Attachment_10_-_Evaluation_Criteria_RFP_Section_M.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Criteria

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a competitive best value source selection in which competing Offerors' past performance history will be evaluated on a basis significantly more important than, cost or price considerations. 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 prices and performance records.

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

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

2. RFP COMPLIANCE

Initially, the government contracts team will evaluate the Offerors’ proposal for compliance with instructions in Section L. Any proposals that fail to comply with RFP Section L - Instructions to Offerors may be determined unawardable.

3. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY

3.1 The technical factor is comprised of two (2) subfactors: Sample/Live Task Order and IDIQ Management Plan. The government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Ratings will be assigned at the subfactor level, then rolled into an overall factor rating. In order for the technical factor to be rated Acceptable, both technical subfactors must be rated as Acceptable.

3.2 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 requriements of the solicitation, or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation. The Government retains the right, at any time during the evaluation process, to exclude a proposal from further consideration, without allowing the Offeror an opportunity to revise its proposal, if that proposal is found to be grossly deficient.

Failure to meet a technical requirement will result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. An unacceptable rating in the technical factor renders the Offerors’ proposal unawardable. Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings are defined in the table below:

3.3 Technical Subfactor 1 – Sample & Live Task Approach

The Government will evaluate the Offerors approach to performing the sample and live task orders to ensure the Offeror understands the work to be performed. Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror’s proposal reflects the following:

3.3.1 A sound and comprehensive technical approach for accomplishing both the sample and live task orders that uses the RDIF facility and equipment (See RFP Section C, RDIF Equipment list) located at Wright Patterson AFB. (Two separate technical approaches are necessary, one for the sample task and one for the live task).

3.3.2 Labor Categories and Labor Hours which are commensurate with the technical approach described by the Offeror in response to RFP Section L – Paragraph 6.1.1 for both the sample and live task orders.

3.3.3 Personnel qualified to perform the labor hours described by the Offeror in response to RFP Section L – Paragraph 6.1.2 with experience working in aircraft component development, integration, prototyping, and production for military aircraft for both the sample and live task orders.

3.3.4 A comprehensive list of materials, including quantities, necessary to complete performance of both the sample and live tasks, accompanied by the name and DUNS number for each supplier of material.

3.3.5 A comprehensive list of tasks that must be subcontracted, accompanied by the name and DUNS number of all identified subcontractors.

3.4 Technical Subfactor 2 – Management of IDIQ

The Government will evaluate the Offerors approach to managing the IDIQ contract to ensure the Offeror understands how to obtain the resources necessary to successfully perform tasks requiring any of the capabilities listed in RFP Section C – Performance Work Statement (PWS) Section 5. Understanding will be demonstrated when the Offeror submits the following:

3.4.1 The specific capabilities identified in RFP Section C – PWS Section 5 that it will perform using labor from its own employees.

3.4.2 The specific capabilities identified in RFP Section C – PWS Section 5 that the Offeror will perform using labor performed by subcontractors or the Offerors teaming partners. Reminder - the Offeror must comply with Limitations on Subcontracting in FAR 52.219-14.

3.4.3 All capabilities in RFP Section C – PWS Section 5 must be included in either the Offerors response to 3.4.1 or 3.4.2. The name and DUNS of all subcontractors and teaming partners must be identified.

3.4.4 An effective process for qualifying and managing performance of its subcontractors, teaming partners, and material suppliers.

3.4.5 An effective process for obtaining fair and reasonable prices for subcontracted work and materials.

3.4.6 A sound quality control plan that it will follow throughout the contract.

3.4.7 A comprehensive plan for maintaining a qualified and experience workforce performing aircraft component development, integration, prototyping, and production within 50 miles of Wright Patterson AFB.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 The Government will review up to seven (7) total Vendor Past Performance Forms (RFP Section J – Attachment 4) submitted by the Offeror. Any submissions in excess of the limit will be handled as describe in RFP Section L –Instructions to Offerors.

4.2 The past performance evaluation will begin with the Government assessing whether subcontractor/teaming partner (to include a parent company) past performance may be attributed to the Offeror. To be attributed to the Offeror, the subcontractor/teaming partner’s (to include a parent company) name and DUNS number on the Vendor Past Performance Form RFP Section J – Attachment 4 must match the name and DUNS number of a firm listed as a subcontractor/teaming partner (to include a parent company) in the Offeror’s response to RFP Section L, Paragraph 6.2.3.

4.3 Recency & Relevancy The Government will assess the recency and relevancy of each of the Offeror’s Vendor Past Performance Forms, RFP Section J – Attachment 4.

