Doc_003_-_Draft_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition

Supplement (AFFARS), and the Air Force Source Selection Mandatory Procedures (MPs).

These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the FAR, 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. Competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than price considerations. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined Technically Unacceptable. All Technically Acceptable offers will be considered for the tradeoff between Past Performance and Price. The tradeoff will occur only between the Past Performance Factor and the Price Factor. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Step 1: The Government will evaluate all proposals from responsible offerors for

Technical, Past Performance, and Price information. The Government Technical Evaluation

Team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If an offeror receives an Acceptable rating, they will be considered for the tradeoff process in the following Steps. The Government Past Performance Evaluation Team will evaluate proposals for past performance information, and the Government Price Evaluation

Team will evaluate proposals for price information.

Step 2: Offerors deemed Technically Unacceptable will be removed from the

Competitive Range.

Step 3: The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will make applicable tradeoff decisions between the Past Performance and Price Factors.

Step 4: A Best-Value Decision will be made.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the SSA reasonably determines that the past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (reference M002 below). While the Government Source Selection

Evaluation Team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract for the performance of all requirements as defined in this solicitation for the Afghan Trainer Program. Based on the quality of proposals submitted, budgetary limitations, or other appropriate reasons, the

Government reserves the right to not award a contract resulting from this Request for Proposals

(RFP).

c. 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.

d. Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions or without the opportunity for proposal revision, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, offerors should submit their best proposals upon initial submission and in the format specified in Section

L.

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

FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (e.g., the relevance of past performance information), respond to adverse past performance information to which the offerors have not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

Exchanges conducted to clarify or respond to adverse past performance information, or to resolve minor or clerical errors, will not constitute discussions (see FAR 15.306).

e. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

f. 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Phase-In

Subfactor 2: Maintenance & Logistics Training

Subfactor 3: Management Processes

Subfactor 4: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

b. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

This is a competitive best-value source selection in which competing offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis more important than price considerations. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price factor. The relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors is as follows:

Each Technical Subfactor will be rated on an “acceptable/unacceptable” basis. In order for an offeror to be eligible for award, they must receive an “acceptable” rating for each Technical

Subfactor.

Among the tradable factors, Past Performance is more important than Price. However, Price will factor into the source selection decision.

c. Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Factor Evaluation provides for two distinct, but related, assessments: the

Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating, as defined below.

1) Technical Rating

The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. The Government will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable to each Technical Subfactor. In order for an offeror to be eligible for award, they must receive an “Acceptable” rating for each

Technical Subfactor. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the

Technical Factor, but shall retain separate subfactor Acceptable or Unacceptable ratings. Any

“Unacceptable” subfactor rating will render the proposal unawardable.

2) Technical Risk Rating

The Technical Risk Rating will result in a Rating of “Acceptable Risk/Unacceptable Risk.”

Though the ratings in Table 3 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures are not being used in this evaluation, the descriptions therein will be leveraged. Any subfactor evaluated in accordance with (AW) the “High” risk description (as outlined in Table 3) will be given a Technical Risk

Rating of Unacceptable. In addition, any subfactor evaluated IAW the “Low” or “Moderate” risk description will be given a Technical Risk Rating of Acceptable. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

3) Subfactor 1: Phase-in

Description: This Technical Subfactor assesses the offeror’s Phase-in approach in order for the offeror to be fully operational by the 91st day of the period of performance (PoP), to perform the requirements of Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 3.12 (RFP Attachment 1). The

Technical Subfactor is met when:

Measures of Merit:

#1: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach for hiring, training, and establishing full staff in country at the operating locations to support full operational capability by the 91 st day in accordance with PWS Sections 3.12.1 and 3.12.2.

#2: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach for procurement of spares and Ground Support

Equipment (GSE) to support full operational capability by the 91 st day in accordance with PWS

Sections 3.12.1 and 3.12.2.

4) Subfactor 2: Maintenance & Logistics Training

Description: This Technical Subfactor assesses the offeror’s approach in providing maintenance and logistics training of Afghan Air Force (AAF) C-208B maintainers for transition to an organic organizational-level maintenance capability as identified in PWS Section 3.11.

The Technical Subfactor is met when:

Measures of Merit

#1: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to training the Afghan students.

#2: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to student retention, student progression, and continuity throughout the training program.

5) Subfactor 3: Management Processes

Description: This Technical Subfactor assesses the offeror’s proposed program management approach to managing and controlling activities and processes, which will result in successful accomplishment of the Afghan Trainer CLS and Maintenance Training Program. The Technical

Subfactor is met when:

Measures of Merit:

#1: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to Associate Contractor Agreements (ACAs) and supplier/vendor management for all requisite services identified in the PWS for the entire contract PoP.

#2: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to subcontractor management, including which areas the prime contractor proposes utilizing subcontractors.

#3: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to recruitment and retention for Airframe &

Powerplant (A&P) mechanics (PWS Sections 3.2.5.1 and 3.2.5.3), training instructors (PWS

Section 3.11.2), and Field Service Representatives (FSRs) (PWS Section 3.3.6), to include qualifications, for the entire contract PoP.

#4: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to safety management as identified in PWS

Section 3.8.

#5: The proposal includes the offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan with a sound approach to allocating at least 15% of the total contract dollar value to small businesses as identified in

Section L 2.2.5.2.

6) Subfactor 4: Contractor Logistics Support (CLS)

Description: This Technical Subfactor assesses the offeror’s approach to plan for, implement, and conduct CLS on C-208B aircraft at austere Afghanistan operational locations for the Afghan

Trainer Program as identified in PWS Section 3.2. The Technical Subfactor is met when:

Measures of Merit:

#1: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to maintaining USG-responsible aircraft.

#2: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to 1) maintaining AAF-responsible aircraft and

2) transition of aircraft to the AAF.

#3: The proposal demonstrates a sound approach to remobilization of C-208B aircraft to different operating locations, in accordance with PWS Sections 1.2.3.1, 1.2.3.2, and 1.2.3.3.

d. Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

1) Ratings

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Description

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

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral) No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

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 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, including cost and schedule. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror’s relevant and recent past performance, including how the offeror is currently performing ongoing efforts, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Technical Subfactors.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate, in addition to on an individual contract basis.

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 including, but not limited to: the Past

Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment

Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with

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

Management Agency (DCMA); and commercial sources.

i. 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 with at least six (6) months of performance elapsed, or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

ii. Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.

Consideration will be given to maintenance and/or logistics training of Middle Eastern nationals in their host country, including On-the-Job Training; maintenance experience on Federal

Aviation Administration (FAA) certified commercial aircraft; hiring, retention, and establishing staff and operations in Middle Eastern nations; remobilizing aircraft fleets in contingency environments. 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) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Past Performance

Relevancy Ratings, excerpted below.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

iii. Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant (to include Very Relevant and Somewhat Relevant) efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. 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 generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

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 appropriateness and effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 6. Performance Ratings

Color Rating Description

Blue Exceptional The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the government’s benefit. The contractor’s performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective action taken by the contractor were highly effective

Purple Very Good The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Green Satisfactory The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Yellow Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements.

The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. Red Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problems for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

White Not Applicable Unable to provide a score.

Note: Colors are for briefing purposes only

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. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical 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 recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful 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. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

e. Factor 3: Price

1. The Evaluation Team will utilize the Total Evaluated Price (TEP), identified below, when evaluating proposals for the Price Factor. Each offeror's proposed prices in the TEP Spreadsheet will be evaluated for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness.

2. Reasonableness: The offeror’s proposed prices in the TEP Spreadsheet will be evaluated to ensure they are fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. Price analysis will be utilized to determine whether proposed prices are fair and reasonable in accordance with FAR 15.404(b).

The various price analysis techniques available to the Government are identified in FAR

15.404(b)(2). The Government Evaluation Team may utilize adequate price competition and comparison of proposed prices with the Government Program Office Estimate (POE), along with other techniques, in order to conduct price analysis. For the prices to be reasonable in nature and amount, they should not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of a competitive business. Reasonableness takes into account the context of a given source selection, including current market conditions and other factors that affect the ability of an offeror to perform the contract requirements. The burden of proof for price reasonableness rests with the offeror.

3. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze the proposed prices in the TEP

Spreadsheet to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Completeness: The Government will review the Pricing Volume, to include the TEP

Spreadsheet, for completeness and compliance with Section L of the Solicitation. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the incomplete proposal poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5. The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP is computed by the Government for the basic requirements (base year) and the best estimated options to be exercised. The Government has preselected a combination of CLINs, scenarios, and labor hours that, when combined, will represent the TEP for all offerors. The Governments preselected information will not be disclosed to offerors. The TEP will be utilized to evaluate offerors and make tradeoffs when necessary, but will not be the ultimate contract price for this acquisition. The TEP is drawn from the following elements:

a. USG Sustainment Support is calculated by applying the prices proposed in the

TEP Spreadsheet to the Government’s pre-selected scenario for the base and all option years;

i. CLINs 0001-0012 (Base Year);

ii. CLINs 1001-1012 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLINs 2001-2012 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLINs 3001-3012 (Option Year 3);

v. CLINs 4001-4012 (Option Year 4)

b. AAF Fleet Sustainment Support based upon the applicable composite hourly labor rate multiplied by the corresponding quantity of Government pre-determined labor hours for evaluation purposes, including all option years;

i. CLIN 0013 (Base Year);

ii. CLIN 1013 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLIN 2013 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLIN 3013 (Option Year 3);

v. CLIN 4013 (Option Year 4)

c. AAF Spares at prices based upon the stated list in Section L for the best-estimated quantities and the Government’s pre-selected scenario, including all option years;

i. CLIN 0014 (Base Year);

ii. CLIN 1014 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLIN 2014 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLIN 3014 (Option Year 3);

v. CLIN 4014 (Option Year 4)

d. Over & Above Support based upon the applicable composite hourly rate multiplied by the corresponding quantity of pre-determined labor hours for evaluation purposes, including all option years;

i. CLIN 0015 (Base Year);

ii. CLIN 1015 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLIN 2015 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLIN 3015 (Option Year 3);

v. CLIN 4015 (Option Year 4)

e. Transition CLINs based upon the lists identified in Section L for GSE and transition tools, support equipment, and tech libraries, including all option years;

i. CLINs 0016-0020 (Base Year);

ii. CLINs 1016-1020 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLINs 2016-2020 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLINs 3016-3020 (Option Year 3);

v. CLINs 4016-4020 (Option Year 4)

f. Maintenance Training at the proposed CLIN price, including all option years;

i. CLIN 0021 (Base Year);

ii. CLIN 1021 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLIN 2021 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLIN 3021 (Option Year 3);

v. CLIN 4021 (Option Year 4)

g. Remobilization Option proposed CLIN price, including the option year;

i. CLIN 0022 (Base Year);

ii. CLIN 1022 (Option Year 1);

h. Field Service Representatives Support proposed CLIN price, including all option years;

i. CLIN 0024 (Base Year);

ii. CLIN 1024 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLIN 2024 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLIN 3024 (Option Year 3);

v. CLIN 4024 (Option Year 4)

i. Aircrew Training Device CLS Option proposed price, including all option years;

i. CLIN 0026 (Base Year);

ii. CLIN 1026 (Option Year 1);

iii. CLIN 2026 (Option Year 2);

iv. CLIN 3026 (Option Year 3);

v. CLIN 4026 (Option Year 4)

j. Phase-in proposed CLIN price

i. CLIN 0027 (Base Year).

The Reserved CLINs for the Remobilization Section H Clause will not be evaluated as part of the TEP. The Data CLINs will not be specifically evaluated as part of the TEP, because they will be Not Separately Priced (NSP).

6. All options will be evaluated to ensure they are fair and reasonable. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

7. A price evaluation adjustment to the TEP will be applied in accordance with FAR

52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns.