Draft L M 15 MAR 2012.pdf

DRAFT L&M

L-900. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS (AUG 2011)

A. Proposals shall be submitted in (2) separate sections as set forth below: Non-conformance with any instructions provided below may result in an unfavorable proposal evaluation.

PAGE NUMBER

VOLUME LIMITS OF COPIES DESCRIPTION

I N/A 1 Electronic*/2 Paper Completed RFP II N/A 1 Electronic*/2 Paper Present/Past Performance Information III 15 pages 1 Electronic*/2 Paper Small Business Participation

*Proposal information shall be submitted in written form (1 copy) and CD-R or DVD-R (write once/read only) (1 copy) that is “closed” so that no further writes can be made to the media. CD-R/W or DVD-R/W media types are not acceptable. Media must be virus scanned by the offeror prior to submitting to the Government.

Acceptable document formats are Microsoft Office Word, Excel, and PowerPoint document formats; Adobe Acrobat portable document formats (PDF); or tagged image file (tif) formats.

In addition to the page limitations set forth above, proposals should comply with the following format:

(1) Print should be no smaller than a font size of 12 and should be on 8 1/2 by 11 inch paper. Charts, graphs or spreadsheets may be on fold-out pages, but must fold within the page size specified and will count as one page.

(2) Margins shall be no smaller than 1 inch.

(3) Each page within a section shall be numbered consecutively.

(4) Each page containing proprietary information should be so marked.

(5) Each page should contain the following legend at the bottom of each sheet:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION--SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

B. Communications:

Exchanges of source selection information between Government and offerors will be controlled by the Contracting Officer. Email may be used to transmit such information only if the email can be sent encrypted, and must include “Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” in the subject line of the email.

Otherwise, source selection information will be transmitted via direct mailing or facsimile. In order to facilitate the sending and receiving of encrypted emails, offerors must use MS Outlook email configured to support encryption or a different email product that is S/MIME compatible and configured to support encryption. If you intend to submit your source selection information via encrypted email, you will need to contact the Buyer/Contracting Officer indicated on the face page of the solicitation prior to that first submittal in order to exchange certificates used for encryption. To ensure the process is working correctly, send a test encrypted message first (without including any source selection information).

C. Volume I, Completed RFP and Clauses:

Volume I shall consist of the completed and signed RFP with a cover letter delineating any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. However, offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined unacceptable. . Offerors shall ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information are appropriately completed, including the proposed prices associated with the contract line items in the Schedule of the RFP.

Discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306, but the Government reserves the right, in limited circumstances, to award without discussions.

Insurance Policy Approach: This acquisition will utilize an Insurance Policy approach. Insurance Policy procedures provide a means of competing the maximum practical quantity of a requirement while acquiring a mission essential quantity (MEQ) from a proven source to ensure continued mission support during validation of a new source. Each offeror proposes on two proposal schedules. The schedules completed by each offeror depend on whether the offeror is a proven or unproven source. Unproven source(s) will propose on Proposal A under Alternative 1 and on Proposal C under Alternative 2. Proven source(s) will propose on Proposal B under Alternative 1 and Proposal D under Alternative 2. All offerors shall propose on data requirements under CLIN 0021, 1021, 2021, and 3021, and all out year options. Failure to quote on Options I, II, and/or III may result in the entire proposal being found non-responsive. In order to maintain line item integrity and balanced pricing, the Government will not accept Not Separately Priced (NSP), No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” or “TBN” in the Schedule. Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are quoting to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved.

Offerors proposing under Alternative 1, Proposal A shall quote on CLINs 0001-0008, 0021, 1001-1002, 2001- 2002, & 3001-3002. Offerors proposing under Alternative 1, Proposal B shall quote on CLINs 0009, 0010, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002. Offerors proposing under Alternative 2, Proposal C shall quote on CLINs 0011-0018, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002.

Offerors proposing under Alternative 2, Proposal D shall quote on CLINs 0019-0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001- 1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002.

Under the Insurance Policy approach, three outcomes are possible:

1. A proven source is the overall best value and is awarded the full requirements contract term to include repair and production best estimated quantities for a two year basic contract period and three out-year option periods’ best estimated quantities.

2. Only unproven sources submit proposals and the full requirements contract term to include First Article repair and production units and data, the basic 2 year contract period best estimated quantities and three out-year option periods’ best estimated quantities. This is highly unlikely.

3. Both proven and unproven sources submit proposals and an unproven source is determined to be the overall best value. In this case, two requirements contracts will be awarded. One contract will be issued to the proven source for the two year basic contract period of performance for repair and production Mission Essential Quantities to ensure no lapse in pallet contract support while the overall best value unqualified source prepares and submits acceptable First Article repair and production units and ramps up to full repair and production capabilities. This contract will also include out-year options one, two, and three, which may be exercised should the unproven source fail to provide an acceptable first article repair or first article production unit within the time specified in the contract. A separate requirements contract will be issued to the unproven source for the first article repair and production units, data, and outyear options one-three, with each option including best estimated quantities for repair and production units.

Volume II is due in WR-ALC/GRVKBA, Attention: Mandy Mathews, ten (10) calendar days prior to the required due date for proposals. However, failure to submit early proposal information will not result in offeror disqualification.

D. Volume II- Present and Past Performance Factor: The offeror shall submit Present and Past Performance Information for itself and any joint venture partner, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor in accordance with the format contained in the “FACTS Sheet” (See RFP Attachment A) and the following paragraphs. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that:

Is substantially involved in the assembly/repair of pallets including the use of high temperatures and pressures to adhesively bond the exterior skins to the core material

(1) The requested present and past performance information shall be provided in a separate section (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled, "Volume II - Present and Past Performance Information." A summary page shall be provided describing the role of the offeror, joint venture partner, and each critical subcontractor (nature of work, criticality of work, and percentage of overall work). Each Offeror/joint venture partner shall complete a separate "FACTS Sheet" for each active or completed contract (with preferably at least one year of performance history) in the past five (5) years, that the offeror/joint venture partner considers relevant in demonstrating its ability to perform the proposed effort. If the total number of such contracts exceeds three (3), the offeror shall address its three (3) most recent and relevant contracts. For each critical subcontractor included in the offeror's proposal, a FACTS Sheet for three (3) of their most recent and relevant contracts shall also be included. Note: If the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (e.g., an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), only after issuance of a delivery/task order does performance occur. Given this, an individual order (or orders) under the basic ordering contract should be submitted in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. Each submitted order shall be considered a separate effort unless information is provided indicating follow-on or series of orders for continued performance of the same scope and such can be verified by the user/customer. In this event, such submitted multiple orders shall be considered as a single effort for evaluation purposes. For all submittals, the performance on efforts identified shall be restricted to those completed or ongoing during the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this RFP. The offeror's/joint venture partners’ present and past performance information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions or corporate management, if such resources will be used in the performance of the proposed effort. Contracts listed may include those with the Federal Government, state and local Governments or their agencies, and commercial customers. Offerors, joint venture partners, or critical subcontractors that are newly formed entities (in existence less than five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, may demonstrate the performance of such key personnel by submitting FACTS Sheets for three (3) of their most recent and relevant contracts under which such key personnel performed the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Note however, that the quality of the key personnel’s performance under the submitted contract must be able to be verified by the Past Performance Team in order to be considered in the assessment of confidence. Any such key personnel must already be employed by the offeror/joint venture partner or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor. In addition to the FACTS Sheets for each entity as required above, the offeror must submit a consent letter executed by each of its proposed critical subcontractors authorizing release of adverse past performance information to the prime offeror to allow the prime offeror an opportunity to respond. A sample Subcontractor/Teaming Partner Consent Form is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment 5. The consent form should be completed by the critical subcontractors identified in your proposal. The completed consent forms should be submitted as part of your Past Performance Information Volume II.

