4._T-6A_ADS_B_Out_Section_M_Final_24_Jun_16.pdf

T-6A ADS-B Out

Section M– Tradeoff

Evaluation Factors for Award

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal

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

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF)

FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price among only those offerors deemed Technically Acceptable. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible 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. The

Government seeks to award to the offeror who provides 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 Technical Risk approach and/or Past Performance of a technically-acceptable higher Price offeror outweigh the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described 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 one contract for the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-

Broadcast (ADS-B) (Out) program. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) beyond what this solicitation offers by including, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent value as specified in FAR 52.245-9 within the

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation for the respective offeror’s proposal, as applicable.

d. Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c). A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, prior to http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. 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 correctible, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

e. Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination 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, or 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 address the requirements of the solicitation.

f. 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. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. If discussions are held and 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

(1) 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: Systems Engineering

Subfactor 2: FAA Airworthiness Approval

Subfactor 3: Military Airworthiness

Subfactor 4: Aircraft Integration (plus Technical Risk)

Subfactor 5: ATD Integration (plus Technical Risk)

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price (listed in descending order of importance) among those offerors deemed to be Technically Acceptable. There is no order of importance among subfactors for either the Techincal Rating or the Technical Risk Rating.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), Technical Risk and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

b. Technical Factor

(1) Technical Rating. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in Table 1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings below. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. Further, any measure of merit that does not clearly meet the requirement results in an unacceptable subfactor rating, which would make the proposal unawardable, unless revised.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

TABLE 1—TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Subfactor 1: Systems Engineering

Description: This subfactor will assess the offeror’s understanding of the requirement and how to define and implement a Systems Engineering Management Plan to ensure that technical requirements, design criteria, design data, and supportability requirements are developed to provide direction and control of the design, development, test, and integration evaluation of the system.

a. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a sound methodology for establishing flow-down requirements from the T-6A Automatic file://///Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/far/FAR15.DOC%23b15304

Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (Out) Capability Systems Requirement Document

(SRD) to the ADS-B (Out) Interface Control Document (ICD) IAW CDRL A006 and

SOW paragraphs 3.2.1, 3.4.3, 3.4.4, 3.7.1, 3.8.1, and 3.12.3, as well as lower-level ADS-

B (Out) Subsystem Performance Specifications and ICDs.

b. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a sound methodology for developing, delivering, and maintaining a Specification

Requirements Verification Matrix IAW CDRL A007 and SOW paragraph 3.2.1.

Subfactor 2: FAA Airworthiness Approval

Description: This subfactor will assess the offeror’s draft certification plan for an understanding of the requirement and how to develop, implement, and maintain an FAA

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) per FAA Order 8110.101A for the T-6A ADS-B (Out) modification.

sound methodology for developing and submitting all appropriate data to the FAA and obtaining, sustaining, and retaining ownership of the STC for the ADS-B (Out) modification IAW CDRL A023 and SOW paragraph 3.2.2.1.

Subfactor 3: Military Airworthiness

Description: This subfactor will assess the offeror’s understanding of the requirement and how to develop, implement, and maintain an airworthiness program for the T-6A ADS-B (Out) upgrade that successfully achieves military airworthiness certification for the modification IAW

MIL-HDBK-516C.

sound methodology for updating the certification basis and developing the Airworthiness

Plan IAW CDRL A034 and SOW paragraph 3.2.2.2 that substantiates an adequate approach to airworthiness certification.

Subfactor 4: Aircraft Integration to design, develop, test, build, and procure T-6A ADS-B (Out) modification kits and execute a retrofit program to install these kits on all Air Force and Navy T-6A aircraft by 1 January 2020.

a. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal details a sound avionics architecture that includes components, installation locations inside the aircraft, block diagrams, and interface definitions on the T-6A that will be used to satisfy the aircraft ADS-B (Out) requirement.

b. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides comprehensive details regarding the projected aircraft modifications required for the proposed ADS-B (Out) avionics architecture IAW SOW paragraph 3.4.3. The team member listing will be evaluated to determine whether the contractor has a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the work and the appropriate mix of skills and number of people to complete the aircraft retrofit.

c. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a comprehensive air-vehicle ADS-B (Out) integrated master schedule (IMS) IAW CDRL

A017 and SOW paragraphs 3.3.2, 3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.2, 3.4.3, and 3.4.4, 3.13.2.1 associated with Research, Development, Test, Evaluation, material procurement, FAA certification, Military Airworthiness certification, modification kit build, and retrofit execution.

Subfactor 5: ATD Integration to design, develop, test, procure, and build Aircrew Training Devices (ATDs) ADS-B (Out) modification kits and execute a retrofit program to install these kits on all Air Force and Navy

T-6A (ATDs) by 1 January 2020.

a. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal details a sound avionics architecture that includes components, installation locations in the ATD, block diagrams, and interface definitions on the ATD that will be used to satisfy the ADS-B

(Out) requirement.

b. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides comprehensive details regarding the projected ATD modifications required for the proposed ADS-B (Out) avionics architecture IAW SOW paragraph 3.13.3. The team member listing will be evaluated to determine whether the contractor has a comprehensive understanding of the complexity of the work and the appropriate mix of skills and number of people to complete the ATD retrofit IAW SOW paragraph 3.13.

c. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a comprehensive ATD ADS-B (Out) integrated master schedule (IMS) IAW CDRL A017 and SOW 3.3.2.1 associated with Research, Development, Test, Evaluation, material procurement, modification kit build, and retrofit execution.

(2) Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

In addition to the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable rating described in Table 1, technical subfactors 4 (Aircraft Integration) and 5 (ATD Integration), only, will receive one of the

Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2 – Technical Risk Ratings. The 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. A high technical risk rating would make the proposal unawardable, unless revised.

c. Past Performance Factor

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 Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low

Has 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

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

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.

TABLE 3- 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. 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. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information

Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System

(FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; 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 or must have been performed within 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 or 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). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, the government will only consider the specific efforts involving avionics and ATD modifications consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor, or teaming partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information questionnaire (Attachment 2 to Section L) 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 in Table 4 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

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 of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). 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). 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 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 Government will use the quality levels in Table 5 – Past Performance Quality Ratings when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color

Description

Exceptional (E)/Blue During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or has 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 has 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 has 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.

Unsatisfactory(U)/Red During the contract period, contractor performance is failing

(or has failed) 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.

(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 Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments. 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.

Performance that is more recent may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than a less recent 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 record of favorable past performance may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

d. Price Factor

Each offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for Unbalanced Pricing, Price Reasonableness, Completeness, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(1) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing and may determine a proposal to be unawardable should the proposed priced items be materially unbalanced IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item or pricing band price is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(2) Price Reasonableness: The offeror’s TEP will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. The pricing band prices will also be evaluated for reasonableness. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. 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. The information to be submitted under Section 4 of the Pricing

Volume will be used to make this determination. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may be also be determined through price analysis techniques.

(3) Completeness: The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. Incomplete proposals will be considered not awardable.

(4) TEP: The TEP will be calculated on the Pricing Matrix spreadsheet (Attachment 5 to the solicitation) as a summation of the offeror proposed prices for each basic and all options in the

CLIN Pricing Matrix (CLINs 0001-0018). Please note that the Option Pricing Bands shall also be completed and should correlate with the CLIN Pricing Matrix TEP. Additional proposed GFP pricing will be included in the TEP. The price for the additional proposed GFP will be based on the information the offeror gathered from the ACO as required by Section L paragraph 4.5.4.5

“GFP and/ or Base Support Requirements” or the moving average acquisition cost of items proposed from the T-6A ADS-B Out bidder’s library GFP List.

M003 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 used to determine the offeror’s responsibility.

M004 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. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.