Section_M_Final_11_Jul_14.docx

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 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. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Concern Utilization, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is 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 is conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

B. The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines 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.

C. 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 member 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.

D. The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document (Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS)), the Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help Offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

2. Proposal Evaluation. The Tradeoff source selection evaluation process will be accomplished as follows.

A. Technical Factor.

Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal must address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any; associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Subfactor 1: Subfactor 1 is met when the offeror’s detailed narrative discussion of Sample Task Scenario #1 (Attachment 13) satisfactorily demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach and executable plan of the proposed operations support actions in accordance with PWS section/subsections 4.1 and 4.8 to meet the minimum Aircraft Availability each day.

Subfactor 2: Maintenance Actions. Subfactor 2 is met when the offeror’s detailed narrative discussion of Sample Task Scenario #2 (Attachment 13) satisfactorily demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach and executable plan of the proposed maintenance actions in accordance with PWS sections/subsections 4.1 and 4.9 to meet the minimum Aircraft Availability each day.

Subfactor 3: Logistics Actions. Subfactor 3 is met when the offeror’s detailed narrative discussion of Sample Task Scenario #3 (Attachment 13) satisfactorily demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach and executable plan of the offeror’s proposed logistics actions in accordance with PWS sections/subsections 4.1 and 4.10 to meet the minimum Aircraft Availability each day.

Subfactor 4: Engineering Actions. Subfactor 4 is met when the offeror’s detailed narrative discussion of Sample Task Scenario #4 (Attachment 13) satisfactorily demonstrates a sound and comprehensive approach and executable plan of the offeror’s proposed engineering actions in accordance with PWS sections/subsections 4.1 and 4.7 to meet the minimum Aircraft Availability each day.

Subfactor 5: Program Management. Subfactor 5 is met when:

The technical proposal includes a detailed and comprehensive narrative discussion which satisfactorily describes the offeror’s approach in its program management plan to ensure performance metrics and requirements mandated in PWS sections/ subsections 4.1, 4.4 and 4.6 are achieved. The detailed and comprehensive narrative includes the following information:

a. A sound and comprehensive organizational structure by shift, skill mix, function, and numbers that will be used to meet PWS requirements. The proposal adequately provides rationale used to develop the organizational structure and provides a staffing/manpower matrix to accomplish the requirements of the PWS subsection 4.6.1 and 4.6.2.

b. A sound and comprehensive plan to hire, train, maintain and retain qualified staff from contract start and throughout the period of performance to meet all PWS requirements and adequately addresses obtaining and retaining any required certifications and qualifications required to accomplish the PWS requirements of section 4.4.

c. A sound and comprehensive approach that provides an adequate description of the teaming arrangements with any subcontractors or joint ventures including the organizational relationship and the lines of responsibilities between the prime and subcontractors.

Subfactor 6: Transition Phase-in. Subfactor 6 is met when:

The technical proposal includes a detailed and comprehensive narrative discussion which satisfactorily describes the offeror’s transition phase-in approach and ability to achieve full contract performance at the end of the specified phase-in period in accordance with PWS section/subsection 4.2, 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. The detailed and comprehensive narrative includes the following information:

a. A sound and comprehensive plan and milestone chart to effectively manage and accomplish a seamless contract phase-in process and employee orientation to ensure successful contract performance at the end of the specified phase-in period.

b. A sound and comprehensive plan for timely acquisition of required vehicles and associated support equipment.

c. A sound and comprehensive plan for effectively coordinating with the Government for the transfer and accounting of Government Furnished Property and Equipment.

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement, including the offeror’s responses to the sample task scenarios (Attachment 13). The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Government’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not acceptable. The Government may independently identify risks not identified by the offeror and assess its impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government poses too great a risk to the program and does not address a suitable mitigation; the Government may consider the proposal technically unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

B. Past Performance Factor. The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical 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 will perform at least 30 percent or more of the maintenance, logistics, operations support, or engineering based on the total program price. The percentage of work performed is based on the Offeror’s total (including options) proposed dollar value excluding materials. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. 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 and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

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

a. Performing/performed maintenance for a C-130*, in a US Government designated hostile environment,

b. Performing/performed logistics for a C-130*, in a US Government designated hostile environment,

c. Performing/performed flight operations support for a C-130*, in a US Government designated hostile environment,

d. Implemented a comprehensive MIS for maintenance and logistics, in a US Government designated hostile environment.

e. Performing/performed CLS in a US Government designated hostile environment.

*NOTE: C-130 could be any model/configuration.

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have included one of the following:

a. Performing/performed maintenance for a multi-engine airlift aircraft, OCONUS,

b. Performing/performed logistics for a multi-engine airlift aircraft, OCONUS,

c. Performing/performed flight operations support for a multi-engine airlift aircraft, OCONUS,

d. Implemented a comprehensive MIS for maintenance and logistics, OCONUS.

e. Performing/performed CLS operations in OCONUS.

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

a. Performing/performed maintenance for any aircraft,

b. Performing/performed logistics for any aircraft,

c. Performing/performed flight operations support for any aircraft,

d. Implemented a comprehensive MIS for maintenance and logistics.

e. Performing/performed CLS operations in CONUS.

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

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations including but not limited to, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned (see the relevancy definitions relative to the underlined terms).

Definitions: For the purposes of this evaluation, the following definitions apply to the maintenance, logistics, and flight operations support as referenced in the above relevancy definitions:

Maintenance: Activities and maintenance tasks carried out whilst the aircraft remains in the operating environment to include any unscheduled maintenance resulting from unforeseen events; scheduled checks that contain servicing and/or inspections; maintenance performed on aircraft after a period of being out of service; off-station maintenance recovery; daily aircraft preparations for flight and end of day recovery; and all activities required to ensure the aircraft is airworthy and safe for flight. For the purposes of this effort, maintenance on ground support equipment is also included.

