Sec_M_-Eval_Factors_for_Award_MASTER_14_Nov.pdf

FA8629-12-R-2400

Section M

14 Nov 2012

SECTION M

1.0 M001 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

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

Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

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

Supplement (AFFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 04

March 2011, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will base the source selection decision on assessment of Technical, Cost/Price and Past Performance. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements and is determined, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government.

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

1.1.1 Source Selection Process Flow

The Government will perform this source selection in the following manner:

Step One

1.1.1.1 Affordability Target Gate: The Government will examine the offeror’s initial proposal.

Any proposal received will be reviewed to ensure that the proposed Subtotal Total Evaluated

Price (TEP) is less than or equal to $6.848B (TEP Workbook, “TPP-TEP” Worksheet, cell D10).

Any proposal received that exceeds a $6.848B Subtotal TEP will be returned to the offeror without any further evaluation and is considered ineligible for award.

Step Two

1.1.1.2 Technical Factor: The Government will evaluate the technical factor at the subfactor level for compliance and risk as detailed in paragraph 2.3 and its subparagraphs. Any technical subfactor found to be Unacceptable for compliance or risk will be ineligible for award. During the technical factor evaluation, the Government will also evaluate how many goal requirements, if any, are met.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

1.1.1.3 Past Performance Factor: The Government will evaluate the past performance factor as detailed in paragraph 2.5 and its subparagraphs. Any proposal found to be Unacceptable for past performance will be ineligible for award.

1.1.1.4 Cost/Price: The Government will evaluate each offeror’s Total Proposed Price as detailed in paragraph 2.4 and its subparagraphs to determine the offeror’s TEP. Any proposal found to be unreasonable or unbalanced will be ineligible for award.

Step Three

1.1.1.5 The Government will award a contract to the offeror with Acceptable ratings for

Technical Compliance, Technical Risk, and Past Performance, and the lowest TEP (subtotal TEP

NTE $6.848B).

1.1.1.6 The figure below is a visual summarization of the process described above:

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Combat Rescue Helicopter (CRH)

Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP)

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government Special Tooling/Test Equipment.

1.4 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.

2.0 M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1.1: Systems Integration

Subfactor 1.2: Aircraft Mission Capability

(including 4 goal requirements)

Subfactor 1.3: Systems Engineering/Program Management (SE/PM)

Subfactor 1.4: Training System

Subfactor 1.5: Product Support

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

Within the Technical factor, all subfactors are equal. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e)(2), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are approximately equal to the

Cost/Price factor.

2.3 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct and related assessments: the Technical

Compliance Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. The Air Vehicle Description Data provided in response to paragraph 4.2.1.3 of Section L will be utilized to evaluate all Technical

Subfactors.

2.3.1 Technical Compliance Rating

The evaluation of the Technical Factor provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical compliance will be assessed at the subfactor level, using the Measures of Merit (MoM) set forth below. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the ratings described in Table 1 – Technical Compliance Ratings, shown below. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical factor but shall retain subfactor ratings. Technical subfactor 1.2 is the only subfactor in which a

Goal Adjustment (See Table 2) may be earned. A Goal Adjustment will be earned only when the offeror’s proposal meets a goal requirement. The Goal Adjustment will be included in the calculation of the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price as described in paragraph 2.4 and following subparagraphs below. The Government will not assess additional value in any manner for exceeding a goal nor will additional value be assessed in any manner for anything less than the goal but higher than the minimum.

Table 1 – Technical Compliance 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.

