Atch_20_-_C-130J_MATS_O-S_Draft_Section_M_-_Eval_Criteria.docx

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

For The

C-130J Maintenance and Aircrew Training System (MATS) Operations and Sustainment (O&S) Support

Solicitation #FA8621-13-R-6305

23 July 2013

FA8621-13-R-6305

Section J, Attachment 20 – Section M, Evaluation Factors

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i

M001 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff Source Selection Process (see FAR 15.101-1) to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. This is a competitive source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 4 March 2011, AFFARS 5315.5, and Air Force Source Selection Procedures, dated 8 May 2011 (Policy Memos 11-C-04 and 11-C-07), in which competing offerors’ past performance history will be evaluated as significantly more important than price. Tradeoffs will be made between price and past performance only among those offerors who have been determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, and within the competitive range. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, 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 they will best meet the requirements affordably. This may result in 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 superior past performance of the technically acceptable, higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team, the Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), 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.

Only U.S. companies may be considered for award. A foreign-owned or a foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Security Service (DSS) as a U.S. subsidiary and possesses a Facility Clearance, will be considered as a U.S. prime on the C130J MATS O&S contract. Foreign-owned companies may participate as a subcontractor; however, the prime contractor is responsible for meeting all contract requirements.

Offerors must have a valid U.S. security clearance of Secret or higher in order to be eligible for contract award. Offerors may submit a proposal; however, they will not be eligible for award unless they hold a valid Secret Facility Clearance at time of the C-130J MATS O&S contract award. The Government shall not be liable if the requested clearance is not obtained in a timely manner to allow for contract award.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one contract for the C-130J MATS O&S Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract. It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary.

Competitive Advantage from Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP) The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of GFP beyond the GFP provided by the Government (Section J, Attachment 9).

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 (EN), 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Exchanges with offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors (clarifications other than past performance) will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Competitive Range Determination During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition. The competitive range determination will be based on all evaluation criteria. The Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the FPR request, or for purposes of efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

Evaluation Factors By submission of its offer, the offeror agrees to and accepts all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award (see para 2.7 below).

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below. Offerors must be found Technically Acceptable to be considered for contract award. Past Performance is significantly more important than Price.

Technical Past Performance Price Factor 1: Technical The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. The Government must be assured that each offeror has the ability to perform--and will perform--the requirements of the C-130J MATS O&S Performance Work Statement (PWS), Section J, Attachment 1. Only those technical proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors, as they apply to the C-130J MATS O&S PWS. Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Paragraph 2.0, Proposal Preparation Instructions. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown below. A rating of unacceptable in one or more subfactors will constitute an overall rating of unacceptable for the technical evaluation. In addition, offerors must receive an acceptable rating on each measure of merit within Subfactors 1 through 3 in order to be considered technically acceptable under those subfactors.

The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability:

Subfactor 1: Program Management Description: This subfactor evaluates the effectiveness of the offeror’s transition plan, management structure, risk management, collaborative partnering, communication, and quality assurance processes/approaches.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides:

a. A realistic and sound transition plan for contract transition ramp-up to become familiar with the C-130J MATS training system architecture.

b. A realistic and sound approach for the management and control of the C-130J MATS O&S contract, to include:

· Plan to ensure performance of at least 51 percent of the workload at the prime contractor level

· Recruitment process (incentives and benefits) for acquiring and retaining qualified personnel, and continued education/training. Specifically, how the offeror ensures hiring and retaining fully qualified C-130J aircrew instructors.

· An approach for ensuring personnel have the required clearances, certifications, and education at the beginning of the period of performance.

· Management structure, processes for controlling/managing personnel, and quality control.

· An approach for limiting substitutions of qualifications to only exceptional situations

· Key personnel identification with a short summary of qualifications and duties

· Process to continue contract performance in case of a labor dispute.

c. A realistic and sound risk management approach. Clearly describes the significant risk areas associated with the C-130J MATS O&S program and provides workable mitigation strategies.

d. A workable capability to establish a usable and flexible contract agreement with the aircraft prime contractor, TSSC contractor, C-130J MATS OEM contractor and subcontractors, and any other contractors required to meet training system sustainment by providing thorough and reasonable Draft ACAs.

e. Clearly outlines an effective approach for internal/external communication.

f. Provides an effective Quality Control Plan, one which ensures the Government receives quality workmanship meeting the requirements of the PWS.

Subfactor 2: Sustainment Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed operations, maintenance, and support functions required to sustain training systems and ensure normal and surge trainer availability requirements. The Government will evaluate how the offeror makes use of the Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) operations to achieve the criteria stated in this subfactor.

Measures of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides:

1. An effective approach to managing the support resources, technical data, spares, support equipment, and technicians to meet the training system availability and throughput requirements specified in the PWS.

1. A sound and realistic approach to maintain and manage the Logistics Support Package (LSP) to meet availability requirements.

1. An approach that provides effective solutions to forecast, identify, monitor, and mitigate deficiencies due to obsolescence and material shortage issues within the current system.

