Attachment 28 20 Oct 10 Section M.pdf

FA8617-11-R-6208

Section J, Attachment 28

20 Oct 10

SECTION M

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 Tradeoffs, in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated as approximately equal to cost or price; however, cost/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 those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the 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.

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 Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the T-6A/B JPATS COMBS Program.

However, the Government reserves the right to award more or less contracts if the Source Selection Authority 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 cost 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 M002, Paragraph 2.2 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 GFP

All Government Furnished Property 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 costs/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 Price Evaluation Factor

The Government shall rank all offers by price, including option prices. The three offers with lowest price shall be reviewed for technical acceptability, price (in terms of reasonableness of cost) and past performance. Based on the outcome of that initial evaluation, the remaining offers may not be reviewed.

2.1.1 Unrealistically low prices or estimates of labor hours/rates may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from the competition based upon an apparent lack of understanding of the requirement.

2.1.2 The Government may also determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices, including labor rates and task order prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

2.1.3 Reasonableness. The proposed prices and all labor rates 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. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.1.4 Basis of Estimate (BOE). In support of the determination of cost/price reasonableness, offerors shall provide sufficient detail to support the offer. Cost and pricing data shall be provided in Excel with working formulas. Sub-totals and totals shall be provided at the appropriate levels to include CLIN and service year. Each cost form should clearly indicate CLIN, material cost vs. labor costs, units for dollars and hours, service years, totals and subtotals. An accompanying narrative with supporting data to explain how the estimates were developed (BOEs) and the estimating methodology, to include as required: ground rules and assumptions, price resources, person-loading summaries; bill of materials; subcontractor costs, OEM charges, etc shall also be provided. Offers without sufficient data to support the reasonableness of the cost estimate may be excluded.

2.1.5 Subcontractor Cost/Price Data. Subcontractor price reasonableness will be reviewed as part of the total evaluated price. A list of all subcontractors shall be provided. For this measurement, analysis of the methodology used by the subcontractor to estimate cost/price and/or the results of reviews and evaluations of subcontract proposals should also be provided as required in Section L.

2.1.6 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror proposed prices for the base period and all options. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only; evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.2 Technical Acceptability

Next, the Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals submitted by the three lowest priced offerors 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:

Subfactor 1: Process Flows Subfactor 2: Acquisition Management Subfactor 3: Ramp-Up

Each subfactor within the Technical Acceptability factor will receive one of the ratings described below. Subfactor ratings shall 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 technical capability:

2.2.1 Subfactor #1: Process Flows

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s process flows which depict how the offeror is able to meet the Performance Work Statement (PWS) metrics and achieve mission capability.

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

1. Provides complete examples of its process flows that reflect an executable approach to how the offeror will 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 are achieved.

2. Provides complete examples of its 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 are achieved.

2.2.2 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:

1. Clearly describes its effective and responsive approach to Contract Change Proposal submittal and execution that ensures COMBS operations maintain configuration currency.

Rating Description

Acceptable The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable

The proposal does not clearly meet some specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance, but there is reason to believe that through minor revisions, an acceptable proposal could result. For award without discussions these proposals are considered “unacceptable.”

Unacceptable The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

2.2.3 Subfactor #3: Ramp-up

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to minimize operational impacts during the first 30 days of contract performance.

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

1. Provides a plan detailing an effective approach to meeting all contractual requirements during the 30-day ramp-up period.

2.3 Past Performance Evaluation Factor

After being ranked by the lowest cost/price and then determined to be technically acceptable, the Government evaluation team, known as the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) will evaluate past performance on the three lowest priced, technically acceptable offers as described below. In the event that the Contracting Officer determines to enter into discussions, any offer which was originally rated as “Reasonably Susceptible of Being Made Acceptable,” or “Unacceptable” if the unacceptable offer is determined to be correctable, could become “Acceptable” and will be evaluated for past performance, if the offer is within the three lowest priced offers. 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 cost and schedule. The Government reserves the right to seek information on higher priced offerors if none of the evaluated lower priced offerors receive a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment.

2.3.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below. Performance confidence assessment ratings are assigned pursuant to M002, Paragraph 2.3.2.

2.3.2 Evaluation Process. Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment 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 PCAG will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including cost and schedule. Each relevant contract shall have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

The Past Performance Evaluation will be accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's recent and relevant present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to Mission Capability. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the 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 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 five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

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

SATISFACTORY

CONFIDENCE

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

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. IG 5.5.2.2

2.3.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

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 Mission Capability subfactors. 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 generally be assessed for the Mission Capability 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. 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. The past performance information forms (PIFs) (Attachment 2 of Section L) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. 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:

Degree Description HIGHLY RELEVANT (HR) Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT (R) Past/present performance effort involved much of the

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

(SR)

Past/present performance effort involved some of the

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the

2.3.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The PCAG will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Mission Capability subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, CPARS, interviews with Government customers and fee determining officials, and if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. 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 a less than satisfactory 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. The PCAG will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY

(S)/GREEN

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P123_5649�

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE

(N)/WHITE

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

2.3.3 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating as described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.2.2, Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted in Paragraph 2.3.1 above. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability subfactors, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or 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 for the Past Performance factor.

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.

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 (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M003 Tradeoff Methodology

3.1 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.

3.2 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 Source Selection Authority will make an integrated assessment of all technically acceptable offers evaluated for past performance and price, applying the evaluation criteria described above to determine which technically acceptable offeror(s) provides the best value to the Government in terms of overall past performance and total evaluated price.

3.3 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 Contracting Officer 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 (SSET) 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 and/or oral presentation.

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.