Table 2 – Minimum/Goal Requirements by Subfactor

Subfactor Name Minimum Goal Goal Adjustment

1.2 Hover

Performance

4000 PA / 35

o

C 6000 PA / 35

o C Offeror TPP x 7% x 2/5

1.2 Combat Radius 195 nm 225 nm Offeror TPP x 7%

x 1/5

1.2 Payload 500lbs of recovery

team members and

500lbs of rescue equipment

750lbs of recovery team members and

750lbs of rescue equipment

Offeror TPP x 7% x 1/5

1.2 Cabin Space 2 non-ambulatory

IPs on flotation-equipped Stokes litters

4 non-ambulatory

IPs on flotation-equipped Stokes litters

Offeror TPP x 7% x 1/5

Total Goal Adjustment possible: Offeror TPP x 7%

2.3.2 Technical Risk Rating

The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach for each MoM within each Technical subfactor. Each offeror’s proposal will be evaluated and receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described below in Table 3 for each

Technical subfactor. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the proposed technical approach in meeting the requirement. For the four requirements that the offeror can select to propose either Minimum or Goal (see Table 2), the risk will be evaluated for the requirement proposed by the offeror in their proposal. A Technical Risk Rating of Unacceptable will be considered ineligible for award.

Table 3 - Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

2.3.3 Subfactor 1.1: System Integration

MoM: The System Integration subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal substantiates their ability to design, develop, and test a system that meets the following performance capability requirements as documented in the CRH System Specification (SS) and Statement of Work

(SOW), and is consistent with the Government’s Information Support Plan (ISP) (only applies to

Net-Ready, Tactical Datalink and Integrated Broadcast Service, Tactical Communications, and

SILs) and the offeror’s Integrated Master Plan (IMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).

Radio Frequency (RF) Capabilities Required (SS 3.2.1.3.6.1.2, 3.2.1.3.6.1.2.1, 3.2.1.3.6.2.2, Appendix D, Appendix F)

EO/IR Detection and Countermeasures Required (SS 3.2.1.3.6.1.3, 3.2.1.3.6.1.3.1,

3.2.1.3.6.2.3 through 3.2.1.3.6.2.4.1.2, 3.2.1.4.1.2, 3.2.1.4.1.2.1, Appendix D, Appendix F)

LASER Detection (SS 3.2.1.3.6.1.4, 3.2.1.3.6.1.4.1, Appendix D, Appendix F)

Ballistic Threat Vulnerability Reduction and Force Protection (SS 3.2.1.4.2.1 through

3.2.1.4.2.1.2.3.1, 3.2.1.4.3 through 3.2.1.4.3.2.1, Appendix D, Appendix F)

Net-Ready (SS 3.2.3.4.4.1 through 3.2.3.4.4.1.7)

Tactical Datalink and Integrated Broadcast Service Requirements (SS 3.2.1.3.5.2.1 and

3.2.1.3.5.2.2)

Tactical Communications Requirements (SS 3.2.1.3.1.2.7 through 3.2.1.3.1.2.10)

Mock-ups and System Integration Labs (SOW 1.4.3.1 through 1.4.3.4)

The Government will also evaluate any proposed alternate standard for the SS paragraphs listed in this subfactor, to ensure that the use of the alternate standard would not negatively impact or degrade the CRH mission performance.

2.3.4 Subfactor 1.2: Aircraft Mission Capability

MoM: The Aircraft Mission Capability subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal substantiates the offeror’s ability to deliver an aircraft that meets the following Aircraft Mission

Capability requirements as documented in the CRH SS and is consistent with the offeror’s IMP and IMS.

Combat Radius (SS 3.2.1.2.1.2.5.1)

Hover (SS 3.2.1.2.3.1) o NOTE: Measure in pressure altitude.

Payload (SS 3.2.1.2.1.1, 3.2.1.2.1.2, 3.2.1.2.1.2.4.2.1, 3.2.1.2.1.2.4.2.2, Table 3.2-1) o NOTE: If a third cabin crewmember (additional gunnery position) is proposed to meet the field of fire (SS 3.2.1.4.3.2) requirement under “Defensive Armament”

(SS 3.2.1.4.3) then the minimum and goal values of the Standard Configuration

Load (SCL) will be increased to reflect the additional weight for the cabin crewmembers and equipment. Weapon, weapon mount and ammo weights shall also be increased to account for the additional gunnery position.

Mission Performance (SS 3.2.1.2.1.2)

Human Systems Integration o Cabin Space (SS 3.4.1.1.5.1 and 3.4.1.1.5.2) o Cockpit Integration (SS 3.2.1.3.9.9.3 through 3.2.1.3.9.9.3.3.1).

o Cabin Integration (SS 3.2.1.3.9.9.4, 3.2.1.3.9.9.4.1, 3.2.1.3.9.9.5, 3.2.1.3.9.9.5.1 and 3.2.1.4.3.2).

The Government will also evaluate any proposed alternate standard for the SS paragraphs listed in this subfactor, to ensure that the use of the alternate standard would not negatively impact or degrade the CRH mission performance.

2.3.5 Subfactor 1.3: Systems Engineering/Program Management (SE/PM)

Under the SE/PM subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to managing the CRH Program. It will include a comprehensive evaluation of the systems engineering and program management approach and processes proposed to be used on the CRH

System and the approach to meeting Required Assets Available (RAA) by 60 MAC.

MoM: The subfactor is met when all of the following have been met:

Schedule: The offeror provides a comprehensive and executable IMP/IMS, IAW the

Department of Defense (DoD) IMP and IMS Preparation and Use Guide, that fully documents the key events that will lead to a successful delivery of aircraft, fielding of training assets, and initial support thereof required to meet RAA by 60 MAC.

Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS): The offeror provides a CWBS IAW

MIL-STD-881C and substantiates an acceptable approach to managing the CWBS.

Airworthiness (AW): The offeror provides an executable AW Plan addressing how the offeror will support all of the sections in the draft Government AW Plan and to ensure that all required airworthiness certifications can be secured in sufficient time to support

Initial Operational Test and Evaluation (IOT&E) to accommodate RAA by 60 MAC.

The offeror provides a draft AW Specification addressing all of the airworthiness criteria in the draft Government AW Specification (Systems Information, Sections 4-18 & 20), clear justification for any criterion deemed not applicable (column D), proposed tailoring of standards and methods of compliance (columns F & G), and proposed listing of substantiating documentation (column H).

Live Fire Test & Evaluation (LFT&E): The offeror’s prior LFT&E, their survivability features, and their ability to provide assets for Live Fire Testing (based on offeror’s IMS) will be assessed to determine if the DOT&E Live Fire Test can be accomplished in sufficient time to support a Full Rate Production Decision.

Manufacturing and Quality:

o Quality: The offeror provides a comprehensive approach that ensures acceptable manufacturing product quality will exist (both at the prime and subcontractor levels) for achieving the production capacity to support the required deliverables for the

CRH System. The Aerospace Basic Quality System Standard AS 9100C, or current equivalent, will be used as the basis for acceptable manufacturing product quality.

o Production Capacity: The offeror provides a comprehensive approach for production and delivery of the proposed CRH System on time given the delivery schedule as contained in the RFP.

o Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA): The offeror provides a comprehensive description of the process and results of a self-assessment for the offeror’s baseline aircraft configuration, IAW the DoD Manufacturing Readiness

Level Deskbook, including an adequate approach to achieve the target Manufacturing

Readiness Level (MRL) of 8 by Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) of the aircraft and MRL 9 for transition to Full-Rate Production (FRP).

Small Business Participation Plan: The offeror provides a Small Business Participation

Plan that is compliant with the format as contained in Section L, para 4.5.8.2, and as set forth in Exhibit A, CDRL A082. The Small Business Participation Plan shall demonstrate that no less than 5% of the total contract dollars will be subcontracted to small business concerns at the first tier level. The offeror’s failure to substantiate this will result in the offeror not being considered for award.

Reliability: The offeror provides comprehensive evidence the CRH system reliability requirements can be met within program timelines and that a Reliability and

Maintainability (R&M) Program exists for the baseline aircraft which sufficiently details the processes necessary to achieve the required reliability.

