Section_M_-_F-15_Repair_Support_Amend_3.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award

A. This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR

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 for RSAF F-15 Repair Support as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability and small business concern utilization acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is considered significantly more important than cost/price. 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. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable with acceptable small business concern utilization, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

B. 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 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.

C. It is the Government’s intent to award one contract for the RSAF F-15 Repair Support.

However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

D. Offerors must complete, sign and submit with their proposal the RFP Checklist, Attachment 13 that has been provided. Each offeror’s proposal will be validated for completeness utilizing the RFP Checklist. Any proposal failing to submit the checklist, complete all items referenced on the checklist or complete the checklist itself may result in the offeror’s proposal being deemed non-compliant and ineligible for award.

E. Offeror’s must submit evidence of having a valid Saudi business license with the proposal submission to be eligible for contract award. Offerors who fail to supply evidence of a Saudi business license by proposal submission shall be deemed ineligible for award. It is acceptable for a subcontractor and/or joint venture member to be the holder of the Saudi business license.

F. The Cross Reference Matrix, Attachment 6, will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document, Performance Work Statement (PWS), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Factors 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

1079195649C Typewritten Text Section M - Repair Support Section M - Amend 3 provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over the matrix.

Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

2. Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

A. Factor 1: Technical

(1) Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the technical proposal 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 evaluation will assess the offeror’s identified risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and the 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) Technical Ratings:

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision. 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, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. The Government may independently identify risk(s) not identified by the offeror and assess its impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government poses too great a risk to the program and no suitable mitigation is provided, the Government may consider the proposal technically unacceptable. 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.

Table 1: Technical Ratings

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation

(3) Subfactor One- Understanding of Technical Performance Requirements

The Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal:

a) Includes an adequate approach to managing, reporting, and analyzing average aggregate TAT times for Repair and Return services (PWS 4.15.1 through

4.15.1.4), individual TATs for AGE/SPV/Fire and Safety vehicles equipment (PWS 4.16.1 through 4.16.2.3) and Hush Houses/Open Air Test Cells operational availability (PWS 4.14.2).

b) Includes an adequate approach to managing reporting, and analyzing average aggregate WIP time. (PWS 4.15.3)

c) Includes an adequate approach for managing, identifying, and utilizing qualified SOR and develop new SOR. (PWS 4.17)

d) Includes an adequate approach to ensure quality of repaired end items to the RSAF is achieved in accordance with the contract performance management objectives and compliance with DCMA quality inspections. (PWS 4.18.3)

e) Includes an adequate approach for ensuring MICAPs are minimized through enhanced material management and improved throughput resulting in better asset visibility and issue effectiveness. (PWS 4.15.4 and 4.16.11)

f) Includes adequate Management Information System integration, reporting, and data collection for all items in the repair cycles as follows:

i. Satisfactorily addresses how the system will track supply chain status

ii. Satisfactorily addresses how the offeror will perform analytics on supply chain performance

iii. Includes an adequate approach to role based access authentication, data integrity, data availability, data reliability and 24-hour access (PWS 4.14 and 4.18)

(4) Subfactor Two- Management Approach

This subfactor is met when the proposal provides an adequate management approach to demonstrate a clear understanding of how each of the requirements mandated in the PWS will be met. The management approach provided in the technical proposal provides explicit details as to how the effort will be managed. The management approach clearly indicated a complete understanding of the required actions, anticipated workload, labor needs by type, projected travel, as well as other requirements to satisfy the requirements of the PWS.

For the purposes of this solicitation, a subcontractor performing more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item; is responsible for AGE (which includes: Hush House/Open Air Test Cell, Special Purpose Vehicles or Fire & Safety Vehicle Equipment); and/or possesses the Saudi Business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the efforts of the PWS, will be considered a critical subcontractor.

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal includes an adequate management approach for each of the following requirements, as mandated in PWS:

a) The offeror’s management approach, is supported by an adequate organizational chart as follows (PWS 4.9):

i. The organizational chart includes critical subcontractors and delineation of efforts among the critical subcontractors.

ii. The organizational chart may or may not include names associated with roles, but gives an adequate understanding of how the offeror’s organization will be organized.

b) The offeror’s management approach adequately addresses its staffing/recruiting/retention strategy and methodology to ensure compliance with the requirements of PWS paragraphs 4.17 and 4.27.

