CDAS_DRAFT_Section_M.pdf

FA8609-22-R-XXXX

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

FOR

KC-46 Commodities Depot Activation Support (CDAS)

Solicitation #FA8609-22-R-XXXX

6 July 2021

Prepared by:

Mobility Directorate, KC-46 Program Office (AFLCMC/WLC)

Table of Contents

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.4 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

1.5 Discussions

1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 General

2.2 Relative Importance

2.3 Initial Evaluation

2.4 Entry Gates

2.4.1 FAA Certification Capability

2.4.2 DDTC Certification

2.5 Factor 1: Technical

2.5.1 Technical Rating

2.5.2 Technical Risk Rating

2.5.3 Subfactor 1.1 – Procurement Standard

2.5.4 Subfactor 1.2 – Requisition Process

2.6 Factor 2: Price

2.6.1 Completeness

2.6.2 Reasonableness

2.6.3 Total Evaluated Price

2.7 Contract Documentation

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This source selection is a best value competition resulting in multiple-year, multi-award contracts. This acquisition will evaluate Technical Approach, including an assessment of Technical Risk and Price, and will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) 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 dated 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at the United States Government Acquisition website, http://acquisition.gov. The Government will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each Offeror.

The Government seeks to award to the offerors who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet the requirements of the Commodities Depot Activation. While the Government source selection evaluation team, the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

For large businesses, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternative II, DFARS 252.219-7003, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) and AFFARS 5319.704, Subcontracting Plan Requirements are required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business Offeror can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include the subcontracting goals expressed at the Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract level as a percentage only of annual total obligated dollars on awarded task orders for each of the following: small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women owned small business. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on the offeror’s approach to meeting each of its subcontracting goals. Award cannot be made to an Offeror deemed not responsible by the CO.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award three (3) CDAS IDIQ contracts, but reserves the right to award more or less CDAS IDIQ contracts. The Government intends to have multiple fair opportunity competitions each year for CDAS requirements IAW FAR 16.5.

1.3 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being determined ineligible for award. For example, 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.

1.4 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

1.5 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and past performance standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306.

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 FPR will be considered in making the source selection decision. Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.6 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 competition.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 General

The Government must be assured that each offeror has the ability to perform the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW) on subsequent task orders. Only those technical proposals determined to be Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

The offeror’s proposal shall address each of the subfactors. Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Paragraph 1.3, Proposal Preparation Instructions. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown below. A rating of Unacceptable in one or more subfactors will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. For each technical Subfactor, Offerors must meet each measure of merit (MoM), and have a Risk rating of Moderate or better, in order to be considered Acceptable.

The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following entry gates, factors, and subfactors.

Entry Gates:

Entry Gate 1: FAA Certification Capability Entry Gate 2: DDTC Certification

Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Procurement Standard

Subfactor 1.2: Requisition Process

Factor 2: Price

2.2 Relative Importance

Among the evaluation factors, Technical, which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating, is significantly more important than Price.

Subfactor 1.1 is significantly more important than Subfactor 1.2.

2.3 Initial Evaluation

Each Offeror will be evaluated for their ability to meet the requirements of the solicitation, and each Offeror’s proposal not considered grossly deficient (see paragraph 1.4) or not eliminated at the outset for efficiency purposes, will be further evaluated. Those Offerors’ proposals considered grossly deficient for failing to meet the requirements of the solicitation or eliminated for not meeting the two (2) entry gates are ineligible for award. All ineligible Offerors will receive notice of the basis for this determination from the CO. Subsequent notices of ineligibility may be provided at later stages of the source selection, as applicable.

2.4 Entry Gates

2.4.1 FAA Certification Capability

The Offeror must provide documentation showing that they are capable of providing FAA certified parts with an 8130-3, Authorized Release Certificate, Airworthiness Approval Tag. The documentation shall include, at a minimum a copy of the certificate for one of the following: FAA 145 Repair Station, 121 Operator, Parts Manufacturer Authorization (PMA) or AC00-56B. The copy of the certificate shall include a signature by the proper authority, date signed and the expiration period, if any. (Reference SOW Para 3.2)

2.4.2 DDTC Certification

The Government will review the Offeror’s initial proposal for documentation which validates the vendor is registered with the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) at time of submission. Any proposal received that does not meet this requirement will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award. (Reference SOW Para 2.3)

2.5 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Evaluation provides for two (2) distinct and related assessments: the Technical

Rating and the Technical Risk Rating.

2.5.1 Technical Rating

The evaluation of the technical factor provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Technical Rating will be assessed at the subfactor level, using the Measures of Merit (MoM) set forth below. Subfactor 1.1 will be evaluated using Table 1 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable). Subfactor 1.2 will be evaluated using Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Color Rating) and Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the subfactor.

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

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (COLOR RATING)

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.5.2 Technical Risk Rating

Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses.

It considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Risk assessment will include the offeror’s self-identified risks and proposed mitigations (if applicable).

The Government may also identify and consider risks not identified by an offeror. Subfactor 1.2 will receive one of the technical risk ratings described in Table 3 – Technical Risk Rating, as shown below:

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance.

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.5.3 Subfactor 1.1 - Procurement Standard

Description: This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to provide required parts and services from Appendix A within the SOW.

2.5.3.1 Measure of Merit 1:

Description: This factor is met when the Offeror provides documented lead times (delivery after receipt of offer) for the required parts in Appendix A of the SOW that shows the Offeror is able to deliver the parts while still meeting the requirements as detailed in paragraph 3 of the SOW. This Measure of Merit will enable the Government to establish a baseline organic depot activation schedule for commodities as listed in Appendix A, as well as identify compliance with/meet the intent of FAA-defined processes and procedures as described in Section M, Para 2.4.1.

2.5.4 Subfactor 1.2 - Requisition Process

Description: This factor will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to linking the United States Government Requisition Numbers and Contractor Acquired Part (CAP) order numbers through a system that integrates with the destination organization’s inventory control system.

2.5.4.1 Measure of Merit 1:

This Subfactor is met when the Offeror provides the following and risk of successful performance is Moderate or better:

i. Able to identify a sound approach to provide a list of items (NSN/Part numbers) and delivery dates;

ii. Substantiate the ability of their order management system to directly interface with Integrated Logistics Support System (ILS-S), the primary enterprise tool used by the Air Force supply system;

iii. Identify a sound approach to processing offline requisition numbers provided by the government into an order management system that can directly interface with Integrated Logistics Support System (ILS-S); A strength is available for Offerors who are able to describe how their order management system can minimize the effort for the destination organization to receive the items into the Air Force supply system; and

iv. A sound approach to describe how the order management system will track and enable the receipt of the parts by the Air Force supply system and minimize the effort for the destination organization to receive the items into the Air Force supply system.

2.6 Factor 2: Price

The Price Volume will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award.

2.6.1 Completeness

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

2.6.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price Volume may be evaluated, using one (1) 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 adequate price competition. For additional information see FAR 15.404-1.

2.6.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will evaluate for best value as described in paragraph 1.0 above.

2.7 Contract Documentation

The Contract Documentation Volume will be evaluated to ensure compliance with Section L and all Request for Proposal terms and conditions as well as consistency with the entire proposal as submitted.