DRAFTAttachment_2_Section_M.pdf

RFP FA8552-22-R-0005

SSP ATTACHMENT 5

SECTION M- PROVISION – EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. Offeror’s proposals shall be evaluated in accordance with Section M, paragraph II below.

For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to 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. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section M, paragraph II below.

II. Proposal Evaluation:

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government will consider all offerors that submit timely initial proposal submittals to be within the initial competitive range for purposes of opening discussions promptly after the RFP closes. As a streamlining technique, discussions will be considered formally opened one week after the RFP closes.

Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5).

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. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical o Subfactor 1: CBM+ Working Group / Helicopter Subject Matter Expertise o Subfactor 2: Cybersecurity Expertise for HUMS On-board System and Ground Station

System o Subfactor 3: HUMS On-board System Subject Matter Expertise o Subfactor 4: ASIP Tool Development Capabilities

DRAFT

o Subfactor 5: Understanding of Technical Performance Requirements Factor II. Past Performance Factor III: Price

a. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and price, with past performance considered approximately equal to price. Factor I, Technical will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis; therefore, it will not be a part of the tradeoff decision. Within Factor I, Technical, all subfactors are equal in importance.

3. Evaluation Process:

Gating:

Gate 1: An RFP compliance review will be conducted for all offerors that submit a timely initial proposal submittal. Upon proposal receipt, the Government-estimated hours and/or dollar values shall be applied to the offeror’s proposal in order to calculate the total proposed price (TPP) for the IDIQ Contract proposal.

All compliant proposals received in a timely manner (before or on the solicitation closing/proposal response date) will be ranked from lowest to highest TPP. The three (3) offerors with the lowest TPP will progress into Gate 2.

Gate 2: A technical evaluation will be conducted for the three (3) offerors with the lowest TPP. All offerors evaluated and determined to have technically acceptable technical proposals will progress into Gate 3. All offerors evaluated and determined to have a technically unacceptable technical proposals will remain in Gate 2.

Gate 3: A past performance evaluation and a complete cost/price evaluation will be conducted for all offerors that progress into Gate 3. All offerors within Gate 3 evaluated with reasonable, balanced, and realistic prices will progress into Gate 4. All offerors within Gate 3 evaluated with unreasonable, unbalanced, and/or unrealistic prices will remain in Gate 3.

It is the Government’s intention to re-establish the competitive range upon conclusion of Gate 3 evaluations. However, this does not preclude the Government’s right to re-establish/re-determine the competitive range at any time during the source selection in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and FAR 15.306(d)(5). All offerors that do not meet the applicable exit criteria for Gates 1, 2, and 3 will be eliminated from the competitive range, and no further proposal revisions or submittals will be accepted for evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3), FAR 15.306(d)(5) and FAR 15.307(a).

Gate 4: All offerors within Gate 4 will receive a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request in accordance with FAR 15.307(b). All offerors that submit a timely FPR and are evaluated as still meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1, 2, and 3 will meet the Gate 4 exit criteria and move into Gate 5. Offerors that do not submit a timely FPR or the offeror’s FPR is evaluated as no longer meeting the exit criteria for Gates 1, 2, and/or 3 will remain in Gate 4.

Gate 5: The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and the evaluation criteria established in the evaluation factors for award.

NOTE: The Government reserves the right to reopen the Gating process at any stage to ensure a reasonable pool of offerors is presented to the SSA for an award decision. Upon the conclusion of any gate’s evaluations, if the number of offerors identified as meeting the exit criteria for that gate is determined to not be a reasonable pool of offerors, the Government reserves the right to “reach back” to previous gates to continue discussions with offerors to bring them forward. The determination of a reasonable pool of offerors is within the Government’s discretion, and cannot be defined upfront due to the inherent subjective nature of the tradeoff process.

NOTE: The proposed pricing for Sample Task Order 3 (Task Order 1 (TO1)) will not be considered in the TEP calculation that will be used in the gating process.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. General: Volume I, Completed RFP/Technical Proposal shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP, to include any amendments issued, are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter delineates the following:

Any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions with accompanying rationale.

Any assumptions based on the RFP Small Business status/categories Company primary and alternate points of contact with email/phone and who is authorized to contractually obligate the company CAGE Code, DUNS number Teaming arrangement information including the roles of team members, dates of agreement, and a copy of the signed joint venture agreement (if applicable).

All “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required

The Government intends to award after discussions. The offerors are cautioned that any noncompliance with the terms and conditions of the RFP may cause their proposal to be determined not eligible for award.

2. Total Compensation Plan: The total compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this total compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

C. Volume II Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror's written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of Performance Based Work Statement (PWS) (including any revisions), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements, included associated risks. The technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

A. Subfactor One – CBM+ Working Group / Helicopter Subject Matter Expertise The offeror’s proposal, consisting of a narrative (L.II.C.2.1.A) and sample task submittal (Sample Task 3 in paragraph 2.1.3 below), shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements in their narrative. Specifically, the offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to develop materials in support of weekly CBM+ Working Group meetings with field maintainers and the SPO and provide helicopter SME support leveraging HUMS and helicopter experience to assist field maintainers. These tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Developing Concepts of Operations (CONOPs) and leading a Condition-Based Maintenance Plus (CBM+) working group: PWS para. 4.3.1

ii. Remote support to SPO and field maintainers using IVHMS and other HUMS to troubleshoot aircraft issues: PWS para. 4.3.1, 4.3.2

iii. Successful correlation of IVHMS and other HUMS data to the health of aircraft components and/or systems: PWS para. 4.3.4

The standard for Subfactor One is met when the offeror provides a written narrative that adequately describes the offeror’s approach to meet CBM+ Working Group / Helicopter Subject Matter Expertise.

B. Subfactor Two – Cybersecurity Expertise for HUMS On-board System and Ground Station System

The offeror’s proposal, consisting of a narrative (L.II.C.2.1.B) and sample task submittal (Sample Task 2 in paragraph 2.1.2 below), shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to lead and fulfill the Risk Management Framework (RMF) requirements and implementation for the HUMS On-board System and the Ground Station System. Specifically, these tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Coordinating DoD RMF-driven reviews and approvals for HUMS ground station systems (hardware and software) and on-board system configurations: PWS para. 4.3.7, 4.3.8

ii. Configuring secured and approved ground station software for USAF helicopters in accordance with the DoD RMF process: PWS para. 4.3.8

iii. Configuring and deploying secured and approved HUMS ground station systems (hardware and software) to helicopter maintainers in accordance with the DoD RMF process: PWS para.

4.3.8

The standard for Subfactor Two is met when the offeror provides a written narrative that adequately describes the offeror’s approach to meet Subfactor Two.

C. Subfactor Three – HUMS On-board System Subject Matter Expertise The offeror’s proposal, consisting of a narrative (L.II.C.2.1.C) and sample task submittal (Sample Task 2 in paragraph 2.1.2 below), shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to provide HUMS SME support to the SPO and field maintainers as directed by the SPO. Specifically, these tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Troubleshooting wiring issues associated with the IVHMS sensors and data feeds: PWS para.

4.3.1, 4.3.5

ii. Support to helicopter safety investigations, including extraction of Cockpit Voice Flight Data recorder (CVFDR) data: PWS para. 4.3.11

iii. Modifying onboard systems software configuration files for the Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS): PWS para. 4.3.7

The standard for Subfactor Three is met when the offeror provides a written narrative that adequately describes the offeror’s approach to meet Subfactor Three.

D. Subfactor Four – ASIP Tool Development Capabilities The offeror’s proposal, consisting of a narrative (L.II.C.2.1.D) and sample task submittal (Sample Task 1 in paragraph 2.1.1 below), shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s capabilities to provide tools leveraging HUMS parametric data for the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). Specifically, these tasks include the following which shall be addressed in the offeror’s proposal:

i. Developing and deploying validated offboard regime recognition: PWS para. 4.3.5

ii. Validated automated detection of structurally significant hard landings with parameter analysis other than the IVHMS onboard system detection: PWS para. 4.3.3

iii. Developing, validating, and deploying algorithms to post-process HUMS data and estimate the gross weight throughout a flight: PWS para. 4.3.3

The standard for Subfactor Four is met when the offeror provides a written narrative that adequately describes the offeror’s approach to meet Subfactor Four.