c) The offeror’s management approach provides an adequate subcontracting strategy as follows (PWS 4.27):

i. The subcontracting strategy includes how the offeror intends to manage its subcontracted efforts

ii. If critical subcontractors are proposed, the approach clearly identifies the management strategies and approach to ensure the subcontractor performance meets the requirements of the PWS

iii. The subcontracting strategy places particular emphasis on the performance accountability techniques and measures that will be used by the offeror

d) The offeror’s management approach adequately addresses In-Kingdom management and contract administration of the PWS as follows (PWS 4.1.2, 4.27 and 4.27.1):

i. Includes offeror’s knowledge and understanding of In-Kingdom laws, customs, licenses and security processes as required for In-Kingdom personnel.

ii. Submits evidence of having a Saudi Business license with the proposal submission to be eligible for award. Offerors who fail to supply evidence of a Saudi Business license by proposal submission are deemed ineligible for award. It is not necessary for the Prime Contractor to be the holder of the Saudi Business license; it is acceptable for their subcontractor and/or joint venture member to be the holder of the Saudi Business license. In this instance, the subcontractor is considered a critical subcontractor (see definition of critical subcontractor above).

e) The offeror’s management approach provides an adequate Transition Plan as follows (PWS 4.8, 4.8.1, CDRL A00H and DI-MGMT-81945):

i. Includes an integrated master schedule for the transition period, along with a detailed assessment of any assumptions

ii. The integrated master schedule depicts the offeror’s transition plan in schedule format.

iii. Offerors are cautioned that any timeframes identified within the transition plan should match timeframes within the integrated master schedule.

iv. Offerors are also cautioned the Government will not consider the purchase of any additional facilities to support this effort.

A proposal evaluated by the Government to be UNACCEPTABLE for any sub-factor, as defined in Table 1, will not be considered for award.

B. Factor 2: Past Performance

(1) The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractor(s)’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s/joint venture members’ demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming member), other than the offeror itself, that will perform more than 30 percent of the overall effort, based on the sum of the price proposed for each contract line item; is responsible for AGE (which includes: Hush House/Open Air Test Cell, Special Purpose Vehicles or Fire & Safety Vehicle Equipment); and/or possesses the Saudi Business license the prime contractor is relying on to perform the efforts of the PWS. Failure of the offeror to submit evidence of past performance for critical subcontractors will result in a determination of non-compliance with the requirements of this solicitation and the offeror’s proposal will be removed from further consideration and determined ineligible for award.

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. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

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 three (3) recent efforts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member(s) and each of its critical subcontractors. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s/joint venture members’ opinion of relevancy. For the purposes of this solicitation, the government will consider the following relevancy factors listed in Table 2, as well as logistic and programmatic considerations included in the note immediately following the table.

Table 2 describes the relevancy ratings and criteria that will be assigned to each effort identified in Volume III the offeror’s proposal. Primes, critical subcontractors, and joint ventures will all be evaluated against the below relevancy ratings:

Table 2: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Ratings Very Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts must have included all of the following:

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant efforts must have included all of the following:

Prime Contractor on Effort Prime Contractor on Effort Foreign Military Sales (FMS) in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) FMS or Direct Commercial Sales (DCS) in KSA

Customize and Manage and Maintain a web-based Management Information System (MIS)

Customize and Manage a web-based Management Information System (MIS)

Management of 5 or more Subcontractors at the same time

Management of 3 or more Subcontractors at the same time

Supply Chain Management Supply Chain Management Repair Services Repair Services

Somewhat Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat relevant efforts must have included all of the following:

Not Relevant

Prime or Subcontractor on Effort

Present/Past performance effort involves little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires as it meets none of the definitions provided herein for Very Relevant, Relevant or Somewhat Relevant.

FMS contract Manage a web-based Management Information System (MIS)

Management of more than one Subcontractors at the same time Supply Chain Management Repair Services

For purposes of evaluation the below definitions apply to the above ratings:

“Customize” is defined as the ability to manipulate the database and add/delete/change fields within the MIS

“Manage” is defined as the ability to input data and produce reports and to verify the accuracy of the data

“Maintain” is defined as the ability to ensure the availability of the system and the integrity of the data contained within

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified in the above definitions, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to quantity managed, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical features and characteristics, and the programmatic/ logistical scope and magnitude of the 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 features and characteristics in the definitions above, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

(2) In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a. The Past Performance Evaluation Team is not limited to a review of the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance volume. Past performance information will be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), System for Award management (SAM), and the Contractor Performance Assesment Reporting System (CPARS).

The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as the 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. Offerors/joint venture members/critical subcontractors 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 confidence 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.

(3) As a result of the recency and relevancy assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below in Table 4.

Table 4: Past Performance

Past Performance Factor

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation 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 the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation the offeror will successfully perform the effort

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation the offeror will be able to successfully perform the effort

Unknown Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror's performance record is so sparse no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

(4) Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, 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 three (3) 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 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 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.

