,390$ J 10-12 1,695$ 5,085$

44,730$ 67,095$

(Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12) (Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12)

FY21 FY22

Evaluated

Price

Evaluated

Price

TYPE QTY Unit Price TYPE QTY Unit Price

H1 1-3 2,000$ 6,000$ H1 1-3 2,500$ 7,500$

H1 4-6 2,020$ 6,060$ H1 4-6 2,525$ 7,575$

H2 1-3 2,040$ 6,120$ H2 1-3 2,550$ 7,650$

H2 4-6 2,060$ 6,180$ H2 4-6 2,575$ 7,725$

H2 7-9 2,080$ 6,240$ H2 7-9 2,600$ 7,800$

H2 10-12 2,100$ 6,300$ H2 10-12 2,625$ 7,875$

H3 1-3 2,120$ 6,360$ H3 1-3 2,650$ 7,950$

H3 4-6 2,140$ 6,420$ H3 4-6 2,675$ 8,025$

H3 7-9 2,160$ 6,480$ H3 7-9 2,700$ 8,100$

H3 10-12 2,180$ 6,540$ H3 10-12 2,725$ 8,175$

J 1-3 2,200$ 6,600$ J 1-3 2,750$ 8,250$

J 4-6 2,220$ 6,660$ J 4-6 2,775$ 8,325$

J 7-9 2,240$ 6,720$ J 7-9 2,800$ 8,400$

J 10-12 2,260$ 6,780$ J 10-12 2,825$ 8,475$

89,460$ 111,825$

(Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12) (Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12)

FY23 FY24

Evaluated

Price

Evaluated

Price

Total for CLIN x001: $447,300

CLIN x002 TBN

CLIN x003 (PDM Paint) FFP

TYPE QTY Unit Price

H1 1-3 3,000$ 9,000$

H1 4-6 3,030$ 9,090$

H2 1-3 3,060$ 9,180$

H2 4-6 3,090$ 9,270$

H2 7-9 3,120$ 9,360$

H2 10-12 3,150$ 9,450$

H3 1-3 3,180$ 9,540$

H3 4-6 3,210$ 9,630$

H3 7-9 3,240$ 9,720$

H3 10-12 3,270$ 9,810$

J 1-3 3,300$ 9,900$

J 4-6 3,330$ 9,990$

J 7-9 3,360$ 10,080$

J 10-12 3,390$ 10,170$

134,190$

Evaluated

Price

(Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12)

FY25

TYPE QTY Unit Price TYPE QTY Unit Price

H SS 1-3 610$ 1,830$ H SS 1-3 670$ 2,010$

H SS 4-6 600$ 1,800$ H SS 4-6 660$ 1,980$

H SS 7-9 590$ 1,770$ H SS 7-9 650$ 1,950$

H SS 10-12 580$ 1,740$ H SS 10-12 640$ 1,920$

H DP 1-3 610$ 1,830$ H DP 1-3 670$ 2,010$

H DP 4-6 600$ 1,800$ H DP 4-6 660$ 1,980$

H DP 7-9 590$ 1,770$ H DP 7-9 650$ 1,950$

H DP 10-12 580$ 1,740$ H DP 10-12 640$ 1,920$

J SS 1-3 610$ 1,830$ J SS 1-3 670$ 2,010$

J SS 4-6 600$ 1,800$ J SS 4-6 660$ 1,980$

J SS 7-9 590$ 1,770$ J SS 7-9 650$ 1,950$

J SS 10-12 580$ 1,740$ J SS 10-12 640$ 1,920$

J DP 1-3 610$ 1,830$ J DP 1-3 670$ 2,010$

J DP 4-6 600$ 1,800$ J DP 4-6 660$ 1,980$

J DP 7-9 590$ 1,770$ J DP 7-9 650$ 1,950$

J DP 10-12 580$ 1,740$ J DP 10-12 640$ 1,920$

28,560$ 31,440$

(Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12) (Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12)

FY21 FY22

Evaluated

Price

Evaluated

Price

H1

H2

H3

J

TBN FMS -FFP

KEY

C-130H 73-74 -FFP

C-130H 78-82 -FFP

C-130H 83+ -FFP

C-130J/C-130J-30 -FFP

Total CLIN x003: $172,968

TYPE QTY Unit Price TYPE QTY Unit Price

H SS 1-3 701$ 2,103$ H SS 1-3 812$ 2,436$

H SS 4-6 691$ 2,073$ H SS 4-6 802$ 2,406$

H SS 7-9 681$ 2,043$ H SS 7-9 792$ 2,376$

H SS 10-12 671$ 2,013$ H SS 10-12 782$ 2,346$

H DP 1-3 701$ 2,103$ H DP 1-3 812$ 2,436$

H DP 4-6 691$ 2,073$ H DP 4-6 802$ 2,406$

H DP 7-9 681$ 2,043$ H DP 7-9 792$ 2,376$

H DP 10-12 671$ 2,013$ H DP 10-12 782$ 2,346$

J SS 1-3 701$ 2,103$ J SS 1-3 812$ 2,436$

J SS 4-6 691$ 2,073$ J SS 4-6 802$ 2,406$

J SS 7-9 681$ 2,043$ J SS 7-9 792$ 2,376$

J SS 10-12 671$ 2,013$ J SS 10-12 782$ 2,346$

J DP 1-3 701$ 2,103$ J DP 1-3 812$ 2,436$

J DP 4-6 691$ 2,073$ J DP 4-6 802$ 2,406$

J DP 7-9 681$ 2,043$ J DP 7-9 792$ 2,376$

J DP 10-12 671$ 2,013$ J DP 10-12 782$ 2,346$

32,928$ 38,256$

(Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12) (Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12)

FY23 FY24

Evaluated

Price

Evaluated

Price

TYPE QTY Unit Price

H SS 1-3 893$ 2,679$

H SS 4-6 873$ 2,619$

H SS 7-9 863$ 2,589$

H SS 10-12 853$ 2,559$

H DP 1-3 893$ 2,679$

H DP 4-6 873$ 2,619$

H DP 7-9 863$ 2,589$

H DP 10-12 853$ 2,559$

J SS 1-3 893$ 2,679$

J SS 4-6 873$ 2,619$

J SS 7-9 863$ 2,589$

J SS 10-12 853$ 2,559$

J DP 1-3 893$ 2,679$

J DP 4-6 873$ 2,619$

J DP 7-9 863$ 2,589$

J DP 10-12 853$ 2,559$

41,784$

Evaluated

Price

(Min Qty 6; Max Qty 12)

FY25

H SS

H DP

J SS

J DP

H PDM Scuff/Sand and Repaint – FFP

H PDM De-Paint and Repaint – FFP

KEY

J PDM Scuff/Sand and Repaint – FFP

J PDM De-Paint and Repaint – FFP

CLIN x004 (Mid-Cycle Paint) FFP

Total CLIN x004: $127,500

CLIN x005 (AFTO Catalog M tasks) FFP, SUM of ALL TASKS (snapshot shown below): $77,404

CLIN x006 TBN

TYPE QTY Unit Price

Evaluated

Price TYPE QTY Unit Price

Evaluated

Price

Mid-P 1-6 2,500$ 15,000$ Mid-P 1-6 5,000$ 30,000$

15,000$ Mid-P 7-10 2,500$ 10,000$

40,000$

FY23 (Qty 6) FY24 (Qty 10)

TYPE QTY Unit Price

Evaluated

Price

Mid-P 1-6 5,000$ 30,000$

Mid-P 7-10 2,000$ 8,000$

Mid-P 11-13 1,500$ 4,500$

42,500$

FY25 (Qty 13)

FY 21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25

(Aircraft General) In Processing of Aircraft at Maintenance Facility (Incl. Incom. Cabin Press., Init.

Aligment, De-arming A/C, Leak checks, Wash, Etc.)

EA $500 $510 $520 $530 $540

2 (Aircraft General) Out-Processing of Aircraft (Incl. Wgt and Bal., FCF's, all Ops Checks, Etc.) EA $503 $505 $507 $509 $511

3 (Aircraft General) Accomplish Pre-Flight Inspection IAW T.O. 1C-130A-6WC-10 EA $506 $510 $514 $518 $522

4 (Aircraft General) Accomplish Thru-Flight Inspection IAW T.O. 1C-130A-6WC-11 EA $509 $519 $529 $539 $549

5 (Aircraft General) Accomplish Post-Flight Inspection IAW T.O. 1C-130A-6WC-12 EA $512 $521 $530 $539 $548

CLIN x005, Exhibit B: C-130H and C-130J AFTO Form 103 Catalog M Tasks – FFP (All Tasks) Unit Cost

CLIN x007 (O&A) T&M

Total CLIN x007: $526,922

CLIN x008 (Aircraft Fuel) CRNF

CLIN x009 (Travel) CRNF

CLIN x010: Exhibit C (NSP)

TOTAL TEP SUMMARY

CLIN x008 Aircraft Fuel CRNF Input Proposed Factor

FY 21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 Total

Govt. Fuel Cost

Estimate 119,663$ 191,461$ 239,326$ 239,326$ 478,653$ 1,268,429$

Proposed Add-on

Factor* 1.0025 1.0025 1.0025 1.0025 1.0025

Total Proposed Fuel

Cost 119,962.16$ 191,939.65$ 239,924.32$ 239,924.32$ 479,849.63$ 1,271,600.07$

*Add-on factor, expressed as 1.xxxx, not as percentages, for each contract period.

CLIN x009 Travel CRNF Input Proposed Factor

FY 21 FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 Total

Govt. Travel Cost

Estimate 16,580$ 16,580$ 16,580$ 16,580$ 16,580$ 82,900$

Proposed Add-on

Factor* 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001 1.0001

Total Proposed

Travel Cost 16,581.66$ 16,581.66$ 16,581.66$ 16,581.66$ 16,581.66$ 82,908.29$

*Add-on factor, expressed as 1.xxxx, not as percentages, for each contract period.

TEP SUMMARY

CLIN x001 447,300$ FFP

CLIN x003 172,968$ FFP

CLIN x004 127,500$ FFP

CLIN x005 77,404$ FFP

CLIN x007 526,922$ T&M

CLIN x008 1,271,600$ CRNF

CLIN x009 82,908$ CRNF

2,706,602$