T-6A_ADS_B_Out_Section_M_Final_Draft_8_Dec_15.docx

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 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. Contract(s) 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 or exceed 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 the higher Price offeror outweighs 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; and 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 GFP The Government will mitigate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP by determining an appropriate cost (IAW FAR 45.2) of said GFP and applying the appropriate cost 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, after discussions (if necessary), prior to 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. 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.

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/Risk Subfactor 1: Systems Engineering Subfactor 2: FAA Airworthiness Approval Subfactor 3: Military Airworthiness Subfactor 4: Aircraft Integration Subfactor 5: Simulators Integration Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

(2) Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical/Risk, Past Performance, and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical/Risk) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Price) last in importance. Within the Technical/Risk Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance.

IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

b. Technical/Risk Factor Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The combined Technical/Risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining Technical/Risk ratings. Combined Technical/Risk evaluations shall utilize the combined Technical/Risk ratings listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Subfactor 1: Systems Engineering

Description: This subfactor will assess the offeror’s ability to define and implement a rigorous systems engineering 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 realistic, experience-based methodology with timelines, and descriptions of procedures, processes, and plans for establishing flow-down requirements from the ADS-B (Out) specification to the Interface Control Document (ICD) IAW CDRL A008 as well as lower-level specifications and ICDs with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

b. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a realistic, experience-based methodology with timelines, and descriptions of procedures, processes, and plans for developing, delivering, and maintaining a Specification Requirements Verification Matrix IAW CDRL A009. This will ensure that all ADS-B (Out) performance specification requirements are met by the offeror’s design and development documentation with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 2: FAA Airworthiness Approval

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s draft certification plan and ability to provide a FAA Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) per FAA Order 8110.101 for the T-6A ADS-B (Out) modification.

a. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a realistic, experience-based methodology with timelines, and descriptions of procedures, processes, and plans 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 A028 with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 3: Military Airworthiness

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability 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.

a. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a realistic, experience-based methodology with timelines, and descriptions of procedures, processes, and plans for providing data to populate the Modified Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) document (provided by the Government) that defines and documents compliance with the ADS-B (Out) modification certification basis IAW MIL-HDBK-516C with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

b. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a realistic, experience-based methodology with timelines, and descriptions of procedures, processes, and plans for developing the Airworthiness Plan IAW CDRL A040 which substantiates an adequate approach to airworthiness certification with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 4: Aircraft Integration

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability 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 evidences a realistic, experience-based methodology with timelines, and descriptions of procedures, processes, and plans for developing an avionics architecture used to satisfy the aircraft ADS-B (Out) requirement, projected aircraft modifications required for installation of the proposed ADS-B (Out) avionics architecture, and the composition and number of qualified team members required to complete the retrofit with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

b. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an air-vehicle ADS-B (Out) integrated master schedule (IMS) IAW CDRL A022 associated with Research, Development, Test, Evaluation, material procurement, FAA certification, MACC certification, modification kit build, and retrofit execution with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Subfactor 5: Simulators Integration

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s ability 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 September 2019.

a. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal evidences a realistic, experience-based methodology with timelines, and descriptions of procedures, processes, and plans for developing an avionics architecture and software upgrades that will be used to satisfy the ATD ADS-B (Out) requirement, projected ATD modifications required for installation of the proposed ADS-B (Out) avionics architecture, and the composition and number of qualified team members required to complete the retrofit with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

b. Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an ATD ADS-B (Out) IMS IAW CDRL A022 associated with Research, Development, Test, Evaluation, material procurement, modification kit build, and retrofit execution with a moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government shall consider the purchase of capital assets (including machine tools) manufactured in the United States.

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 2, Performance Confidence Assessments:

TABLE 2- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

(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/Risk subfactors taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M002a. 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 three (3) 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/Risk subfactors, including their relative order of importance (reference M002a). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical/Risk subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). 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 questionnaire (Attachment 2 to Section L) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. In order to evaluate the relevancy of past performance, the Government will use the tailored past performance matrix in Attachment 1. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions in Table 3 when assessing recent, relevant contracts.

Table 3. Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

(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/Risk 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 4 when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 4. Past Performance Quality Ratings

(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/Risk 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.

More recent performance will 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).

(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 to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. 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.

(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) as a summation of the offeror proposed prices for each basic and all options in the CLIN Pricing Matrix (CLINs 0001-0013). Please note that the Government Fiscal Year Pricing Matrix TEP shall also be completed and should produce a number identical to the CLIN Pricing Matrix TEP.

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 evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M004 REVIEWS and VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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.

M005 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.