Logistics: The procurement, storage, issue, repair, and accountability of any or all supplies necessary for proper maintenance activities. Logistics support functions include supply chain management; repair services; spares, expendables/consumables, support equipment; Petroleum, Oils and Lubricants (POLs); and distribution/transportation.

Flight Operations Support: Activities related to the daily flight operations to include scheduling, planning, and maintaining Aircrew Life Support Equipment (ALSE).

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

(i). 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 shall be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial customers, vendors, and other such sources. Data from pervious source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

(ii). Offerors/joint venture members/critical subcontractors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member(s) 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 members 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, 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 member, or in the case of a critical subcontractor, must already be employed by the critical subcontractor.) The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

(iv). Subsequent to the Government’s assignment of relevancy ratings to each effort/contract identified in the offeror’s Volume III, the Government will make a confidence determination of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and if applicable critical subcontractor’s capabilities to successfully perform the instant effort. Confidence assessments will be determined from all the information provided by the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor as well as information that the Government obtains from their customers, Government databases, and other credible sources. The Government may consider an offeror’s/joint venture member’s (including critical subcontractors) contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach. That is, an offeror’s/joint venture member’s/critical subcontractor’s 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 greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment rating for the entire team.

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 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 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.

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 member’s (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s/joint venture member’s and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

C. Small Business Concern Utilization Factor. A rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings and descriptions identified below. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed small businesses along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars shall be identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by SBs, the company names/CAGE codes along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided; and,

iii) Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these SB entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

iv) The associated goals in paragraph ii above in the offeror’s Small Business Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY14 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2014 goals are as follows:

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

D. Cost/Price Factor: 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. The prices shall be rounded to no more than two (2) decimal places.

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: Unbalanced Pricing Exists When, Despite an Acceptable Total Evaluated Price, the Price of One or More Contract Line Items is Significantly Overstated or Understated due to an illogical progression of unit prices from program year to program year, unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or front-loading CLINs that do not represent the true cost of that CLIN. The definition of "Front-Loading" is to concentrate costs in an early period. Front-Loading will be viewed as materially unbalanced since acceptance of the proposal would result in an advance payment. The Government will analyze the proposed prices 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 the Schedule. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing; 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: The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The sum of the evaluated prices of each CLIN will represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN/SubCLIN prices will be calculated as explained below:

1) For the Basic Contract and Options (excluding CLINs X008, X0010,X0011,X0015 and X0016), Offerors will propose a unit price for the unit of issue (U/I) in the Schedule.

2) The sum of all CLINs/SubCLINs will represent the evaluated price for the five year contract period. The TEP will be determined by adding the price of the Basic Contract Period to the price of each Option Period.

3) Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs X007, X011, X014 and NSP CLINS X015 will not be included in the TEP.

NOTE: The following is a Summary of how the Total Evaluated Price will be calculated:

Basic plus (4) four 12-month Option Periods

CLIN X001 (FFP) – Offeror to propose a monthly rate for U/I to be multiplied by a BEQ of 4.

CLIN X002 (FFP) – Offeror to propose a monthly rate for U/I. The rate will be multiplied by a BEQ of 8 for the basic period and 12 for the option periods.

CLIN X003 (FFP) – Offeror to propose a monthly rate for U/I. The rate will be multiplied by a BEQ of 8 for the basic period and 12 for the option periods.

CLIN X004 (FFP) – Offeror to propose a monthly rate for U/I. The rate will be multiplied by a BEQ of 8 for the basic period and 12 for the option periods.

CLIN X005AA (FFP) – Offeror to propose a monthly rate for each Incremental Quantity A, B and C. The average monthly rate for Quantity A, B and C will be multiplied by a BEQ of 8 for the basic period and 12 for the option periods.

CLIN X006AA (FFP) – Offeror to propose a monthly rate for each Incremental Quantity A, B and C. The average monthly rate for Quantity A, B and C will be multiplied by a BEQ of 8 for the basic period and 12 for the option periods.

CLIN X007 (CR) – Offeror to propose Material Add-on factor (IAW Attachment 3) to be applied to Government estimated material dollars.

CLIN X008 (FFP) – Offeror to propose fully loaded labor rates for each labor category, in accordance with Attachment 3, by year to be multiplied by estimated hours (Government will not disclose the hours/labor category).

CLIN X009 (FFP) – Offeror to propose a monthly rate to be multiplied by a BEQ of 8 for the basic period and 12 for the options periods.

CLIN X010 (LH) - Offeror to propose fully loaded labor rates for each labor category, in accordance with Attachment 3, by year to be multiplied by estimated hours (Government will not disclose the hours/labor category).

CLIN X011 (CR) – Over & Above Material is cost reimbursable and not included in the TEP.

CLIN X012 – (CR) – Security Services with GIRoA/APPF is cost reimbursable and not included in the TEP.

CLIN X013 - RESERVED

CLIN X014 (CR) – Travel will be cost reimbursable and not included in the TEP.

CLIN X015 (NSP) - Data X015AA – Not Separately Priced X015AB – Not Separately Priced X015AC – Not Separately Priced X015AD – Not Separately Priced X015AE – Not Separately Priced X015AF – Not Separately Priced X015AG – Reserved X015AH – Not Separately Priced X015AJ – Reserved X015AK – Reserved X015AL – Not Separately Priced

CLIN X016 (FFP)—Performance Incentive: The total price of CLINS X002 through X006AA combined shall be multiplied by 2%. The resultant amount will be divided by either 8 months (basic) or 12 months (options ) for a monthly performance incentive amount. Performance Incentive is not included in the TEP.