PROS 7 Section M DRAFT RFP 2Jul25.docx

Solicitation: FA8630-26-X-XXXX Attachment 10, Section M 2 July 2025

DRAFT SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This best value tradeoff source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Departments of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022, and Department of the Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the United States Government Acquisition website, https://acquisition.gov.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Price. The Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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 gives the Air Force 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 rating(s) and/or Past Performance rating of the higher-price Offeror outweighs the difference in price. 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 Board (SSEB) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the Parts and Repair Ordering System (PROS) Program. The Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and whose proposal meets all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being determined 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.

1.4 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition by determining it to be grossly deficient prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment shows the proposal fails to address requirements of the Request For Proposal (RFP), fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP, or does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

The evaluation criteria include gate criteria at Section M paragraph 2.5.5, Gate 1 and 2.5.6, Gate 2. The Government will reject an Offeror’s proposal at these Gates without reviewing or performing an initial evaluation on the rest of the Offeror’s proposal if either Gate criteria is not met.

1.5 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 Determination.

1.6 Competitive Range Determination

A competitive range of the most highly rated proposals will be established IAW FAR 15.306(c) in the event discussions with Offerors are to be conducted. During the evaluation process, one or more competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals at the time of the determination. 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, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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 at the outset for purposes of efficiency, based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), or prior to issuance of the final proposal revision (FPR) request. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.7 Discussions and Final Proposal Revisions

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. Offeror(s) are not required to submit an FPR to be eligible for award; an FPR should only be submitted if the Offeror desires to update their original proposal submission following Government request for FPR. 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, thus, ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

2.1 General

The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following Gates, Factors and Subfactors:

Gate 1: Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Logistics Contract Experience gate Gate 2: Quality Control Program gate Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Processes Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Price are listed in descending order of importance, with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Price) is least important. Within Factor 1 (Technical), the Technical rating and the Technical Risk rating are of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all Evaluation Factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. However, Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

2.3 Initial Evaluation:

This competition includes written submissions. Each proposal will initially be evaluated for its ability to meet compliance with Gate 1, Measure of Merit (MoM) 1 and Gate 2, MoM 2, and each Offeror’s proposal not eliminated at the outset for being grossly deficient (see paragraph 1.4), will be further evaluated for Solicitation Requirements and Terms and Conditions. Those Offerors’ proposals determined to be grossly deficient for failing to comply with the Gates or to meet the requirements of the solicitation, will not receive any further evaluation and are ineligible for award. All ineligible Offerors will receive notice of the basis for this determination from the CO, either after failure to pass the Gate(s) or after the initial competitive range determination. Subsequent notices of elimination may be provided at later stages of the source selection, as applicable. This may include for the purposes of efficient competition (see paragraph 1.6).

2.4 Contractual Integration:

The awarded contract document will reflect all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above-threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process (e.g., an earned strength associated with a purple or blue Technical/Technical Risk rating, above-threshold elements proposed for valued requirements), regardless of source selection process utilized, IAW DAFFARS MP5315.3 Para, 3.12.

2.5 Gate 1: Foreign Military Sales (FMS) Logistics Contract Experience This Gate is met when the Offeror provides all substantiating documentation as instructed in Section L, paragraph 3.5.2 Gate 1: FMS Logistics Contract Experience. An “Unacceptable” rating for this Gate will render the proposal un-awardable. Gate 1 will be evaluated using Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

2.6 Gate 2: Quality Control Program

This Gate is met when the Offeror provides all substantiating documentation as instructed in Section L, paragraph 3.6.1 Gate 2: Quality Control Program. An “Unacceptable” rating for this Gate will render the proposal un-awardable. Gate 2 will be evaluated using Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable).

2.7 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Evaluation provides for two (2) distinct and related assessments that are of equal importance: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. Any Subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” (whether in the Technical rating or in the Technical Risk rating) will render the proposal un-awardable.

2.7.1 Technical Rating

The evaluation of the Technical Factor provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Technical Ratings will be assessed at the Subfactor level, using the Measures of Merit (MoM) set forth below. Each Technical Subfactor will receive one of the technical ratings described in Table 1 – Technical Ratings (Color Rating) or Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable), as shown below.

Factor 1 will be evaluated using both Table 1 – Technical Ratings (Color Rating) and Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (COLOR RATING)

TABLE 2 – TECHNICAL RATINGS (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

2.7.2 Technical Risk Rating

Assessment of technical risk considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. It considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Only Factor 1 will receive one of the technical risk ratings described in Table 3 – Technical Risk Rating, as shown below.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical factors and subfactors:

2.7.3 Factor 1: Technical

2.7.3.1 Measure of Merit 1: Non-Standard/Standard Parts Ordering, Repair, and Shipping This MoM is met when the offeror's proposal provides a sound approach to performing Non-Standard/Standard Parts Ordering, Repair and Shipment as defined throughout Sections 2 and 3 of the PROS 7 PWS.