2.3.6 Subfactor 1.4: Training System

MoM: The Training System subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal substantiates the offeror's ability to deliver a training system that meets the following Training System requirements as documented in the CRH TSS and SOW, and is consistent with the offeror's IMP and IMS.

Aircrew Training Devices (ATD) & Maintenance Training Devices (MTD)

Development and Delivery Requirements (TSS 3.2, SOW Annex D)

Aircrew & Maintenance Courseware Development (SOW 1.5.2.2)

Type 1 Training (SOW 1.5.2.1)

Training System Configuration Management / Concurrency Processes (SOW 1.2.15.4)

Distributed Mission Operations (DMO) Capability for Weapons System Trainer (WST) and Operational Flight Trainer (OFT) (TSS 3.2.18, SOW 1.5.2.3)

Visual and motion fidelity for all primary crew members (Pilot, Co-pilot, Special Mission

Aviators (formerly Flight Engineer and Aerial Gunner(s)) (TSS 3.2)

2.3.7 Subfactor 1.5: Product Support

Under the Product Support subfactor, the Government will evaluate the proposal to determine if the offeror’s proposed approach substantiates the ability to meet the CRH product support requirements as set forth in the CRH SS, TSS and SOW and is consistent with the offeror's IMP and IMS.

MoM: The subfactor is met when all of the following have been met:

Maintainability: The offeror substantiates their approach and provides comprehensive evidence the CRH System maintainability requirements can be met within program timelines and that a R&M Program exists which sufficiently details the processes necessary to achieve the required maintainability.

Logistics Support: The offeror provides an acceptable time-phased Logistic Support

Strategy to support test and transition to organic O-level maintenance (including Field

Service Representative (FSR) support) and ISS by the start of IOT&E. The offeror provides comprehensive spares and support equipment listings, with supporting methodology of calculation, and logistics footprint for deployment. The offeror shall describe the management of spares consistent with Contractor Supported Weapon System

(CSWS) practices during Interim Supply Support (ISS), approach to total asset visibility and transitioning from Contractor Inventory Control Point (C-ICP) to the Government.

The offeror completes Section J, Attachments 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 with adequate spares and support equipment.

Technical Manuals: The offeror substantiates a comprehensive, time-phased approach to ensure Technical Manual Contract Requirements (TMCR) are met.

Data Management/Rights: The offeror substantiates an adequate approach for the provision of technical data and computer software to be delivered under CLIN 0004 (and option CLINs 0304, 0404, 0504, 0604, 0704, 0804, 0904 and 1004) and CLIN 0005 (and option CLINs 0305, 0405, 0505, 0605, 0705, 0805, 0905 and 1005). The offeror provides a completed and signed pre-award Identification and Assertion of Restrictions on Technical Data and Computer Software in compliance with Section L paragraph

4.7.4.1.1 and SCR ASC/WISV-H021 and consistent with provision of at least

Government purpose rights for OMIT Data (other than commercial computer software) as set forth in SCR ASC/WISV-H020; for Other Non-OMIT Data in compliance with

DFARS 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, and 252.227-7015. The offeror’s proposed commercial computer software licenses contain terms and conditions consistent with

Federal procurement law and contractual requirements.

2.3.8 Reserved

2.4 Factor 2: Cost/Price Evaluation Procedures

The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated at the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in Present

Value (PV). The Total Proposed Price (TPP) will also be evaluated for Reasonableness and/or

Unbalanced pricing. The Government will not perform a cost realism assessment nor make any risk adjustments to the Offeror’s proposed prices. Determination of Reasonableness, Unbalanced Pricing, and the “TPP-TEP” worksheet of the TEP Workbook will be shown to the

SSA as part of the Cost/Price evaluation.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.4.1 Total Evaluated Price: The TEP is the Present Value (PV) of the offeror proposed

Total Proposed Price (see paragraph 2.4.1.1 below) plus the Fuel and ST/TE Adjustments, and minus the Goal Adjustment (see paragraphs 2.4.1.2, 2.4.1.3, and 2.4.1.4 below).

