Atch 27 Sect M

FA8617-11-R-6208 Amendment 0003 Section J, Attachment 27 27 Apr 11

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the Performance Price Tradeoff (PPT) source selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by Informational Guidance (IG) 5315.101-1, Performance Price Tradeoff, in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated approximately equal to price; however, price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Tradeoffs will be made only between price and past performance among offerors who have been determined technically acceptable.

Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, 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 best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technically acceptable, superior past performance of higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the 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.

If the lowest priced technically acceptable offer is judged to have a “Substantial Confidence” past performance assessment, that offer represents the best value for the government and the evaluation process stops at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

The Government reserves the right to award a contract to other than the lowest priced offer if the lowest priced offeror is judged to have a performance confidence assessment of “Satisfactory Confidence” or lower. In that event, the SSA will make an integrated assessment of all technically acceptable offers evaluated for past performance and price, applying the evaluation criteria described below to determine which technically acceptable offeror provides the best value to the Government in terms of overall past performance and total evaluated price.

1.2 Award Without Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines discussions are necessary.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single contract for the JPATS T-6A/B COMBS Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more contracts if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest considering the Government’s expected volume of work over the period of the contract(s), available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition and the availability of best-value proposals following completion of evaluations of the proposals received. The Government also reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.4 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.5 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal rated as “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” as those ratings are defined in paragraph 2.1 below. 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.

1.6 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) All GFP will be made available in equal quantities to all offerors in order to ensure an equal starting point towards meeting contract performance. As such, no one offeror should be able to gain a competitive advantage from the use of GFP specifically provided for this requirement. Therefore, the specific use of this Government-Furnished inventory and facilities will not be evaluated as part of this source selection. However, should an offeror require or wish to use additional GFP in order to meet the requirements of this solicitation, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of additional GFP in accordance with FAR 45.202(a).

1.7 Solicitation Requirements

Unless exceptions are identified and supported as required by the last sentence of this paragraph, by submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. All technically acceptable offers shall be treated equally except for their prices and performance records. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Technical Acceptability

Initially, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable, Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable, or Unacceptable. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Process Flows

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s process flows in order to determine if the offeror is able to meet the Performance Work Statement (PWS) metrics and achieve COMBS availability requirements.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror:

1. Provides process flows that reflect an executable approach to fully support daily T-6A/B flight operations across all bases, including those without on-site COMBS, in such a manner that the availability requirements of the COMBS PWS will be achieved.

2. Provides process flows that reflect a comprehensive supply chain management strategy that ensures aircraft material and support equipment are at the right places at the right time such that the availability requirements of the COMBS PWS will be achieved.

2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Acquisition Management

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s acquisition management processes.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror proposes an effective and responsive approach to Contract Change Proposal submittal and execution that ensures COMBS operations maintain configuration currency.

2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Ramp-up

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s plan to ensure COMBS operations are not impacted during the first 30 days of contract performance.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a plan detailing an effective approach to meeting all contractual requirements during the 30-day ramp-up period.

2.2 Subfactors within the Technical Acceptability factor will receive one of the ratings described below. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the technical acceptability factor. An “unacceptable” subfactor assessment will render the offer unawardable. The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technically capability:

2.2 Price Evaluation Factor

The Government shall rank all technically acceptable and "Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable" offers by price, including option prices. In the event that the SSA determines to enter into discussions, any offeror which was originally rated as “Unacceptable” (if the unacceptable offer is determined to be correctable) could become “Acceptable” and would then also be ranked by price. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the total evaluated price (TEP), calculated as stated in paragraph 2.2.1.2 below. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of GFP other than that explicitly provided in the RFP.

2.2.1 Evaluation Technique. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated against the criteria of reasonableness.

2.2.1.1 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. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

2.2.1.2 Total Evaluated Price. TEP will be calculated using the CLIN Price Summary Matrix, provided in Section L, as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for the base year and all options. The offeror’s TEP is as provided in the proposal in the CLIN Price Summary Matrix, Tab 2 (Price Summary), Cell G509. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise or award such options.

2.2.1.3 The Government may determine a proposal unreasonable/unacceptable should the proposed prices, be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

2.2.1.4 Unrealistically low prices or labor hour/rate estimates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition based on an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.3 Past Performance Evaluation Factor

After being determined to be technically acceptable or "Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable" and then ranked by the lowest price, past performance will be evaluated on all technically acceptable and "Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable" offers as described below. In the event the SSA determines to enter into discussions, any offeror which was originally rated as “Unacceptable” (if the unacceptable offer is determined to be correctable) could become “Acceptable” and would then also be evaluated for past performance. The Past Performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs based on a demonstrated record of performance, including price and schedule.

2.3.1 Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the evaluation of an offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including price and schedule. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s relevant present and recent past performance, focusing on and targeting performance, which is relevant to Technical Acceptability subfactors and price. In determining relevance, the Government will apply the criteria detailed in Section M to determine the relevance of past performance information submitted by the offerors. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, teaming contractors, and/or joint ventures (past performance of the joint venture parties will be evaluated as separate entities), if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government may consider efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local Governments and commercial customers as relevant. As a result of an analysis of those risks, negative aspects, and positive aspects of past performance identified each offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating that is the rating for the Past Performance factor. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical sub-factors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror’s performance meets mission requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and, the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.2.1 Recency. 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 within five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance that fails this condition will not be evaluated for relevance or performance.

2.3.2.2 Relevancy. PCAG will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Acceptability subfactors and Price Factor. The PCAG will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and obtain additional past and present performance data, if available from other sources. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Acceptability subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to service similarity, complexity, type of effort, contract scope and type, and performance period. The Government will consider the following items in its determination of past performance relevancy:

a) Performed a contract similar in order of magnitude to this acquisition

b) Staffed, managed, and operated an aircraft supply/service facility

c) Managed inventory of aircraft parts, support equipment, and consumable items

d) Maintained, repaired, replaced, replenished and overhauled aircraft material and support equipment

e) Provided overhaul and off-equipment repair of major aircraft time-change components similar in order-of-magnitude to this acquisition

f) Provided a comprehensive supply chain management system

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 relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Higher relevancy will be assessed for contracts that are most similar to the effort, or portion of the effort, for which that contractor is being proposed. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. The PCAG will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

2.3.3 Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources. Past performance information may be obtained through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting Systems, and/or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, PPIRS, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, DCMA channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

2.3.4 The performance quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Offerors with adverse past performance information, to which they have not previously had an opportunity to respond, may be given the opportunity to provide clarifications; and will be given the opportunity to address the adverse information during any other type of exchange per FAR 15.306. For this acquisition, adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments 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. The PCAG will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

2.3.5 Ratings. Past performance evaluations conducted on proposals will receive one of the ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available or 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.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

2.4 Discussions

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 and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M003 Tradeoff Methodology Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the SSA reserves the right to award a contract(s) without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M004 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M005 REVIEWS and VISITS The Source Selection Evaluation Team may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal.

M006 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 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.