2.7.3.2 Measure of Merit 2: Customer Communication

This MoM is met when the offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach to required Communications as defined in the PROS 7 PWS Section’s 3.6 through 3.6.9.

2.7.3.3 Measure of Merit 3: Invoicing

This MoM is met when the offeror's proposal provides a sound approach to performing invoicing as defined in Section’s 4.7 through 4.7.4.

2.7.3.4 Measure of Merit 4: PROS-IS Information processing

This MoM is met when the offeror's proposal provides a sound approach to performing information processing as defined throughout Section 2 of the PROS 7 PWS.

2.7.3.5 Measure of Merit 5: Combating Obsolescence

This MoM is met when the Offeror provides a sound approach for combating obsolescence.

NOTE: Strengths may be awarded for this subfactor which will make a proposal eligible for technical ratings higher than Green/Acceptable, see paragraph 2.4.

· The Offeror can earn a strength by demonstrating established direct contractual relationships with Vendors to combat obsolescence through additive manufacturing, reverse engineering, 3-D scanning, and other emerging technologies.

· The Offeror can earn a strength by demonstrating direct contractual relationships with Vendors who have successful First Article Testing (FAT) experience resulting from the use of emerging technologies to combat obsolescence.

· The Offerors can earn a strength by demonstrating direct contractual relationships with Vendors who have Parts Manufacturing Approval (PMA) experience as it pertains to the use of emerging technologies to combat obsolescence.

· The Offeror can earn a strength by demonstrating the ability to establish, maintain, and transfer management of a technical data library in support of Government-provided data and combating obsolescence, IAW PWS Paragraph 2.12.5.

· If a strength is proposed it will be contractually binding, IAW Section M Ref 2.4.

2.8 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.8.1 Ratings

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Performance Confidence Ratings, excerpted below.

TABLE 4 – PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE RATINGS

Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the Factor of Past Performance.

Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

2.8.2 Evaluation Process

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 successful performance as proposed. 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, including cost and schedule. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror’s recent and relevant Past Performance, including how the Offeror is currently performing ongoing efforts, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Technical Subfactors. The Government may consider Past Performance in the aggregate, in addition to on an individual contract basis. All recent and relevant Past Performance citations submitted in accordance with Section L will be evaluated.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government including, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), 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.

2.8.2.1 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 performed during the past three (3) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation, with at least six (6) months of performance performed on the contract. If the effort began more than 3 years before the date of issuance of this solicitation, only the effort which occurred during the past 3 years will be considered recent. Past Performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.8.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors. For each recent Past Performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.

In determining relevancy for individual contracts, 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 Questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of the Offeror’s Past Performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings, excerpted below:

TABLE 5 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

2.8.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the Performance Quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant Past Performance citation reviewed, the Performance Quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the Offeror’s performance meets mission requirements, the assessment will consider things such as the Offeror’s history of forecasting and controlling costs, adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance), reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction, and generally, the contractor’s business-like concern for the interest of the customer. 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 any available information related to the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the appropriateness and effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts in Table 6 below:

TABLE 6 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Performance Quality Ratings

2.8.3.1 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the Performance Relevancy and Performance Quality Assessments, Offerors will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating. Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating is made at the Factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance and, as a result, will receive a Neutral Confidence rating for the Past Performance Factor. A strong record of relevant Past Performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a Neutral Confidence rating.

2.9 Factor 3: Price

The Price Volume will be evaluated for (1) Unbalanced pricing (2) Reasonableness, (3) Completeness and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government with FAR 15.404-1(g).

2.9.1 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether it is unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one (1) or more items 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. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

2.9.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (b) in order to determine if it is reasonable. 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 price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.9.3 Completeness

The Government will review the price proposals for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. If deemed incomplete or not within compliance, the proposal may be ineligible for award.

2.9.4 Total Evaluation Price (TEP)

The Pricing Matrix adds up to a bottom-line dollar figure for the base period and all option years. The Pricing Matrix will contain all CLIN prices and calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) using the estimated number of requisitions provided by the Government. The TEP will be calculated as the sum of Fill Prices, Service Prices, and the first Task Order (Section J, Attachment 5) for the base period and all option periods.

The Travel CLINs’ value will be set by the Government and therefore will not be evaluated in the TEP. Material Pass-Through CLINs shall not be included in the TEP since this is not based on any aspect of the Offeror’s proposal; it is purely for the Government to pay material costs of vendors, and the Offeror shall not earn profit/fee on this amount.

TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only and does not necessarily reflect an actual award value of any ensuing contract; however, all fill and service prices in the completed Pricing Matrix will become part of the contract and binding on the successful Offeror. Evaluation of option prices shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.