2.4.1.1 Total Proposed Price at Present Value (TPP (PV)): The Total Proposed Price (TPP) is the Then-Year dollar sum of all CLINs within the TEP Workbook. These CLINs will include

Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF) CLINs at ceiling price and Firm Fixed Price (FFP) with Not-to-Exceed (NTE) CLINs at the most probable quantities included in the TEP Workbook, completed in accordance with Section L instructions. All Then Year totals will be discounted using a Present Value (PV) calculation described in paragraph 2.4.1.5 below. For the purposes of evaluation, the TEP Workbook assumes the offeror will achieve RAA at 60MAC.

2.4.1.1.1 Aircraft VIQ Matrix (Section J, Attachment 7): Aircraft CLINs will be included in the TEP and derived from the appropriate unit price (at ceiling for FPIF) of all quantities proposed within the matrix within a given year. The unit price will be multiplied by the most probable quantities in the Total Evaluated Price Workbook. NOTE: The “VIQ Matrix” worksheet of the TEP workbook will become Section J, Attachment 7 upon contract award.

2.4.1.1.2 Interim Supply Support (ISS) CLINs (to include ISS-IOT&E): ISS CLINs will be evaluated at the level required to support the most probable buy and Government’s assumed delivery schedules. ISS FPIF CLINs will be evaluated at the Ceiling Price. For evaluation purposes, the number of ISS months is indicated in the TEP Workbook on the “Prod

Acquisition” tab. This quantity assumes six months of /ISS service will be required for all aircraft quantities in the year they are delivered to a base and twelve months of service for aircraft that were delivered in a previous year. For example, if four aircraft are delivered to Base

“X” when no aircraft have been previously delivered, the number of ISS months to be evaluated is 24 (4 A/C x 6 months). If five additional aircraft are delivered in the following year to Base

“X”, the number of ISS months to be evaluated is 78 (4 previously delivered A/C x 12 months +

5 new A/C x 6 months).

2.4.1.1.3 Reserved

2.4.1.1.4 Reserved

2.4.1.1.5 Live Fire Test Assets CLINs: The required Live Fire assets and associated schedule will not be known until after contract award. For the purposes of evaluation, the average of all

Live Fire Assets CLINs will be included in the TPP. This amount will be divided and spread to each of the four Live Fire Assets CLINs based upon the weight of each CLIN’s summed total.

This calculation can be observed in rows 59-61 of the “Live Fire T&E” tab in the TEP

Workbook. The phased CLIN totals will be linked to the “EMD Acquisition” worksheet of the

TEP Workbook prior to being discounted to Present Value.

2.4.1.1.6 Readiness Spares Packages (RSP) and SE Mobility Packages: RSP and SE

Mobility Packages Kits will be included in the TEP at the quantities required to support the most probable aircraft buy and Government’s assumed delivery schedules and are indicated in the

TEP Workbook. Kits are included in quantities of 1 kit to every four aircraft per base (except

AFRC and ANG bases where kits are 1 kit to every five aircraft per base). The kits will be evaluated at the most probable buy and Government’s assumed delivery schedules contained in the TEP Workbook.

2.4.1.2 Fuel Costs Adjustment to TEP: The TEP Workbook will use the offeror’s proposed fuel burn rate in gallons per hour (from Section L, para 4.4.4 and SS 3.2.3.4.2) and convert it to cost, in Present Value, and add it to the TPP (PV). The fuel adjustment will be evaluated using the Government’s assumed delivery schedules contained in the TEP Workbook and the appropriate fuel price per gallon according to Defense Logistics Agency prices for JP-8 in

“FY2013 Standard Prices” (effective 1 Oct 2012). All offerors will receive a Fuel Adjustment.

2.4.1.3 Special Tooling/Test Equipment (ST/TE) Adjustment to TEP:

The TEP Workbook will use the offeror’s proposed additional Government ST/TE items’

(“ST&TE” worksheet) acquisition price to calculate an hourly rental equivalent rate and apply it to the proposed rental time period for each FY in EMD and each lot within Production. The summary of all rental equivalents (in PV) will be added to the TPP (PV). The rental rate equivalent is calculated by multiplying the acquisition price by 2% and dividing by 720 (per

FAR 52.245-9 (e)(2). Only the offerors proposing the use of additional Government ST/TE items will receive a ST/TE Adjustment.

2.4.1.4 Goal Adjustment to TEP:

The offeror’s TEP will be adjusted to give credit for goal capabilities that are proposed by reducing the offeror’s TEP. The TEP Workbook will use the offeror’s proposed goal capabilities in order to calculate the Goal Adjustment to the TEP. The total potential amount of the Goal

Adjustment is 7% of the offeror’s TPP. The total of 7% has been allocated to each potential goal requirement as delineated in Table 2 above. This worksheet shall match the CEO Certification letter regarding the selections made for Appendix A of the System Specification.

2.4.1.5 Present Value (PV) Calculations: PVs will be calculated by discounting with the

Office of Management & Budget (OMB)-Issued Nominal Discount Rate from Circular A-94

Appendix C, Revised December 2011 (Memo dated 3 Jan 2012). For the TPP, the discount factors will be applied to the offeror’s proposed TY prices. For Fuel, the adjustment is first calculated in a Base Year value and then phased according to the CRH platform’s most probable buy, delivery, and retirement quantity schedules. The phased adjustment will be inflated with the USAF inflation indices for Fuel (based on OSD indices) and then discounted with the appropriate rates from the OMB Circular A-94 mentioned above. For ST/TE, the Base Year adjustment will be inflated with the USAF inflation indices for Development and Production

(3600 and 3010 funds respectively based on OSD indices) and then discounted with the OMB

Circular A-94 rate mentioned above.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: The Government intends to use adequate price competition as a basis for establishing the reasonableness of the proposed price (see FAR15.403-1(c)(1)). For a price to be reasonable, it must represent the price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The

Government may evaluate the offeror’s Cost/Price proposal using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to supplement the determination of reasonableness. The

Government reserves the right to require submission of other than cost or pricing data by the offeror, if necessary to determine price reasonableness as described in FAR 15.403-3(a)(1)(ii).

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether or not they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the Contracting

Officer (CO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5 Factor 3: Past Performance Evaluation Procedures

2.5.1 Ratings: The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described in Table

4 – Past Performance Evaluation Ratings below.

Table 4 - Past Performance Evaluation Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.5.2 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 requirements. 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, COs and Fee

Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.5.3 The Government will evaluate only recent and relevant Past Performance to make its assessment as to whether the offeror has the ability to successfully execute the CRH Program.

The Government will determine relevancy and recency of offeror provided information, as well as, information obtained from other sources based on the following subparagraphs:

2.5.3.1 Recency Assessment: In determining recency, the Government will only consider work performed within a five (5) year period prior to RFP release. This will allow offerors to provide the most current Past Performance information for consideration. Additionally, the

Government will not consider any new contracts (or modifications) awarded or where performance began within 6 months of RFP release due to the limited performance history of these efforts. Any past performance that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.5.3.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will make a relevancy determination of the offeror’s Past Performance. The Government will use the following table to determine whether the past performance information is relevant to this solicitation, Table 5 - Past Performance

Relevancy Definition. The Government will make a relevancy determination of the offeror’s

Past Performance, including subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partner(s) as described in Section L. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated so as to most accurately reflect the relevancy relative to the proposed team. The Past Performance information obtained from other sources will be used to establish relevancy of Past Performance.

Table 5 - Past Performance Relevancy Definition

Relevant (R) Present/Past Performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR) Present/Past Performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.5.3.3 Performance Quality Assessment: For each recent, relevant Past Performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all recent and relevant 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 an unsatisfactory rating 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 measureable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness. The Government will use the quality levels shown in Table 6 when assessing Performance Quality.

Table 6 – Past Performance Quality Ratings

Quality Assessment Rating Description

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

Unsatisfactory (U) 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 oversight was required.

2.5.4 Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), Past Performance Quality Assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated Past Performance substantiates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns, monetary targets for

SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged

Business Participation Program – Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS

215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated Past

Performance substantiates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business

Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

2.5.5 Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive one integrated past performance rating. More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the past performance rating.

3.0 M003 DISCUSSIONS

In accordance with the provision 52.215-1 (f)(4) Alternate I, entitled, Instructions to offerors -

Competitive Acquisition (Jan 2004), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. However, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. If the CO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO 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.

The offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (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 proposal changes or exceptions that introduces risk by an offeror with submittal of the FPR may render proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

Offerors are hereby advised that only those proposals determined to have reasonable chance for award of a contract will be included in the competitive range. While every effort will be made to maintain strong competition, the CO will also look to eliminate time consuming and unnecessary discussions with those offerors whose proposals have no reasonable chance for award. This procedure is considered beneficial to both the Air Force and the offerors involved since, in addition to saving further expenditure of resources, acquisition lead time should be reduced.

4.0 M004 PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5.0 M005 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

ANNEX A

Acronym List

AF Air Force

AFFARS Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

ATD Aircrew Training Devices

CLIN Contract Line Item Number

CO Contracting Officer

CRH Combat Rescue Helicopter

CSWS Contractor Supported Weapon System

CTE Critical Technology Element

CWBS Contract Work Breakdown Structure

DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency

DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

DoD Department of Defense

DMO Distributed Mission Operations

DT&E Developmental Test and Evaluation

EMD Engineering & Manufacturing Development

EN Evaluation Notice eSRS Electronic Subcontract Reporting System

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FAPIIS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information Systems

FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation

FFP Firm-Fixed Price

FPIF Fixed-Price Incentive Firm

FPR Final Proposal Revision

FSR Field Service Representative

FTU Formal Training Unit

FURA Fuel Usage Rate Assessment

FY Fiscal Year

G-ICP Government Inventory Control Point

IA Information Assurance

IAW In Accordance With

ICS Interim Contractor Support

IMP Integrated Master Plan

IMS Integrated Master Schedule

IOC Initial Operational Capability

IOT&E Initial Operational Test and Evaluation

IP Isolated Personnel

ISP Information Support Plan

ISS Interim Supply Support

IUID Item Unique Identification

LFT&E Live Fire Test & Evaluation

MoM Measure of Merit

MRA Manufacturing Readiness Assessment

MRL Manufacturing Readiness Level

MTD Maintenance Training Devices

NTE Not-to-Exceed

OFT Operational Flight Trainer

OMIT Operations, Maintenance, Installation and Training

OT&E Operational Test & Evaluation

OTRR Operational Test Readiness Review

PAS Pre-Award Survey

PIFs Past Performance Information Forms

PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System

PV Present Value

RAA Required Assets Available

RAMS Reliability, Availability, Maintainability, and Supportability

RFP Request for Proposal

SCL Standard Configuration Load

SCR Special Contract Requirements

SDTA System Demonstration Test Articles

SE/PM Systems Engineering / Program Management

SMA Special Mission Aviators

SOW Statement of Work

SS System Specification

SSA Source Selection Authority

SSEB Source Selection Evaluation Board

ST Special Tooling

TE Test Equipment

TEP Total Evaluated Price

TEP (PV) Total Evaluated Price in discounted Present Value dollars

TMCR Technical Manual Contract Requirements

TPP Total Proposed Price

TPP (PV) Total Proposed Price in discounted Present Value dollars

TRA Technology Readiness Assessment

TRL Technology Readiness Level

TSS Training System Specification

USAF United States Air Force

WST Weapons System Trainer

VCRM Verification Cross Reference Matrix