C. FACTOR 3: Cost/Price

Cost/Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) reasonableness, (2) unbalanced pricing, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose cost/price is determined to be unreasonable may not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.1 Reasonableness

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. In addition, price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis, other techniques described in FAR 15.4 will be used. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

3.2 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced.

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

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.3 TEP

The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated prices of each CLIN as outlined below for both the Basic and Options I-VI. The sum of the evaluated prices of all of the CLINs will represent the TEP. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options. The evaluated CLIN/Sub-CLIN prices will be calculated as explained and illustrated below:

• For FPIF Sub-CLINs X001AA and X001AB (excluding Sub-CLINs 6001AA and 6001AB), the offerors’ Unit Target Cost will be multiplied by the quantity for each respective Sub-CLIN to derive a Total Cost. The Total Cost for each Sub-CLIN will then be multiplied by 120% to yield the Ceiling Price.

• The Ceiling Prices for FPIF Sub-CLINs X001AA and X001AB (excluding Sub-

CLINs 6001AA and 6001AB) for each respective period will be added together and then divided by two to derive a simple average Ceiling Price, which will represent the evaluated CLIN price.

• For FPIF Sub-CLINs 6001AA and 6001AB, the Ceiling Prices will be calculated by the Government as 50% of the offeror’s Option V Ceiling Price for each respective Sub-CLIN.

• The calculated Ceiling Prices for FPIF Sub-CLINs 6001AA and 6001AB will be added together and divided by two to derive a simple average Ceiling Price, which will represent the evaluated CLIN price.

• The FPIF evaluated CLIN prices for all periods are then added together, yielding the TEP.

• The following CLINs (Basic and all Options I - VI) are not included in the

TEP:

CLIN Description Contract Type X002 Facilities CRNF X003 Travel CRNF X004 Other Direct Costs CPFF X005 Data NSP X006 Demobilization CRNF 6007 Non-Severable Repair & Return

Services

FFP

The IGE for each of the above cost-type CLINs will be provided in the RFP itself, and the offerors will not be required to price these items in their cost proposals.

TEP Example

FPIF:

CLIN Qty Units Unit

Target Cost

Unit Target Profit

Unit Target Price

Extended Price

*Ceiling Price

Average Ceiling Price

Basic 0001AA 2 Months $100 $8 $108 $216 $240 0001AB 2 Months $50 $4 $54 $108 $120 ($240+ $120)

÷2

Evaluated CLIN Price $180

Option I 1001AA 2 Months $100 $8 $108 $216 $240 1001AB 2 Months $50 $4 $54 $108 $120 ($240+ $120)

÷2 Evaluated CLIN Price $180

Option II 2001AA 2 Months $100 $8 $108 $216 $240 2001AB 2 Months $50 $4 $54 $108 $120 ($240+ $120)

÷2 Evaluated CLIN Price $180

Option III 3001AA 2 Months $100 $8 $108 $216 $240 3001AB 2 Months $50 $4 $54 $108 $120 ($240+ $120)

÷2 Evaluated CLIN Price $180

Option IV 4001AA 2 Months $100 $8 $108 $216 $240 4001AB 2 Months $50 $4 $54 $108 $120 ($240+ $120)

÷2 Evaluated CLIN Price $180

Option V 5001AA 2 Months $100 $8 $108 $216 $240 5001AB 2 Months $50 $4 $54 $108 $120 ($240+ $120)

÷2 Evaluated CLIN Price $180

Option VI 6001AA 2 Months $50 $4 $54 $108 $120 6001AB 2 Months $25 $2 $27 $54 $60 ($120+$60) ÷2 Evaluated CLIN Price $90

Total Evaluated Price $1,170

* ((Unit Target Cost x Quantity) x 120%)

3.4 Options

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

D. FACTOR 4: Small Business Concern Utilization Factor

The Small Business Concern Utilization Plan will be applicable for only work conducted CONUS. A rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings and descriptions identified below. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed Small Businesses (SB), to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns, along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars shall be identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

(1) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small

Businesses, to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns, when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and,

(2) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by Small

Businesses, to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns, the company names/CAGE codes and the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided; and,

(3) Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these Small Businesses and 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.

(4) The associated goals in paragraph (2) above in the offeror’s Small Business

Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY15 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2015 goals are as follows:

Subcontracting

Small

Business SDB WOSB SDVOSB HUB Zone

DEPT OF

DEFENSE

(9700)

36.00% 5% 5% 3% 3%

(5) Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.