4.3.1 If performance on the project occurred within the last five (5) years prior to the RFP’s proposal submission deadline, the past performance record will receive a rating of “Recent,” otherwise, the past performance record will receive a rating of “Not-Recent,” and will not receive further evaluation.

4.3.2 Relevancy will be assessed on each individual past performance record submission, and on the aggregate. “On the aggregate” means on the seven (7) submissions as a whole. Relevancy ratings for each individual past performance record will be determined by the number of tasks performed that were the same or similar to the capabilities in PWS section 5 that were performed during the contract, and the extent to which those capabilities were performed in the development, integration, prototyping, and production of aircraft components in a rapid environment requiring adaptive collaboration. The aggregate relevancy rating will be determined by the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate a breadth of experience performing the tasks in PWS Section 5. The individual and aggregate relevancy rating will be rolled into an overall relevancy rating. The overall relevancy rating assigned to the Offeror will be assigned based on the table below:

4.4 Performance Assessment

The Government will then evaluate the Offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including cost and schedule. This evaluation will be based on responses to the RFP Section J Attachment 5 - RDIF Past Performance Questionnaire that will be completed by the Government. Performance information may also be gathered from sources outside the submissions provided by the Offeror. Sources of performance information may include Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Integrated Reporting System (PPIRS), and System for Award Management (SAM).

This 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. 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. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing past performance:

Performance Assessment Rating/Color Description

4.5 Performance Confidence Assessment

Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The Government will consider the recency, relevancy, and performance when determining the Offeror’s Performance Confidence Rating. Each Offeror will receive one of the ratings below:

TABLE 5- 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.

As a result of an anaO OOfferors 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 and, as a result, will receive an “Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “unknown confidence” rating.

5. PRICE

5.1 The Government will review the Offerors price proposal for completeness and reasonableness.

5.1.1 Completeness

The Government will review the RDIF Price Matrix (RFP Section J – Attachment 3) for completeness. The RDIF Price Matrix Contains two sections; IDIQ Pricing Section, and Live Task Order Pricing Section. For the IDIQ pricing to be considered complete, the Offeror must have submitted a basic labor rate, a labor overhead rate, a G&A rate, and a profit rate for every labor category in the IDIQ pricing section (the RDIF Pricing Matrix computes the fully burdened rate) and must have also submitted the material G&A and Profit Rate. For the Live Task Order pricing to be considered complete, the Offeror must extend its IDIQ pricing by the number of hours it proposed in response to RFP Section L section 6.1.2. The Offeror must also provide pricing for all materials it listed in response to RFP Section L 6.1.4 and for all tasks it intends to subcontract as listed in response to RFP Section L 6.1.5. Failure to provide complete pricing may result in a proposal being deemed unawardable.

5.1.2 Reasonableness

The Government will review the prices submitted in the RFP Section J Attachment 3 - RDIF Price Matrix for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally price reasonableness is established through cost or price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.2 TEP Calculation

5.2.1 The total material price is added to the total labor price and live task order price to obtain the TEP.

Total labor price: For each fiscal year of the contract’s period of performance, including the option to extend services period, the Government has provided the Offeror with an estimated number of hours per labor category and an estimated amount of materials.

On an annual basis, the RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3 creates a total price per labor category by multiplying the number of example hours for each labor category by the labor rate established by the Offeror. The total price per labor category is aggregated, to obtain the total labor price for the year. The annual labor prices (FY 15 – FY 20) are added together to get the total estimated contract labor price.

Total material price: On an annual basis, the RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3 creates an annual material price by adding the Government example material price to the Offeror’s material markup (G&A and Profit). The material markup is calculated by multiplying the example price of materials by the Offeror’s material markup rate (G&A and Profit). The annual materials prices are added together to get the total material price.

Live task order price: The live task order labor price will be created by adding the total labor price to the total material price. The live task order total labor price will be established by adding together the extended labor rates for each category of labor that the Offeror will use to complete the live project. Extended labor rates for each category of labor are obtained by multiplying the Offeror proposed hours for live task orders by Offeror provided labor rate from the IDIQ FY15 table for the appropriate labor category. The total material cost will be calculated by adding the Offeror proposed material cost to material markup. Material markup is established by multiplying the Offeror proposed materials costs for the live task order by the material markup rate that the Offeror provided for the IDIQ.

5.2.2 The RDIF Price Matrix, RFP Section J – Attachment 3 includes all formulas and will calculate the Offeror’s TEP.

6. Past Performance, Price Tradeoff

The contract will be awarded to the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government. In determining best value, the Offeror’s performance confidence assessment rating will be weighted significantly more important than price, though price will still remain a factor. Ultimately, the benefit(s) to the Government presented by a firm with a higher performance confidence assessment might justify award to an Offeror with a higher overall TEP.