FINAL_DRAFT_SEATS_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable 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. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those that are technically acceptable.

1.2 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.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to one, Indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for the KC-46 Palletized Seating Program. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the

Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Discussions

The government intends to award without discussions. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as

Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal

Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

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 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfaffara.htm http://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA007183-10-DPAP.pdf http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/af_afmc/affars/MP5315.3.htm#TopOfPage http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm 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.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Pallet Interface

Subfactor 2: Pallet Weight and Center of Gravity

Subfactor 3: Production/Delivery Quantities And Schedules

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is cautioned that the

Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Pallet Interface

Description: This subfactor evaluates whether the seat pallet interface is compatible with existing KC-46 cargo restraint system and existing USAF Material Handling Equipment (MHE).

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s substantiates that the pallet base, where it interfaces with both the KC-46 cargo restraint system and USAF material Handling

Equipment (MHE), is dimensionally identical to an HCU-6/E, 463L cargo pallet, 108 inches long and 88 inches wide.

Subfactor 2: KC-46 Pallet Weight and Center of Gravity

Description: This subfactor evaluates whether the total weight of the fully loaded pallet (to include all passengers with a maximum weight of 250 pounds each, personal bags for each passenger weighing no more than 10 pounds, emergency passenger oxygen system (EPOS), floatation device, and bridge plate) is less than or equal to acceptable limits. Additonally, this subfactor evaluates whether the center of gravity (CG) height of the fully loaded seat pallet is less than or equal to the acceptable limit which is less than or equal to 3520 pounds on the 108" bias (10 seat pallet) or

4320 pounds on the 88" bias (12 seat pallet).

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror substantiates that the weight of the fully loaded pallet, (to include all passengers with a maximum weight of 250 pounds each, personal bags for each passenger weighing no more than 10 pounds, EPOS, floatation device, and bridge plate), is less than or equal to 3520 pounds on the 108" bias (10 seat pallet) or 4320 pounds on the 88" bias (12 seat pallet). Additionally, the center of gravity height of the fully loaded seat pallet shall be less than or equal to 30.75 inches.

Subfactor 3: Production/Delivery Quantities And Schedules

Description: This subfactor evaluates whether the offeror will be able to manufacture and deliver the required quantity of seat pallets, and in the correct configurations, within the required delivery schedule.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror substantiates their capabilities to manufacture and deliver a minimum of four 12-seat pallets with seats facing forward on the 88” bias, and two 10-seat pallets with seats facing forward on the 108” bias within 120 days after receipt of order, or no later than 1 Mar 2017, whichever is sooner. This minimum delivery will be followed by the delivery of sixteen 12-seat pallets and ten 10-seat pallets by 30 June 17, for a total of thirty-two seat pallets. Additionally, the contractor will propose an additional forty-three seat pallets, nineteen 12-Seat Pallets and twenty-four 10-Seat Pallets apportioned in the remaining

IDIQ time period.

2.3 Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

2.3.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the

Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past

Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with

Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable 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 past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vfdfara.htm

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color

Description

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not substantially meeting (or did not substantially meet) contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available;

therefore, no rating is assigned.

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. More recent performance will have a greater impact on the Past Performance rating than less recent effort.

2.4 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items in accordance with FAR

15.404-1.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be calculated using the attached Pricing

Matrix. The TEP will consist of the price calculated using the estimated quantities provided in the Pricing Matrix.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm