Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. GENERAL

A. General Evaluation Procedures

1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

2. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

3. The Government will award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer conforming to the solicitation will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

(1) TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

(2) PRICE

Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

4. In order to be eligible for award, there must be an “Acceptable” rating in every non-price factor.

5. The Government may consider an offer "non-responsive" and unawardable if the Instructions listed in Section L are not adhered to exactly. This includes, but is not limited to: proposal submission procedures, proposal volume organization, omission of requested information, inclusion of circumscribed identifying information, or incomplete documents submitted with the proposal. If an offeror is determined to be "non-responsive," the Government may eliminate the offeror.

6. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

B. Discussions

1. Only technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, initially, or as a result of discussions, (if the contracting officer determines discussions are in the best interest of the Government) will be considered for award.

2. The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offerors’ proposals are acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal as submitted. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision if awarding without discussions. The Government also reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary.

3. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

A. Evaluation factors and Subfactors

1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. Each non-price factor/subfactor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis and assigned a rating on whether the proposal meets the solicitation requirements. Extra credit will not be assigned for exceeding the acceptable/unacceptable subfactor criteria. A rating of

"Acceptable" will be required in all non-price factors/subfactors to be eligible for award.

Factor 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

Subfactor 1: Technical Assistance

Subfactor 2: Provide expert systems/equipment advice and recommendation

Subfactor 3: Experience Level

Factor 2: PRICE

B. Factor 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Technical Assistance

Description: Provide technical assistance in the application of USAF technical orders, manuals, engineering drawings, and schematics which pertain to the A-10C aircraft systems and auxiliary equipment. Review and provide advice on technical/equipment data for procurement packages and maintenance manuals.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the Offeror can maintain expert technical knowledge of the aircraft by staying up to date with the latest A-10C equipment and maintenance procedures through continuous review of engineering drawings, repair manuals, technical bulletins, manufacturer’s catalogs and supply catalog data.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Subfactor 2: Provide expert systems/equipment advice and recommendations

Description: Provide expert systems/equipment advice and recommendations to senior leaders and maintenance technicians. Provide liaison through which information related to aircraft sustainment discrepancies, available at the System Program Office, can be quickly disseminated and resolved for ANG personnel.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates that the Offeror can meet the requirements to prepare and present oral and written reports, briefings, and recommendations to senior leadership concerning equipment issues, technical problems, and training requirements.

Subfactor 3: Experience Level

Description: Each proposed CETS employee must have a minimum of five (5) years ofexperience on general aircraft maintenance, three (3) years of experience on the A-10 avionics and/or weapons loading systems, and 2 years of A-10C experience.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the minimum experience requirements stated in the previous paragraph.

C. Factor 2: PRICE

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

1. A proposal's Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined as the sum of all CLIN prices as presented on the SF 33 and the Summary Pricing Sheet. If both Unit and Extended Prices (as applicable) are not included or are not clearly understandable, the offer may be rejected as non-responsive.

2. The contract proposal prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it shall represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

3. CLIN prices will be evaluated for balance. Unbalanced pricing is grounds for rejection of a proposal. Per FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze each offeror’s proposed price for each contract line item for balance to determine if the proposed contract line item price is significantly over or understated.