1. A sound and realistic approach for site activation, including setting up and beginning training at a new site.

Subfactor 3: Aircrew Instruction Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s processes and capabilities to meet C130J MATS O&S guaranteed student requirements for instruction, throughput, training, and graduation.

Measures of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides:

1. An effective and flexible Course Trade-off Matrix that ensures training opprtunites are not lost

1. A sound and realistic approach to provide for student instruction, including proposed qualified staffing for the aircrew training devices.

1. An effective approach for the operation of the current Training Management System (TMS) and the Graduate Training Integration Management System (GTIMS) in support of student training.

1. An effective approach to analyze student data and develop summary reports for use in revising curricula and training devices/media.

1. A sound and realistic approach to remediate students with identified deficiencies without displacing student throughput, at no additional cost to the Government.

Factor 2: Past Performance Past performance will be evaluated as described below. The SSA will assess the past performance and price ratings for all offers that were assessed as technically acceptable to make an integrated assessment for an award decision (see paragraph 2.4).

Confidence Assessment The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the technical subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Should the past performance evaluation be completed on an offeror’s proposal, the offeror will receive one of the performance confidence assessment ratings described in the table below. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. As a result, they will receive an “Unknown Confidence” rating for the Past Performance Factor.

Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

Evaluation Process The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant efforts. 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.

Problems not addressed by the offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

Offerors with adverse past performance information to which they have not previously had an opportunity to respond, may be given the opportunity to provide clarifications and to address the adverse information during any other type of exchange IAW FAR 15.306. For this acquisition, adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element.

Past performance information will be obtained through the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and/or similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency channels, interviews with program managers and COs, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources.

Recency Assessment An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, offerors contracts citations must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five calendar years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

Relevance Assessment In determining relevance, consideration will be given to performance of efforts involving training systems that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude, and complexity than the effort described in the C-130J MATS O&S PWS. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local Governments and commercial customers. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance will be considered. Problems not addressed by the offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated past performance on the basis of its breadth, depth, and similarity to the work required to meet the contract objectives. Each offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which they obtained similar or otherwise relevant experience on contracts or subcontracts performed for products or services similar in scope, nature, and complexity as those under Subfactors 1 through 3.

Relevancy Ratings

Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (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 following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

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.

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.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating.

Factor 3: Price Each offeror’s price proposal and total evaluated price (TEP) shall be evaluated for completeness, balanced pricing, and price reasonableness. In the evaluation of an offeror’s individual rates the Government may use information provided by DCMA, DCAA, or other information sources deemed appropriate by the Government.

Completeness Completeness shall be determined based on the information requested in Section L, Volume III. Prices that are not properly supported may cause the Government to find an offeror’s proposal unreasonable, unbalanced or incomplete.

Submission of an incomplete Price Matrix as set forth in Section L, 6.2.2 will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Balanced Pricing The Government may determine a proposal unacceptable should the proposed prices be materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if it is determined that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable program risk to the Government.

Price Reasonableness The price evaluation will document reasonableness of the proposed TEP. 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 price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The following are examples of the price analysis techniques that may be applied: comparing proposed labor rates to the Independent Government Estimate (IGE); comparing proposed labor rates proposed by other offerors, and comparing proposed labor rates to historical labor rates proposed on recently awarded competitive and sole source training system acquisitions.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be calculated using the prices proposed in the price matrix contained in Section J, Attachment 22, Pricing Matrix. Instructions for completing the spreadsheet are in Section L, paragraph 6.2.2. Offerors shall review and make sure they concur with all TEP totals on the TEP Tab of the Pricing Matrix.

The TEP will be calculated as follows:

The offeror enters monthly prices for the transition period in the TransitionTab and the prices are summed for a total transition price. This price is then linied to the TEP Tab.

The offeror enters prices for CLS ranges in the CLS Tabs. These prices are summed and divided by the number of ranges (11) to come up with an average CLS price for each year and each site. These average prices will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be linked to the TEP Tab.

The offeror enters prices for Student Throughput and Government Use Time in the Student Throughput Tabs. These prices are summed and divided by the number of ranges (11) to come up with an average price for each course for each year for each site. These average prices will be used for evaluation purposes only and will be linked to the TEP Tab.

All prices are summed in the TEP Tab to calculate a total price to be used for evaluation purposes.

Trade-off Methodology If the lowest TEP 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 ceases at this point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence performance confidence assessment, the SSA shall then make an integrated assessment best value award decision by considering all offerors’ proposals that were evaluated as technically acceptable. Then those proposals will be traded-off between past performance and price, as described in M001(1).

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.

Review and Visits The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to look at facilities for conducting engineering services; to gather information for judging the offeror’s potential for correcting deficiencies; and/or to assess quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes. 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.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Per Section L, paragraph 7.2, offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale in an alternate proposal. Unless such exceptions are identified and supported as required, 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. Offerors are cautioned that failure to meet such solicitation requirements may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

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. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.