Attachment10_SectionMFinal.pdf

Section M. Evaluation Factors 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. Tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered approximately equal to cost/price.

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 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 (SST’s) evaluations of the factors and sub-factors 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 and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II 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 Amendment to the solicitation/contract.

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. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture/teaming 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/teaming members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products 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. A subcontractor teaming member's past performance will only be evaluated in accordance with 13 C.F.R. 125.2(g). For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past six (6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement. 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) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

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

a. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance

Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s 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.

b. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture/teaming 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.

c. Critical Subcontractors/Subcontractors: The evaluation WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s), vendors, or suppliers even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

d. Key Personnel: The evaluation 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 delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, the offeror shall have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and total quantity produced for each order in the series.

• The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a

Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the

Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

• The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total

Quantity Produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, and Total Quantity Produced for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph II.C.4 Note below.

As explained in Evaluation Factors for Award, paragraph II.C.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, and Total Quantity Produced of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Evaluation Factors for Award, 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 (3) 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 II of its proposal:

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 either:

The design and complete manufacture of a heavy-duty, commercially available aircraft tow tractors that have a Gross Vehicle Weight (GVW) of 8,000 lbs or greater and a Drawbar Pull (DBP) of 4,500 lbs or greater, or

The design and complete manufacture of a special purpose vehicle that involved the modification of a commercial truck chassis to obtain a smaller turning radius by shortening the chassis wheelbase.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have included either:

The design and complete manufacture of powered (engine-driven), commercially available Ground Support Equipment (GSE) vehicles such as aircraft servicing trucks, staircase trucks, or box-van delivery trucks, utilizing a commercial truck chassis that has been designed and/or modified to accept additional equipment, or

The depot-level disassembly (complete dismantle), overhaul, and complete remanufacture of a heavy-duty vehicle such as an aircraft tow tractor or loader.

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 the manufacture of heavy-duty, commercially available trucks or tractors, but not necessarily aircraft tow tractors.

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Offerors are reminded that “magnitude of effort and complexities” in the above definitions denotes not only technical features and characteristics but also programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantities produced, dollar values, and duration of contract length.

Definitions:

Design: Plan or specification for the construction of an object or system or for the implementation of an activity or process, or the result of that plan or specification in the form of a prototype, product or process.

Complete manufacture: The manufacture of a complete vehicle, not just subsystems alone. At a minimum, manufacture shall be the assembly of all subparts into a complete vehicle, which may or may not include the fabrication of subparts.

Overhaul and complete remanufacture: Includes disassembling, inspecting, cleaning, and repairing (resurfacing as applicable, replacing expendables, fabricating as needed, refinishing, reassembling and adjusting) components of subsystems to return used vehicles to “zero-hour” or like-new condition. Overhaul and complete remanufacture for this effort shall include no less than three of the following subsystems:

(1) hydraulic system (typically part of the steering systems and/or brake systems and consisting of fittings, hard and flexible hose piping, manifolds, regulators, relays, servos, valves, accumulators, filters, cylinders, coolers, and pumps)

(2) power train system components including diesel engines, automatic transmissions, and drive axles

(3) cooling system components including radiators, water pumps, control valves, heater cores, charge-air coolers

(4) electronic control systems to monitor and control powertrains and antilock braking systems

(5) vehicle suspension systems including springs, bushings, ball joints, steering linkages and joints, isolators, and mounts

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

• Quantities: Class A(4x2) BEQ: 450; Class B(4x4) BEQ: 150

• Duration of Time: 6 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.

5. Quality of Performance: As described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.304(c)(2), the past performance evaluation shall evaluate quality of performance. The Government will assess the past performance quality of recent efforts that demonstrate some level of relevancy, as discussed above. The Government reserves the right to utilize any and all available means to obtain quality of performance information including, but not limited to, CPARS, DCMA records, questionnaire responses, interviews, etc. In terms of available CPARS, the Government reserves the right to conduct follow up interviews with CPARS reviewing officials as well as any current effort points of contact regarding trends in the performance. Further, the Government will make an independent determination on quality of performance; the Government will not be bound by any ratings identified in questionnaires, interviews or CPARS, but will take into account the ratings provided as well as the narratives and gathered information to make an independent determination. The Government’s quality assessment will not result in a separate quality rating; instead, the quality assessment will result in an overarching narrative assessment discussing identified ratings (CPARS, questionnaires, etc), narratives, and the Government team’s independent assessment.

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’ with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns when this clause was contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture/teaming member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture/teaming 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.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture/teaming members included this 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.

7. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The Government will evaluate the submitted efforts, as well as any efforts independently identified by the Government, for three aspects: recency, relevancy and quality of performance. These aspects will be evaluated in a sequential manner, as follows: Each effort will be evaluated for recency, as defined above. For those efforts determined recent, they will be evaluated for relevancy. Should an effort be determined not recent, no further evaluation of that effort will take place. For those efforts determined to have some level of relevancy (i.e., at least a Somewhat Relevant assigned), they will be evaluated for quality of performance. Should an effort be determined not relevant, no further evaluation of that effort will take place. Quality of performance will be evaluated via questionnaire responses from customer points of contact, telephone interviews conducted with customer points of contact, review of available CPARS, etc., as discussed above. Should the Government be unable to obtain quality of performance information for any effort (i.e., no questionnaires returned, customer points of contact unresponsive, no CPARS available, etc.), that effort will not be considered as a part of the confidence assessment rating.