On the three (3) contracts submitted in Volume II, Present and Past Performance Information, include relevant information in the FACTS Sheet concerning the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ and critical subcontractor’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, if these Clauses are or were contained in any of the three contract efforts identified in Volume II, Present and Past Performance Information, of the offeror’s proposal. Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL businesses whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.)

When subcontracting possibilities existed on the submitted contracts, address whether or not subcontracts were awarded 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. If none of the submitted contracts included these clauses, whenever subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was your 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.

(2) The FACTS Sheet responses should clearly correlate present and past performance with the requirements of this RFP. Describe the relevance of the effort to the work proposed. The answering space on the FACTS Sheet may be expanded so that the filled-in FACTS Sheet for each relevant contract covers no more than both sides of three (3) 8 ½ x 11 inch pages. Provide the most current information for the Points of Contact (POCs) identified on the FACTS Sheets.

(3) Include two additional pages (8 1/2 x 11 pages with 0.5” margins) in spreadsheet format that simply list all contracts the offeror /joint venture partner is performing or has performed in the past ten (10) years.

Also, provide a spreadsheet on each critical subcontractor. If the list of said contracts exceeds two (2) pages per entity, only the most recent contracts ongoing/completed shall be listed. The spreadsheets do not count toward the FACTS Sheet page limitations. The purpose of the spreadsheet is to capture the total scope of work (whether or not deemed relevant to this instant RFP) that is ongoing, completed or terminated in the past five

(5) years. The Government may obtain and use performance information on any or none of these programs.

The spreadsheet(s) shall include (as a minimum) current information as follows:

Contract Number Period of Performance (Max Yrs) Max Total Est. Dollars

Stage of the Program & Brief Status Contracting Agency or Customer Phone & Fax Numbers for at Least Two POCs Brief Program Description (Include Relevancy & Qty)

(4) It is not presumed that the offeror's performance has been perfect. Rather, the proposal should contain evidence of the offeror's ability to isolate the root causes of problems and should include in their FACTS sheet a description of programs or actions taken to resolve those causes. Problems not addressed by the offeror, but found by the Government during the evaluation of the information in this volume, will be assumed to still exist.

Note: In the case of Contractor Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), if your input has already been provided and the rationale/ circumstances have not changed, DO NOT repeat them here. The Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and may use data obtained from other sources in the development of the confidence assessment. The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire, provided as an attachment to this RFP, will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s).

(5) The Present/Past Performance Questionnaire (see RFP Attachment C) will be one means used by the Government to obtain present/past performance information. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice. The offeror shall send out and track the completion of the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (See RFP Attachment C) to each of the offeror’s, joint venture partners’ and/or critical subcontractors’ (i.e, each entity’s) Points of Contact (POCs) identified in each FACTS Sheet. The responsibility to send out and track the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires rests solely with the offeror - i.e., it shall not be delegated to any other entity. The Transmittal Letter (see RFP Attachment 3) shall be used in sending out the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires. Exert your best effort to ensure that at least two POCs per relevant contract submit a completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire directly to the Government not later than that date established for receipt of proposals. POCs may submit their completed Present/Past Performance Questionnaire either electronically, by fax or by mail. If sending electronically, follow the procedures outlined in paragraph B, Communications, and email to:

Donna.Pallini@robins.af.mil and Mandy.Mathews@robins.af.mil . If mailing, mail directly to:

WR-ALC/GRVKBA

ATTN: Donna Pallini or Mandy Mathews 460 Richard Ray BLVD Robins AFB, GA 31098-1813

If mailing, the outside envelop must be marked as follows:

NOTE: TO BE OPENED BY ADDRESSEE ONLY

The completed questionnaires should be contained in a second envelope marked with the mailing address and the following legend:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION- SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

The fax number is 478-222-1854. Please have your POCs call Donna Pallini at 478-222-1955 or Mandy Mathews at 478-222-1754 before faxing their response.

Once the Present/Past Performance Questionnaires are completed by your POCs, the information contained therein shall be considered source selection sensitive and shall not be released to you, the offeror. Therefore, any exchange/contact between the offeror/joint venture partner and/or critical subcontractor and its own POCs in regards to comments made on the questionnaire is not permitted.

Questionnaires shall be sent to and best efforts made to ensure completion and submission directly back to the Government from at least two of the following (in descending order of availability):

(a) Procuring Contracting Officer/Contract Negotiator or equivalent

(b) Program/Project Manager, or equivalent

(c) Administrative Contracting Officer/Contract Administrator or equivalent

(6) In the event that commercial contracts are presented as present/past performance sources of information, a client authorization letter shall be issued to those commercial POCs authorizing/instructing them to complete a Present/Past Performance Questionnaire. A sample client authorization letter is attached to this RFP (see RFP Attachment B). The offeror is required to send the client authorization letter(s) with the Present/Past Performance Questionnaire(s) to each POC on commercial contracts. A separate copy of client authorization letter(s) for each commercial contract shall be included in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Information submission for the Government’s use in case additional questionnaires need to be sent by the Government after RFP closing.

(7) The Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the FACTS sheets or in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance Volume. The Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources.

(8) RFP Attachments A, B, and C must include the following legend at the top and bottom of the page:

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - See FAR 3.104

(d) Insurance Policy Approach: This acquisition will utilize an Insurance Policy approach. Insurance Policy procedures provide a means of competing the maximum practical quantity of a requirement while acquiring a mission essential quantity (MEQ) from a proven source to ensure continued mission support during validation of a new source. Each offeror proposes on two proposal schedules. The schedules completed by each offeror depend on whether the offeror is a proven or unproven source (i.e. qualified or unqualified). Unproven source(s) will propose on Proposal A under Alternative 1 and on Proposal C under Alternative 2. Proven source(s) will propose on Proposal B under Alternative 1 and Proposal D under Alternative 2. All offerors shall propose on data requirements under CLIN 0021 and any out year options. Out year option quantities are applicable to all proposals. Failure to quote on Options I, II, and/or III may result in the entire proposal being found non-responsive. In order to maintain line item integrity and balanced pricing, the Government will not accept Not Separately Priced (NSP), No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” or “TBN” in the Schedule. Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are quoting to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved.

Offerors proposing under Alternative 1, Proposal A shall quote on CLINs 0001-0008, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002. Offerors proposing under Alternative 1, Proposal B shall quote on CLINs 0009, 0010, 0021,1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002. Offerors proposing under Alternative 2, Proposal C shall quote on CLINs 0011-0018, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002. Offerors proposing under Alternative 2, Proposal D shall quote on CLINs 0019, 0020, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002.

(e). Volume III- Small Business Concern Participation Factor: The offeror shall submit Small Business Concern Participation Information for itself and any joint venture partner, as well as each proposed critical subcontractor, in a separate volume (i.e., 3-ring binder) labeled "Volume III – Small Business Concern

Participation”. In the performance of this resultant contract, identify the extent of participation of proposed small businesses, historically black colleges or universities and minority institutions when subcontracting possibilities exist. Identify the description of the subcontracted work these proposed firms are to perform along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracting dollars. If limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities, provide rationale for such.

NOTE: If the offeror or joint venture partner is a small business concern, the work they will be performing on this acquisition may be included when developing this Small Business Participation information.

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS 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 to include 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 a contract as a result of this solicitation. However, in utilizing the insurance policy approach, there is a possibility for two (2) awards. The Government will make a determination of acceptability or unacceptability on offerors’ small business participation volumes. For those offerors whose proposals are determined to have an acceptable Small Business Participation, tradeoffs will be made between past and present performance and cost/price. Past and present performance is considered to be approximately equal to 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 conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all the required representations and certifications, meets all the requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph B below.

Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

B. Discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306, but the Government reserves the right, in limited circumstances, to award without discussions. 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.

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

A. Past/Present Performance Factor. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that:

is involved in the assembly and production of pallets

OR

is involved in the repair of pallets

OR

provides manufactured components that represent more than 45% of the pallet assembly.

Manufacturers/suppliers who solely supply raw materials are excluded.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency 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. More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance. For purposes of this evaluation recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply:

The Government may consider an offeror’s contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the offeror’s present and past performance lend itself to this approach. For example, an offeror’s work experience on three contracts may, by definition, represent only a somewhat relevant effort when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may more accurately reflect a very relevant effort. In the relevancy definitions below, repair is defined as a depot level repair. Depot level repair requires the complete tear down and rebuild of the pallet. The core is replaced with new core material, the rails are replaced as needed, and the skins are replaced as needed, resulting in a good as new condition with no degradation of performance. The following relevancy criteria apply:

Very Relevant: Present/Past performance programs involving the complexities and most of the magnitude of effort, which are essentially what this solicitation requires.

Efforts shall include: Manufacturing and/or repairing similar size composite-core or wood-core panels/pallets in a continuous flow process using a heat-curing process to adhesively bond the core to external metal skins; repair of these panels/pallets must have consisted of a substantial core replacement and remanufacture using the same process as in production; and testing of the pallets/panels to industry standard or equivalent.

Relevant: Present/Past performance programs involving most the complexities and some magnitude of effort which this solicitation requires.

Efforts shall include: Manufacturing and/or repairing similar size composite-core or wood-core panels/pallets using a heat-curing process to adhesively bond the core to external metal skins; repair of these panels/pallets must have consisted of a partial core replacement and adhering the core to skins using the same process as in production.

Somewhat relevant: Present/past performance programs involving much less magnitude of effort and complexities including some of what this solicitation requires.

Efforts shall include: Manufacturing and/or repairing smaller size composite-core or wood-core panels/pallets with adhesively bonded core to external metal skins; or repair of panels/pallets consisting of a partial core replacement and adhering the core to skins.

Non-relevant: Present/past performance efforts did not involve any aspects of the magnitude of effort or complexities this solicitation requires.

*Composite panels include but are not limited to aircraft flooring panels and aircraft interior panels.

NOTE: OFFERORS ARE REMINDED THAT “MAGNITUDE OF EFFORT AND COMPLEXITIES” IN

THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS DENOTES NOT ONLY TECHNICAL FEATURES AND

CHARACTERISTICS IDENTIFIED, BUT ALSO PROGRAMMATIC AND LOGISTICAL

CONSIDERATIONS INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, QUANTITIES PRODUCED, MONTHLY

OUTPUT, DOLLAR VALUES, TYPE OF CONTRACT, LENGTH OF EFFORT, ETC.

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

(i). Information utilized may be obtained from the references listed in the proposal, as well as from other sources known to the Government. Past/Present performance information shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). Although provision L-900 asks the offeror to address the three (3) most relevant contracts, the Past Performance Team is not limited to review of only those three (3) submitted contracts, but may include performance information from other sources such as spreadsheet lists, questionnaires, CPARS, 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.

Evaluation of present and past performance will include consideration of overall customer satisfaction and conclusions of informed judgment.

(ii). Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture partner 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.

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

(iv). The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture partners’ contracts in the aggregate in determining relevancy, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture partners’ three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect a greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort. A joint venture partners’ three (3) contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant when each contract is considered as a stand-along effort.

However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect a greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort. The Government may consider a critical subcontractor’s submitted contracts in aggregate in this same manner if their submitted efforts were performed concurrently (in part of whole). Then considering the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ respective role and their work in aggregate as well as the critical subcontractor(s) role and their work in aggregrate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

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

Rating Definition

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.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offer 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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningfulconfidence 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.

(v). Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture partners’ (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) contracts submitted for evaluation, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture partner (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 submitted contracts included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not you utilized 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.

3. Cost/Price Proposal. The offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance.

See paragraphs (i) and (ii) below. Total Evaluated Price will be calculated in accordance with paragraph (iii) below.

(i) 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.

(ii) Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items or sub line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Section B. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iii) Total Evaluated Price: A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be calculated as follows:

a. Alternative 1, Proposal A (First Article required) will be calculated using CLINs 0001-0008, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002.

b. Alternative 1, Proposal B (First Article not required) will be calculated using CLINs 0009, 0010, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002.

c. Alternative 2, Proposal C (First Article required, Insurance Policy) will be calculated using CLINs 0011-0018, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002.

d. Alternative 2, Proposal D (First Article not required, Insurance Policy) will be calculated using CLINs 0019 – 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1001-1002, 2001-2002, & 3001-3002.

e. For CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0005, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0013, 0015, 0016, 0017, 0018, 0020, 0021, 1021, 2021, 3021, 1002, 2002, and 3002 the evaluated price will be the unit price multiplied by the specified unit (e.g. 1 LOT).

f. For CLINs 0004, 0009, 0014, 0019, 1001, 2001, & 3001, the evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price by the Evaluation Quantity (EQ), as established in Table I, for each SubCLIN/ repair category. The sum of all SubCLINs will be the evaluated price for that CLIN. The Evaluation Quantity (EQ) is established for evaluation purposes only and does not necessarily reflect the quantities that may be generated under this effort for each particular SubCLIN.

g. The sum of all the CLINs (Basic plus 3 Options) for each Proposal in each Alternative will represent the total evaluated price. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

TABLE I – Evaluation Quantities

Alternative 1 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 2

Proposal A ‐ Unproven/FA Proposal B‐ Proven/no FA Proposal C ‐ Unproven /FA Proposal D ‐ Proven/no

FA

CLIN Quantity CLIN Quantity CLIN Quantity CLIN Quantity

0004AA 1 0009AA 1 0014AA 1 0019AA 1

0004AB 1 0009AB 1 0014AB 1 0019AB 1

0004AC 1 0009AC 1 0014AC 1 0019AC 1

0004AD 1 0009AD 1 0014AD 1 0019AD 1

0004AE 1 0009AE 1 0014AE 1 0019AE 1

0004AF 1 0009AF 1 0014AF 1 0019AF 1

0004AG 1 0009AG 1 0014AG 1 0019AG 1

0004AH 2 0009AH 2 0014AH 1 0019AH 1

0004AJ 1 0009AJ 1 0014AJ 1 0019AJ 1

0004AK 1 0009AK 1 0014AK 1 0019AK 1

0004AL 1 0009AL 1 0014AL 1 0019AL 1

0004AM 1 0009AM 1 0014AM 1 0019AM 1

0004AN 1 0009AN 1 0014AN 1 0019AN 1

0004AP 170 0009AP 170 0014AP 85 0019AP 85

0004AQ 7 0009AQ 7 0014AQ 4 0019AQ 4

0004AR 3 0009AR 3 0014AR 2 0019AR 2

0004AS 1 0009AS 1 0014AS 1 0019AS 1

0004AT 6 0009AT 6 0014AT 3 0019AT 3

0004AU 32 0009AU 32 0014AU 16 0019AU 16

0004AV 63712 0009AV 63712 0014AV 31853 0019AV 31853

0004AW 2539 0009AW 2539 0014AW 1265 0019AW 1265

0004AX 3737 0009AX 3737 0014AX 1867 0019AX 1867

0004AY 220 0009AY 220 0014AY 110 0019AY 110

0004AZ 964 0009AZ 964 0014AZ 482 0019AZ 482

0004BA 593 0009BA 593 0014BA 297 0019BA 297

0004BB 1 0009BB 1 0014BB 1 0019BB 1

0004BC 1 0009BC 1 0014BC 1 0019BC 1

0008 28000 0010 28000 0018 9500 0020 9500

TOTAL 100000 TOTAL 100000 TOTAL 45500 TOTAL 45500

Outyear Option I Outyear Option II Outyear Option III CLIN Quantity CLIN Quantity CLIN Quantity

1001AA 1 2001AA 1 3001AA 1

1001AB 1 2001AB 1 3001AB 1

1001AC 1 2001AC 1 3001AC 1

1001AD 1 2001AD 1 3001AD 1

1001AE 1 2001AE 1 3001AE 1

1001AF 1 2001AF 1 3001AF 1

1001AG 1 2001AG 1 3001AG 1

1001AH 1 2001AH 1 3001AH 1

1001AJ 1 2001AJ 1 3001AJ 1

1001AK 1 2001AK 1 3001AK 1

1001AL 1 2001AL 1 3001AL 1

1001AM 1 2001AM 1 3001AM 1

1001AN 1 2001AN 1 3001AN 1

1001AP 85 2001AP 85 3001AP 85

1001AQ 4 2001AQ 4 3001AQ 4

1001AR 2 2001AR 2 3001AR 2

1001AS 1 2001AS 1 3001AS 1

1001AT 3 2001AT 3 3001AT 3

1001AU 16 2001AU 16 3001AU 16

1001AV 31853 2001AV 31853 3001AV 31853

1001AW 1265 2001AW 1265 3001AW 1265

1001AX 1867 2001AX 1867 3001AX 1867

1001AY 110 2001AY 110 3001AY 110

1001AZ 482 2001AZ 482 3001AZ 482

1001BA 297 2001BA 297 3001BA 297

1001BB 1 2001BB 1 3001BB 1

1001BC 1 2001BC 1 3001BC 1

1002 9500 2002 9500 3002 9500

TOTAL 45500 TOTAL 45500 TOTAL 45500

4. Insurance Policy Approach:

(1) The Government has determined that a break in the repair/production of this item (that is, failure to deliver due to timeliness and/or conformance) would jeopardize support to operational units' mission capability.

Additionally, the 463L pallets are of such complexity and/or so critical that first article testing measures are required for all unproven sources to ensure that the unproven source is capable of repairing and producing a conforming item. Therefore, the Government reserves the right to award the Mission Essential Quantity (MEQ) and, if necessary, Outyear Options, to a proven source should the Insurance Policy Buy be utilized and an unproven source does not provide an acceptable first article unit during the time specified in the contract.

(2) This acquisition has two possible award alternatives. If offers are received from both proven and unproven sources, the Government shall first determine the apparent best value offeror for the complete quantity under Alternative 1. If it is determined that an unproven source is the apparent best value offeror (and is also responsive and responsible), then the offers under Alternative 2 shall be evaluated. Once a decision has been made to progress to Alternative 2, offers under Alternative 1 shall no longer be considered (e.g. the Contracting Officer shall not compare the proven source's offer under Alternative 1 and the unproven source's offer under Alternative 2). In this situation, one award will be made to the unproven source and another award will be made to the proven source for the respective quantities identified in Alternative 2. If only proven sources or only unproven sources submit offers, Alternative 1 will be used to determine the best value offeror and one award will be made for that specified quantity.

(3) A proven source is an offeror who has previously satisfactorily provided the identical item or service to the Government per the criteria outlined in provision L-409.

(4) An unproven source is an offeror who has not previously satisfactorily provided the identical item or service to the Government per the criteria outlined in provision L-409.

(5) The Government is under no obligation to place orders against the BEQs set forth in the schedule or to exercise any options provided for under these procedures. Acceptable delivery of the basic award quantity by an unproven source shall not bind the Government to place additional orders for production quantities.