E. Subfactor Five – Understanding of Technical Performance Requirements The offeror’s proposal, consisting of a narrative (L.II.C.2.1.E) and sample task submittals (Sample Task 1 in paragraph 2.1.1 and Sample Task 2 in paragraph 2.1.2 below), shall address each of the following performance requirements, as mandated in the PWS and identify how their proposed approach meets these requirements. Specifically, the offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of the technical performance requirements and the offeror’s capabilities to provide:

i. Analyzing fleet component failure analysis and correlation with IVHMS data: PWS para.

4.3.3

ii. Developing source data for Technical Order (TO) changes that improve maintenance practices, maintenance tasks and flight operations procedures: PWS para. 4.3.4

The standard for Subfactor Five is met when the offeror provides a written narrative that adequately describes the offeror’s approach to meet Subfactor Five.

2.1.1 Sample Task 1 - HUMS Engineering Tools

Scenario Background: The UH-1N has a newly installed HUMS. To support the System Program Office (SPO) engineering sustainment efforts, it is necessary to utilize some data collected by HUMS for the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP). ASIP requires the following:

Time-sequenced offboard regime recognition for use in dynamic component fatigue analysis and crack growth analysis from every flight captured by the MSPU.

Gross weight estimation throughout each flight using the HUMS parametric data Automated anomaly detection capabilities (e.g., counts of extreme maneuvers, structurally significant hard landings, etc.)

Scenario Assumptions:

1. To date there are 120 flights captured by the USAF’s UH-1N HUMS with valid flight data.

2. The USAF will provide for reference OEM-approved parametric L/ESS data files from the TH-

1H and Scripted Flight Cards that contain all prescribed regimes necessary.

3. Sufficient parameters and data capture rates for regime recognition are captured by the UH-1N

HUMS.

4. Other USAF support and data available includes Technical Orders, HUMS data, engineering review of reports, and PM / engineering participation in Technical Interchange Meetings.

5. The aircrews do not have the capability to store takeoff gross weight in the HUMS and do not retain historical records from the Form F, so other means are needed for gross weight estimation.

Scenario Task you will Estimate:

You are tasked to develop a toolset, which shall leverage the HUMS data for ASIP and shall provide:

Matlab or other script that can be run on USAF SDC that provides time-sequenced offboard regime recognition for every flight captured by the MSPU.

Matlab or other script that can be run on USAF SDC that provides gross weight estimation throughout each flight using the HUMS parametric data. Gross weight estimation must be shown through the validation and verification process to be accurate to within +/- 400 lbs

Automated anomaly detection capabilities (e.g., counts of extreme maneuvers, structurally significant hard landings, etc.) that can process multiple HUMS data files and provide output of anomalies for engineering review.

Submission for this sample task:

Provide a labor hour estimate by labor category, lists of major material descriptions (if applicable), and travel descriptions (if applicable). Provide project schedule, including major milestones and depictions of sub-tasks. Provide a narrative describing your understanding of the task, the work to be performed, your proposed approach for executing this task, risks, and the expected product and results. Finally, provide any expectations of support or data needed from the government not listed above.

Subfactors to address: Four and Five

Format of sample task submission: See Attachment 3.

The standard for Sample Task 1 is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates 1) the labor skill mix, materials descriptions, travel descriptions, project schedule, understanding of the task and work to be performed, task execution approach, risks, and the expected product and results; and 2) further demonstrates sound CBM+ practices, engineering methods, and program planning.

2.1.2 Sample Task 2 - IVHMS Cyber for GSS and SME for OBS

Scenario Background: The CONOPS for HH-60G HUMS includes Ground Station System (GSS) laptops and servers at operational units. The current GSS equipment can no longer support USAF cybersecurity standards for hardware and software end of life and will need to be replaced under the RMF process. In addition, changes to the onboard system (OBS) software configuration of the IVHMS are required to remove sensitive parametric data.

Scenario Assumptions:

1. Ten (10) operational units will require new GSS hardware and software that have an approved

ATO and ATC under the RMF.

2. No prior ATO or ATC has been approved for the GSS.

3. OBS software is Block 5.0C1

4. USAF support and data available includes Technical Orders, sample IVHMS data, personnel

(ISSM, PM, ISO, ISSE, SCAR, SCA, AODR, and AO) for the RMF roles, engineering review of reports, and PM / engineering participation in Technical Interchange Meetings.

Scenario Task you will Estimate:

The SPO requires your company to provide:

Leadership in the RMF process for approving a new GSS The ISSO and Lead Engineer for the effort Modify and deploy the IVHMS onboard system configuration, removing two (2) sensitive parameters currently stored with each flight. For this update, no physical wiring changes can be made to the aircraft.

Submission for this sample task:

Provide a labor hour estimate by labor category, lists of major material descriptions (if applicable), and travel descriptions (if applicable). Provide project schedule, including major milestones and depictions of sub-tasks. Provide a narrative describing your understanding of the task, the work to be performed, your proposed approach for executing this task, risks, and the expected product and results. Finally, provide any expectations of support or data needed from the government not listed above.

Subfactors to address: Two, Three and Five

Format of sample task submission: See Attachment 3.

The standard for Sample Task 2 is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates 1) the labor skill mix, materials descriptions, travel descriptions, project schedule, understanding of the task and work to be performed, task execution approach, risks, and the expected product and results; and 2) further demonstrates sound CBM+ practices, engineering methods, and program planning.

2.1.3 Sample Task 3 - Weekly CBM Working Group, HH-60G

Note: This sample task is awardable and will serve as Task Order 1 to the selected offeror on the basis of the response provided in this technical proposal sample task response.

Scenario Background:

The Contractor will execute portions of PWS paragraph 4.3.1 for twelve (12) months as follows. The Contractor shall make provisions for receipt, storage, and review of Integrated Vehicle Health Management System (IVHMS) data from eighty-two (82) HH-60G aircraft for evaluations and analysis.

The Contractor shall provide recurring review of HUMS data from the fleet for notable issues identifiable with the IVHMS (e.g. vibration threshold exceedances, hard landings, sensor failures, caution lights, etc.).

New data provided from the field users shall be reviewed in no more than seven calendar (7) days from the time of receipt. The Contractor shall perform weekly IVHMS valid data capture rate reviews to determine missing data, captured data quality, discrepant parameters, and communicate a summary of the findings among the Integrated Product Team (IPT) and affected operating unit points of contact (POCs).

Issues with data quality or the aircraft’s condition shall be communicated with the System Program Office (SPO) and field users no later than the following business day. Contractor shall host a weekly USAF CBM Working Group conference call for 45-60 minutes. The call shall review new findings from IVHMS data, status of previous findings / associated maintenance actions, data capture rate for each operational unit comparing unit’s sortie records to IVHMS generated files, and address any concerns from the field regarding IVHMS usage or associated logistics. The Contractor shall provide Subject Matter Experts (SME) remote data/engineering support for field maintainers using IVHMS to troubleshoot a helicopter’s track and balance, vibration absorber tuning, shaft balancing, and wiring.

Scenario Assumptions:

1. Eighty-two (82) HH-60G aircraft are in operation for the twelve (12) month period.

2. IVHMS data will be provided to the contractor through a CAC-enabled website for download and review.

3. CBM Working Group will be hosted by the contractor over the USAF CHES MS Teams platform, and take one (1) hour beginning at 1400 Eastern each Wednesday.

4. CBM Working Group will discussion will be guided with a presentation showing an IVHMS new findings, previous findings, data quality issues, and data capture rates. Additional files reviewed shall include Running Action Item List (RAIL) for user review, and a Watch List tracking findings from initiation to closure.

Tasks for which you will provide an official Quote (Sample Task 3 Proposal):

The SPO requires your company to provide:

Fleet data review for hard landings using better algorithms than the onboard system Technical and engineering review of the fleet flight data provided by IVHMS.

SME support for advising units and troubleshooting issues identified by the IVHMS on the HH-

60G fleet Leadership and hosting of the weekly CBM working group data reviews CBM Working group data summarized in .pptx format.

RAIL and Watch List provided in .xlsx format.

Quarterly Technical Interchange Meetings (TIMs) at the SPO facilities at Robins AFB, GA, to review significant trends and suggestions for fleet maintenance improvements.

Submission for this sample task:

Provide a labor hour estimate by labor category, lists of major material descriptions (if applicable), and travel descriptions (if applicable). Provide project schedule, including major milestones and depictions of sub-tasks. Provide a narrative describing your understanding of the task, the work to be performed, your proposed approach for executing this task, risks, and the expected product and results. Finally, provide any expectations of support or data needed from the government not listed above.

Subfactors to address: One

Format of sample task submission: See RFP Attachment 3 (Technical Volume)

The standard for Sample Task 3 is met when the offeror adequately demonstrates 1) the labor skill mix, materials descriptions, travel descriptions, project schedule, understanding of the task and work to be performed, task execution approach, risks, and the expected product and results; and 2) further demonstrates sound CBM+ practices, engineering methods, and program planning.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the subfactor ratings. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume II, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s and joint venture members’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five (5) years, with at least one year of performance history, from the issuance date of this solicitation. The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance 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.

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 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) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a 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, in lieu of the basic ordering contract, the offeror shall have provided the total period of performance and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

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 look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The Total Period of Performance and Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.D.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

3.2 Programmatic/Logistical Evaluation of an Order or Series of Orders: The Total Period of Performance and Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables of the Order or Series of Orders will be evaluated against the Expected Magnitude and Complexities established in Section M Paragraph 4.1 below.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent submitted contracts (up to a total of three (3) submitted efforts). 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 all of the following:

Served as SME for CBM, helicopter, and HUMS; used HUMS systems for CBM support on US military helicopters

Developed engineering tools to satisfy requirements of ASIP (MIL-STD-1530) or RSIP (MIL-

STD-3063)

Developed and delivered local desktop HUMS data analysis software in use by fleet managers Served as ISSO and Lead Engineer in RMF process for military-fielded HUMS Ground Stations Successfully modified HUMS onboard system software configuration for military helicopter, performed lab testing, and obtained approval for flight

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:

Served as SME for helicopter and HUMS; used HUMS systems for CBM support on US and/or FMS military helicopters

Developed engineering tools to satisfy airworthiness requirements for helicopter fleet management

Developed and delivered local desktop HUMS data analysis software used by fleet managers or field maintainers

Served as support in RMF process for military-fielded HUMS Ground Stations Successfully modified HUMS onboard system software configuration for military or commercial helicopter and performed lab testing

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:

Served as SME for HUMS; used HUMS systems for CBM support on military or commercial helicopters.

Developed engineering tools to provide insight into helicopter fleet management Developed and delivered local desktop HUMS data analysis software for use by fleet managers or field maintainers Served as support in RMF process for military-fielded HUMS Ground Stations or commercial equivalent to RMF process for HUMS Ground Stations.

Successfully modified HUMS onboard system software configuration for military or commercial helicopter

Not Relevant - Present/Past performance effort involves little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to length of effort and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of 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 may be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets similar technical complexities, but involves little or none of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a relevancy rating of NOT RELEVANT may be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition. They are as follows:

4.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Duration of Time: 5 Years is expected for this contract; however, for purposes of relevancy, efforts shall demonstrate a minimum of one (1) year of performance

Type of Data Deliverables: Briefings of Fleet-wide Aircraft Condition, Test Plans, Test Procedures, Test Reports, Monthly Status Reports, engineering software tools, Department of Defense (military style) technical data package creation (source data for technical orders/manuals/commercial manuals) are expected for this contract. However, for purposes of relevancy, efforts shall demonstrate submittal of any of these types of data deliverables.

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

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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

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

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)).

6. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns,. That is, on the up to three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member 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.

D. Volume IV, Cost/Price

1. Factor 3: Cost/Price

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume IV Cost/Price Proposal, for reasonableness, balance, and cost realism. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which will include an aggregate calculation of the Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Cost CLINs in the IDIQ Contract Award proposal, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority (SSA) for consideration in making the best value determination. Cost/Price will not receive an adjectival rating. The Government will evaluate each offeror’s cost/price proposal using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

The offeror’s (Prime and Major Subcontractor’s) proposed unit costs/prices in RFP Attachment 9, CBM+ Excel Cost Model, will be evaluated for reasonableness, balance, cost realism, and TEP/MPC calculation in accordance with Paragraphs A, B, C, and D below. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

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, such as cost analysis.

B. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, the cost/price of one or more contract line items or sub-line items (basic and all ordering periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost/price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN cost/price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or unit costs/prices between program years, (b) unit costs/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/price 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 unit costs/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 RFP Attachment 9, Excel Price Model. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C. Cost Realism: Cost realism is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror. Accordingly, proposals will be evaluated to assess the likelihood that the proposed technical and managerial approach can successfully accomplish the SOW at the competitively proposed cost for cost type CLINs. Cost Realism may also be used in performance of technical risk assessments and responsibility determinations. For the IDIQ Contract Award proposal, the Government will perform cost realism analyses on the CPFF and CRNF CLINs’ proposed rates and add-on factor(s) for CLINs X001

– X012 and X019 – X030.

For cost-type CLINs, the result of cost realism analysis is the MPC. The MPC estimate is the Government estimate of the cost to acquire specified goods and/or services based on each offeror’s proposed approach. The MPC is based upon an analysis of each offeror’s unique proposal in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. MPC will be used in making a determination of best value. The overall evaluated MPC includes the likely cost to the Government for all cost CLINs (basic and all ordering periods).

D. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

a. For the IDIQ Contract Award: The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. It will be calculated by adding together the evaluated price/cost or most probable cost for the CLINs as outlined below in both all basic and ordering periods. The sum of the evaluated prices for CLINs X001-X012 and X019-X030 will represent the TEP. The evaluated prices for each of the aforementioned CLINs will be calculated as explained in the following paragraphs.

i. CLINs X001-X012 and X019-X030 (CPFF): The evaluated price for each CLIN will be calculated as explained below.

a. The Government will calculate the adjusted rates via cost realism analysis. The Government has identified the total estimated hours per year for budgetary purposes. The Government will multiply the adjusted burdened labor rates by the Government-estimated allocations of labor hours. Additionally, the Government will multiply the adjusted material add-on rate(s) by the Government-estimated material cost.

i. For CLINs X001 – X006 and X019 – X030, the Government will add the labor dollars and proposed fixed fee to calculate the evaluated CLIN price.

ii. For CLINs X007 – X012, the Government will add the Government-estimated material cost and indirect costs to calculate the evaluated CLIN price.

ii. CLINs X013-X018 (CRNF) – Travel and Per Diem shall be cost reimbursable and shall not be used in calculating the TEP as referenced in Section L.

iii. The TEP as calculated for the IDIQ Contract Award Proposal will be used as the TEP for purposes of the cost/price evaluation as noted in Gate 3.

iv. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar. If the offeror does not round the values to the nearest whole dollar, the Government shall implement rounding; the Government-adjusted value shall represent the evaluated CLIN price.

2. As stated above, the TEP for this effort will be based on the IDIQ Contract Award proposal. The Sample Task 3 proposal will not be considered in the TEP. Once an apparent awardee is determined, only that offeror’s Sample Task 3 proposal will be reviewed by the Government prior to making the contract award to ensure compliance with the Sample Task 3 scope.

Pictured below is an example excerpted from RFP Attachment 9 CBM+ Excel Cost Model. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only, and not a total of all contract periods. The Government estimated dollars, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. While the CLIN structure below is included in the RFP, the actual total requirements may vary from the example below. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.

Below is an example of how individual CPFF CLINs are calculated:

The calculations in the example above applies to CLINs X001‐X012 and X019‐X030

Below is an example of how individual material CPNF CLINs are calculated:

The calculations in the example above applies to CLINs X007‐X012

COST/PRICE ELEMENT HOURS/BASE RATES Labor Totals

DIRECT LABOR RATES, BURDENED THROUGH TOTAL COST Total Labor Hours

Administrative Support I 300 5$ 1,500$

Administrative Support II 230 10$ 2,300$

Program Manager 230 5$ 1,150$

HUMS Subject Matter Expert 564 10$ 5,640$

Helicopter Subject Matter Expert 525 5$ 2,625$

CBM Subject Matter Expert 505 10$ 5,050$

Technician 400 5$ 2,000$

Senior Technician 200 10$ 2,000$

Specialist I 200 5$ 1,000$

Specialist II 129 10$ 1,290$

Specialist III 150 5$ 750$

Specialist IV 332 10$ 3,320$

Engineer/Scientist I 300 5$ 1,500$

Engineer/Scientist II 250 10$ 2,500$

Engineer/Scientist III 250 5$ 1,250$

Engineer/Scientist IV 235 10$ 2,350$

Engineer/Scientist V 230 5$ 1,150$

Engineer/Scientist VI 225 10$ 2,250$

Engineer/Scientist VII 220 5$ 1,100$

Engineer/Scientist VIII 215 10$ 2,150$

Engineer/Scientist IX 210 5$ 1,050$

Total Hours 5,900 43,925$

FIXED FEE 8.00% 3,514.00$

CLIN 0001 TOTAL 47,439.00$

COST/PRICE ELEMENT HOURS/BASE RATES

MATERIAL ADD‐ON FACTORS Government Estimate

Direct Material Estimate 500.00$

Material Handling 25.00$ 5.00%

Material Cost of Money (COM) 25.00$ 5.00%

CLIN 0007 TOTAL 550.00$

Below is an example of how TEP will be calculated:

The remaining Ordering Periods’ TEPs will be calculated in the same way.

CLIN Description Contract Type BASE FIXED FEE CLIN TOTALS

X001 HH‐60 Engineering Services (ACC) CPFF 47,439.00$ 3,795.12$ 51,234.12$

X002 HH‐60 Engineering Services (AFRC) CPFF 47,439.00$ 3,795.12$ 51,234.12$

X003 HH‐60 Engineering Services (ANG) CPFF 47,439.00$ 3,795.12$ 51,234.12$

X004 TH‐1H Engineering Services (AETC) CPFF 47,439.00$ 3,795.12$ 51,234.12$

X005 MH‐139 Enginering Services (AETC) CPFF 47,439.00$ 3,795.12$ 51,234.12$

X006 UH‐1N Engineering Services (AFGSC) CPFF 47,439.00$ 3,795.12$ 51,234.12$

X007 HH‐60 Material, Subcontracting, and Other Direct Costs (ACC) CRNF 550.00$ 550.00$

X008 HH‐60 Material, Subcontracting, and Other Direct Costs (AFRC) CRNF 550.00$ 550.00$

X009 HH‐60 Material, Subcontracting, and Other Direct Costs (ANG) CRNF 550.00$ 550.00$

X010 TH‐1H Material, Subcontracting, and Other Direct Costs (AETC) CRNF 550.00$ 550.00$

X011 MH‐139 Material, Subcontracting, and Other Direct Costs (AETC) CRNF 550.00$ 550.00$

X012 UH‐1N Material, Subcontracting, and Other Direct Costs (AFGSC) CRNF 550.00$ 550.00$

X013 HH‐60 Travel and Per Diem (ACC) CRNF

X014 HH‐60 Travel and Per Diem (AFRC) CRNF

X015 HH‐60 Travel and Per Diem (ANG) CRNF

X016 TH‐1H Travel and Per Diem (AETC) CRNF

X017 MH‐139 Travel and Per Diem (AETC) CRNF

X018 UH‐1N Travel and Per Diem (AFGSC) CRNF

X019 HH‐60 Over and Above (ACC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X020 HH‐60 Over and Above (AFRC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X021 HH‐60 Over and Above (ANG) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X022 TH‐1H Over and Above (AETC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X023 MH‐139 Over and Above (AETC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X024 UH‐1N Over and Above (AFGSC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X025 HH‐60 Engineering Support Task Request (ACC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X026 HH‐60 Engineering Support Task Request (AFRC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X027 HH‐60 Engineering Support Task Request (ANG) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X028 TH‐1H Engineering Support Task Request (AETC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X029 MH‐139 Engineering Support Task Request (AETC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X030 UH‐1N Engineering Support Task Request (AFGSC) CPFF 100.00$ 8.00$ 108.00$

X031 Data NSP

BASIC ORDERING PERIOD TOTAL TEP 312,000.72$

Travel CLINs are not included in TEP