Adjectival 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

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will 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.

8. Cost/Price Proposal Factor: The offeror’s proposed prices provided in Attachment G

Spreadsheet will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in accordance with paragraphs A and B below, and a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph C below. 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” in

Schedule B of the RFP. Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items, where the quantity of one (1) is specified, the quantity of one (1) should be used.

A. 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 competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.404 may be required to support the proposed prices.

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

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP), the price of one or more contract line items or sub-line items (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) an 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 may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, because acceptance of the proposal could result in advance payment. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Proposed prices will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and/or quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Attachment G of the RFP.

Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price for the CLINs as outlined below in both the Basic and Option periods. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices for the identified CLINS below will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the following CLINs will be calculated as explained in the following paragraphs.

FLIGHT LINE TOW TRACTOR CLIN STRUCTURE

CLIN

Description

CLIN

Type

0001 Flight Line Tow Tractor Pre-Production Unit/First Article FFP 0002 Test Procedures FFP 0003 Test and Inspection Report FFP 0004 Class A (4x2) Flight Line Tow Tractor (First Article Required) FFP 0005 Class B (4x4) Flight Line Tow Tractor (First Article Required) FFP 0006 Class A (4x2) Flight Line Tow Tractor (First Article Not Required) FFP 0007 Class B (4x4) Flight Line Tow Tractor (First Article Not Required) FFP 0008 Air Systems for Towing C-5 Trailers FFP 0009 Manufacturers Standard Commercial Color NSP 0010 Manufacturers Commercial Gloss White NSP 0011 Coast Guard Blue Paint (Color 15182) NSP

0012 Corrosion Prevention Compound (CPC) FFP 0013 Heavy Winterization Package, Type A FFP 0014 Technical Report Study/Services (Service Bulletins) FFP 0015 Product Baseline Index FFP 0016 Engineering Change Proposal NSP 0017 Request for Variance NSP 0018 Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TCMR) FFP 0019 Non-Recurring Cost Associated with L/I 0001 Generic Masters FFP 0020 Notice of Revision (NOR) NSP 0021 System Safety Program Plan NSP 0022 Monthly Status Report NSP 0023 System Safety Hazard Analysis Report NSP 0024 Conference Minutes NSP 0025 Conference Agenda NSP 0026 Cyber Technical Report Study Service FFP 0027 DoD Risk Management Framework FFP 0028 Standard Commercial Warranty NSP 1001 Class A (4x2) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 1002 Class B (4x4) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 1003 Air Systems for Towing C-5 Trailers FFP 1004 Manufacturers Standard Commercial Color NSP 1005 Manufacturers Commercial Gloss White NSP 1006 Coast Guard Blue Paint (Color 15182) NSP 1007 Corrosion Prevention Compound (CPC) FFP 1008 Heavy Winterization Package, Type A FFP 2001 Class A (4x2) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 2002 Class B (4x4) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 2003 Air Systems for Towing C-5 Trailers FFP 2004 Manufacturers Standard Commercial Color NSP 2005 Manufacturers Commercial Gloss White NSP 2006 Coast Guard Blue Paint (Color 15182) NSP 2007 Corrosion Prevention Compound (CPC) FFP 2008 Heavy Winterization Package, Type A FFP 3001 Class A (4x2) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 3002 Class B (4x4) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 3003 Air Systems for Towing C-5 Trailers FFP 3004 Manufacturers Standard Commercial Color NSP 3005 Desert Sand Paint NSP 3006 Coast Guard Blue Paint (Color 15182) NSP 3007 Corrosion Prevention Compound (CPC) FFP 3008 Heavy Winterization Package, Type A FFP 4001 Class A (4x2) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 4002 Class B (4x4) Flight Line Tow Tractor Trucks FFP 4003 Air Systems for Towing C-5 Trailers FFP

4004 Manufacturers Standard Commercial Color NSP 4005 Manufacturers Commercial Gloss White NSP 4006 Coast Guard Blue Paint (Color 15182) NSP 4007 Corrosion Prevention Compound (CPC) FFP 4008 Heavy Winterization Package, Type A FFP

a. For price proposals that do not have quantity ranges for any CLINs: The Government will multiply the identified quantity by the proposed unit price to obtain an evaluated price for each CLIN (and Sub-CLIN).

b. For price proposals that have quantity ranges for any CLINs: The Government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range and then sum all ranges to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN (and Sub-CLIN).

c. The sum of all CLIN’s evaluated prices (Basic Year and all Options) will represent the total evaluated price.

d. Offerors are required to price all CLINS, unless designated Not Separately Priced (NSP).

All unit prices shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

Pictured below is an example of RFP Attachment G. 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 Qty Unit Price Total Price

0001 1 EA $100 $100

0002 1 LO $100 $100

0003 1 LO $100 $100

An example of a Quantity Range calculation is as follows:

QUANTITY RANGE EXAMPLE

CLIN From To Quantity per Range

Unit Price Total Price

X00X 1 10 10 $100 $1,000 11 30 20 $90 $1,800 31 60 30 $85 $2,550

Total Evaluated Price for CLIN X00X $5,350