LAS Section M -- 09 June 11 - Amendment 7.pdf

FA8637-10-R-6000-0007

Section M, Amendment 7

10 June 2011

1.0 M001 SOURCE SELECTION (June 2011)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

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

Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

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

Supplement (AFFARS), when appropriate, and the Air Force Source Selection Mandatory

Procedures (MP5315.3) dated April 2010. These regulations are available electronically at the

Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who 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 superiority, overall business approach, or superior past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference.

The Systems Requirements Documents (SRDs), Statements of Objectives (SOOs), and

Performance Work Statements (PWSs) contain requirements that must be contractually satisfied, to include meeting schedule, in order to be eligible for contract award. These requirements are essential characteristics for execution of this contract. The offerors shall be capable of meeting other requirements of the contract such as over and above and special studies efforts as required, special clauses, pricing and delivery of alternate mission equipment as well as unique item identification (UID) requirements. These items are identified as attachments to Section L and will be incorporated into the Model Contract as attachments for ordering purposes.

The Government will select the best overall offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best value to the Government based upon Contractor Declaration of Entry Gate Criteria and based upon an integrated assessment of the following factors: Mission Capability, Past

Performance and Price. The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Mission

Capability, Past Performance and Price are in descending order of 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 selection decision.

The Government is implementing a streamlined approach based on five (5) objectives within the stated program threshold requirements. Those objectives are identified in Paragraph 2.3.1, Mission Capability Technical Rating herein and in Section L, Attachment L-2, System

Requirements Document (SRD) for Acquisition of Light Air Support (LAS) Aircraft.

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

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The process for LAS IDIQ source selection and award is outlined below.

All offerors will first be assessed as to whether their proposal either meets all of the requirements of Section L, Attachment L-12, Contractor Declaration of Entry Gate Criteria, or fails to meet any one criterion, on a pass or fail basis. In order to pass, the offeror’s must make an affirmative declaration, ―YES,‖ in response to Attachment L-12 that the proposed aircraft meets all Entry

Gate Criteria at the time of proposal submittal. The Government will continue with proposal evaluation of those offerors affirmatively declaring to meet the Entry Gate Criteria. In the event an offeror’s proposed aircraft fails to meet any of the criteria, the offeror’s proposal will not be further evaluated, the offeror will not be invited to participate in the LAS System Demonstration, and the offeror will be eliminated from the competition. Any offeror so eliminated will be promptly notified and will be offered a further explanation of the reason(s) that offeror failed to meet the Entry Gate Criteria. The Entry Gate Criteria for the LAS aircraft specified in Section L, Attachment L-12 are single-engine, turbo-prop, two (2) ejection seats, pressurized cockpit, retractable landing gear, tricycle style landing gear and fixed wing.

Defined herein are Mission Capability subfactors representing LAS threshold requirements which must be met. Subfactor 1.1, Aircraft Technical Requirements is the only subfactor with threshold requirements and also a limited number of corresponding objectives. The remaining subfactors have threshold requirements only (no objectives) that must be satisfied. All aircraft thresholds and objectives are described in Section L, Attachment L-2, System Requirements

Document (SRD) for Acquisition of Light Air Support (LAS) Aircraft. The objectives may be used to evaluate strengths thus allowing for the potential of receiving an exceptional rating if the strength is a significant aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merit and exceeds performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government, and either will be included in the contract or is inherent in the offeror’s process. The objectives may serve as primary discriminators for the best value decision.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for the performance of all requirements as defined in this solicitation for the LAS program.

Based on the quality of proposals submitted, budgetary limitations, or other appropriate reasons, the Government reserves the right to award multiple contracts or not to award a contract at all.

The first Delivery Order (DO), for Afghanistan, will also be awarded simultaneously with the

IDIQ contract award. Future DOs may be awarded utilizing Section J, Attachment 34, Variation in Quantity (VIQ) Pricing and contractual date of delivery, as proposed and attached to the contract.

1.3 Rejection of Unreasonable Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unreasonable in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unreasonably high or low in cost, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the ―correction potential‖ of any deficiency or uncertainty. 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. The Government reserves the right to make one or more competitive range determinations.

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions or without the opportunity for proposal revision, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, offerors should submit their best price and technical proposals upon initial submission and in the format specified in Section L.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (e.g. the relevance of past performance information), respond to adverse past performance information to which the offerors have not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor or clerical errors.

Exchanges conducted to clarify or respond to adverse past performance information, or to resolve minor or clerical errors, will not constitute discussions (see FAR 15.306).

1.6 Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP)

Other than the infrastructure items specified in Section L, Attachment 7 (paragraph 8.1), Attachment 8 (paragraph 9.1), and Attachment 9 (paragraph 9.1), the Government does not intend to provide GFP and the Government reserves the right to reject proposed use of GFP.

2.0 M002 EVALUATION FACTORS (September 2010) (Amendment 7 - June 2011)

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Mission Capability

Subfactor 1.1: Aircraft Technical Requirements

Subfactor 1.2: Aircraft Interim Contractor Support (ICS)

Subfactor 1.3: Program Management

Subfactor 1.4: Ground Training Devices

Subfactor 1.5: Air Advisor Training

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors is as follows: Mission

Capability, Past Performance and Price are in descending order of importance with Mission

Capability being substantially more important than Past Performance or Price. Within the

Mission Capability Factor, the Aircraft Technical Requirements subfactor is substantially more important than any of the other subfactors, with the remaining subfactors being 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 selection decision.

2.3 Factor 1 - Mission Capability

The Mission Capability evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Mission

Capability Technical Rating and the Mission Capability Risk Rating as defined in 2.3.2 below.

These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Mission Capability subfactor.

2.3.1 Mission Capability Technical Rating

The mission capability technical rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s ability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.1.1, Table 1 – Mission Capability

Ratings, excerpted below, except that for subfactors 1.2 through 1.5, the color ratings shall be limited to Green (Acceptable), Yellow (Marginal), or Red (Unacceptable). The ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Mission Capability subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor but shall retain subfactor color ratings. The Government may assign one or more proposal strengths only to the Mission Capability subfactor 1.1 requirements as specified below.

Mission Capability Subfactor 1.1, Aircraft Technical Requirements is distinguished from the remaining subfactors in that it is the only subfactor to which a strength or strengths may be assigned and which may receive a Blue (Exceptional) color rating.

Subfactor 1.1 consists of threshold requirements, all of which must be met, to receive a color rating of Green (Acceptable). Failure to meet any threshold requirement will render the proposal deficient, unacceptable and not awardable. The five requirements listed below also include objectives:

SRD para 3.1.2.3 Systems and Materials (Service Life)

SRD para 3.1.2.22 Cruise Speed

SRD para 3.1.2.26 Flight Duration

SRD para 3.1.2.28 Communication Suite

SRD para 3.1.2.31 Carriage

The five requirements listed above are of equal importance and proposal strengths may be awarded only when the offeror’s proposed aircraft and corresponding contractual documents meets or exceeds one or more of those five objectives in a way beneficial to the Government.

No proposal strengths will be awarded for exceeding any other threshold requirements. In arriving at a best value decision the Government reserves the right to assign a strength only for subfactor 1.1 for performance that meets or exceeds the objective requirement. Performance in excess of the objective requirement may be proposed but will receive no additional credit. No strength or strengths nor a Blue (Exceptional) color rating will be given to any other Mission

Capability subfactor for performance in excess of the minimum defined requirements.

* This rating is only available for Subfactor 1.1, Aircraft Technical Requirements.

2.3.1.1 Subfactor 1.1: Aircraft Technical Requirements

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed LAS aircraft and assess whether or not the offeror’s technical proposal, including corresponding contractual

SOWs (Basic and DO-0001) and specification, meets or exceeds (as noted above in Paragraph

2.3.1) the threshold requirements set forth in the LAS SRD. The Government will not assign additional proposal strengths for capabilities of proposed LAS aircraft that are not identified in the stated USG SRD requirements.

The LAS Aircraft Technical Requirements Subfactor 1.1 is met when:

TABLE 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue* Exceptional Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue.

Green Acceptable Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements.

A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive a green but may have one or more strengths.

Yellow Marginal There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirement, but any such uncertainty is correctable.

Red Unacceptable Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirements. The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

The offeror’s technical proposal evidences that (1) the aircraft, in the specific configuration proposed meets or exceeds all LAS SRD threshold requirements, and

(2) the FOM for the aircraft, in the specific configuration proposed, is approved by the manufacturer’s appropriate engineering authority and clearly documents that the aircraft proposed meets, or exceeds the LAS SRD requirements. The proposed aircraft shall require no additional modification, shall be production ready and shall hold a recognized airworthiness authority certification allowing all LAS mission and

SRD requirements. See Section L, paragraph 4.1.3, Flight Operations Manual (FOM) instructions on the required content of the FOM.

OR

If the offeror’s proposed aircraft does not currently meet one or more LAS SRD requirements, or if the manufacturer’s appropriate engineering authority has not approved a FOM which clearly documents that all LAS SRD requirements are currently met, or the offeror’s proposed aircraft does not currently hold a recognized airworthiness certificate allowing all LAS SRD requirements, the offeror may submit a plan for meeting, or exceeding these requirements. An acceptable plan must, at a minimum: (1) demonstrate a comprehensive, technically sound, realistic and reasonable approach for the aircraft to meet or exceed all LAS SRD requirements in the proposed configuration; (2) ensure achievement of First Article Test (FAT) prior to contract award as stated in Section L paragraph 4.1.5 First Article Test (FAT); and

(3) allow achievement of USAF Airworthiness Military Type Certification (MTC) prior to Functional Configuration Audit (FCA)/Physical Configuration Audit (PCA).

The offeror’s technical proposal and approved FOM (or redlined FOM together with an acceptable plan, as discussed in Section L, paragraph 4.1.3, and the preceding paragraph) shall serve as the primary means for determining whether the offeror’s proposed LAS aircraft can meet the technical requirements in the SRD. Any plan for meeting USAF Airworthiness

Military Type Certification will be evaluated in conjunction with the offeror’s submitted Section

L, Attachment L-14, MIL-HDBK-516B-C1, Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria

(TACC) Checklist. Submission of the TACC Checklist alone shall not constitute a comprehensive, technically sound, realistic, and reasonable plan; a detailed outline of the process to achieve MTC is required. The TACC Checklist will be used solely for the purpose of evaluating the comprehensiveness, technical soundness, realism, and/or reasonableness of the submitted plan, along with any risk apparent in the plan when viewed in conjunction with the content of the TACC Checklist.

2.3.1.2 Subfactor 1.2: LAS Aircraft Interim Contractor Support (ICS)

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s ICS CONUS and OCONUS

Contractor Performance Work Statements (PWSs), to be incorporated in Section J, Attachment

7, PWS for CONUS Stationed Aircraft; Attachment 8, PWS for OCONUS Aircraft, for compliance with the requirements defined in Section L, Attachment L-7, Performance Work

Statement (PWS) for CONUS Stationed Aircraft LAS Interim Contractor Support (ICS), and

Section L, Attachment L-8, PWS for OCONUS Stationed LAS Aircraft ICS & Maintenance

Training. The evaluation includes: 1) the offeror’s capability to implement and conduct effective ICS at any CONUS and remote, austere OCONUS operational locations for the LAS aircraft, 2) the offeror’s capability to provide training for effective transition to an organic organizational-level maintenance capability within a 24-month ICS period, and 3) the offeror’s capability to effectively implement ICS during the three (3) months prior to aircraft first delivery, complete ICS implementation before arrival of the first aircraft and remain in place for a minimum of 24 months.

The ICS subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal clearly articulates and demonstrates sound planning and processes for implementing and providing LAS logistics support to include personnel, support equipment, spares and repair/overhaul of spares and support equipment;

transportation; organizational level maintenance training; and identification of a recommended spares parts package for organic maintenance support after ICS. ICS must be shown to support

60 flight hours per month per aircraft with a fully mission capable rate (FMC) of 80% on a fleet-wide basis. Additionally, the offeror must describe an effective plan to develop, deliver and maintain operations and maintenance manuals for aircraft and ground support equipment to be used during the ICS period of performance and to be retained by organic maintenance organizations after ICS ends.

2.3.1.3 Subfactor 1.3: Program Management

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed program management approach and assess whether or not the offeror’s approach supports managing and controlling activities and processes which will result in successful accomplishment of the LAS program. The

Program Management subfactor is met when the offeror provides a thorough, detailed and comprehensive program management approach demonstrated by the following:

a. Proposals and supporting documentation shall provide for LAS aircraft in-country

(Afghanistan) delivery as stated in Section L, Attachment L-5, by April 2013. The contractor shall propose a basic IDIQ Variation In Quantity (VIQ) contract schedule, Section J, Attachment 34, Summary VIQ for IDIQ Contract, allowing for aircraft initial deliveries for future delivery orders not to exceed (NTE) eighteen (18) months After

Receipt of (Delivery) Order (ARO), with all supporting Contractor activities, actions and CLINS aligned to support proposed aircraft initial and follow-on deliveries. The contractor’s contractual schedule proposed in Section J, Attachment 34, shall provide for follow-on delivery orders, in terms of months ARO, required to complete all delivery orders (CONUS and OCONUS);

b. LAS Statement of Work (SOW) and Afghanistan Delivery Order SOW for the basic

IDIQ contract;

c. Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) that substantiates an approach to develop and manage the CWBS;

d. Integrated Management Plan (IMP) effective for all delivery orders;

e. Integrated Management Schedule (IMS) effective for all delivery orders;

f. Small Business Subcontracting Plan and Small Business Participation Plan that satisfy the requirements as identified in Section L, paragraph 4.3.5 and FAR 52.219-8, 52.219-

9, Alt II, DFARS 252.219-7003 and AFFARS 5319.704. Offerors will be evaluated to the extent the offeror’s (A) proposal includes a subcontracting plan meeting FAR

52.219-9; (B) Small Business Participation Plan goals are met and fully supported, or acceptable rationale is provided for goals identified below targets; (C) proposal includes initiatives to assist, promote and utilize each type of business in Section L, 4.3.5; and

(D) cost, technical, subcontracting plan, and participation plan demonstrate realism of consistent treatment of small business subcontractors;

g. Risk Management Plan describing the offeror’s integrated risk management approach and an initial LAS program risk assessment;

h. USAF Military Airworthiness Type Certification plan per MIL-HDBK-516B-C1 in accordance with Section L, Attachment L-14, MIL-HDBK-516B-C1 Tailored

Airworthiness Certification Criteria (TACC) Checklist, which details tasks and management responsibilities for certification. Under this Subfactor, the plan will not be evaluated for its technical merit, but only for its thoroughness and detail as a Program

Management tool. The offeror’s plan to achieve certification must identify reliance on any Government support of any kind;

i. Process plans that ensure manufacturing product quality and prevent defects (both at the prime and subcontractor levels) while meeting the requirements set forth in the LAS

SOOs, PWSs and SRDs requirements documents;

j. Detailed description of the process and results of contractor self-assessment of current

Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of the proposed LAS aircraft, in accordance with the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA) Deskbook. Include plans and schedule to achieve the target MRL 10 for LAS aircraft production supporting

Section L, Attachment L-5 and follow on delivery orders;

k. Approach to identifying, implementing, managing, tracking and sustaining warranties, to include pass-through warranties;

l. Transportation and ferry plans (to include acquiring all necessary import and export licenses) required for manufacture and delivery of LAS aircraft and Ground Training

Devices and perform ICS and CLS in any future delivery order CONUS or OCONUS location, to include, but not limited to, the delivery order locations specified in Section

L, Attachment L-5, SOO for LAS Aircraft and GTDs (Afghanistan Delivery Order);

m. Engineering and configuration management processes for the LAS aircraft and GTDs, including processes that allow modifications or changes to the LAS aircraft and GTDs in subsequent delivery orders including modifications to communication and navigation capabilities;

n. Updated Section L, Attachment 11, Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) lists of

Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) based on proposed aircraft configuration baseline and equipment necessary for performing standard LAS combat mission described in the

LAS SRD Paragraph 2.3.2 or other missions as defined by delivery order;

o. All equipment proposed shall have delivered product specifications provided with sufficient detail to allow future procurement and attachment to the model contract.

p. Data deliverables shall respond to all requirements in the solicitation, including the

SOOs, PWSs and Contract Data Requirements List CDRL);

q. The Contractor-proposed data rights list, submitted IAW DFARS 252.227-7013 and

252.227-7014, shall describe all data rights, restrictions, and assertions.

2.3.1.4 Subfactor 1.4: Ground Training Devices

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Ground Training Devices and documentation of contractor engineering approved FAT as proposed and assess whether or not the offeror’s technical proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L, Attachment L-3, SRD for Acquisition of LAS Aircraft Ground Training Devices (GTDs), and Section L, Attachment L-9, PWS for OCONUS Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for GTDs. The

Ground Training Devices subfactor is met when the offeror provides a thorough, detailed and comprehensive technical proposal (to include Ground Training Devices SOW, Contractor PWS and Ground Training Devices specifications, to be attached to the model contract, Section J, Attachment 2,Specification for CBT GTD; Attachment 3, Specification for BATD GTD;

Attachment 4, Specification for FTD GTD; Attachment 6, SOW for LAS GTD Attachment 9, PWS for CBT GTD; Attachment 10, PWS for BATD GTD; Attachment 11, PWS for CLS for

FTD GTD; Attachment 21, Contractor Inspection and Test Plan for GTD) in response to the requirements set forth in Section L, Attachment L-3, SRD for Acquisition of LAS Aircraft

Ground Training Devices (GTDs), Section L, Attachments L-4, Statement of Objectives (SOO) for LAS Aircraft and GTDs (Basic Contract), Section L, Attachment L-5, SOO for LAS Aircraft and GTDs (Afghanistan Delivery Order) and Section L, Attachment L-9, PWS for OCONUS

Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for GTDs. If FAT was not completed prior to proposal the offeror will be evaluated using the information submitted in accordance with Section L, paragraph 4.4.4, First Article Test (FAT).

2.3.1.5 Subfactor 1.5: Air Advisor Training

Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed Air Advisor Training program approach defined in the PWS. The Air Advisor Training subfactor is met when the offeror provides a thorough, detailed and comprehensive Contractor PWS for Air Advisor

Training in accordance with Section L, Attachment L-10, PWS for Air Advisor Pre-Deployment

Pilot & Maintenance Training to be attached to the model contract, Section J, Attachment 12, PWS for Air Advisor Pilot Training and Attachment 13, PWS for Air Advisor Maintainer

Training.

2.3.2 Mission Capability Risk Rating

The Mission Capability Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach for subfactors 1.1 through 1.5 above, and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Mission Capability subfactors will receive one of the Risk ratings described in AFFARS

MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.1.2, Table 2 – Mission Capability Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The ratings focus on the risks to price, schedule and performance inherent in the offeror’s proposed approach to each of the Mission Capability subfactors. The Government will assess the offeror’s integrated risk management approach and the initial LAS program risk assessment described in the offeror’s provided Risk Management Plan and analysis regarding contactor identified risks and corresponding mitigation approach. The Government will evaluate whether the offeror's proposed mitigation approach is realistic and feasible. In addition, the Government will evaluate the proposal for risks not identified by the offeror based on documents submitted in response to

Section L.

The offeror shall demonstrate specific aircraft capabilities in accordance with Section L, Attachment L-13, LAS System Demonstration. The LAS System Demonstration will provide the Government the opportunity to assess risk in the Mission Capability Factor regarding the offeror's proposed aircraft meeting all of the LAS aircraft SRD requirements for required delivery as defined in Section L, Attachment 5, SOO for LAS Aircraft and GTDs. The LAS

System Demonstration will not afford offerors an opportunity for proposal revision and will not constitute discussions.

The Government may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for the Mission Capability Risk Rating. The Government will announce the schedule for the site visit within thirty (30) calendar days after proposal due date. The results will be used to assess the risk in the Mission Capability Factor. Site visits will not constitute discussions.

TABLE 2 – MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

Low*

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate*

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.

High*

Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Unacceptable

The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is very likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule, drastically increased cost or

* A plus ―+‖ rating may be used as an option when risk is evaluated to be in the upper boundaries of a Mission Capability Risk Rating, but is not high enough to merit the next inferior rating. For example, where in the judgment of the evaluator, an offeror has risk that approaches or is nearly rated as a

Moderate risk, a Mission Capability Risk Rating of ―Low+‖ may be assigned.

2.4 Factor 2 – Past Performance

Past performance information is one indicator of an offeror’s ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. The Government intends to make use of any available data that meets the criteria for relevancy and recency in performing the past performance evaluation.

Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) evaluates an offeror’s past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror’s probability of successfully performing as proposed. The PCAG will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. The PCAG will also consider the relevant demonstrated performance record of the proposed aircraft or that of any highly comparable aircraft. The

PCAG will evaluate offeror’s submissions for past performance consideration submitted in accordance with Section L of the LAS RFP as well as Government-obtained past performance information.

2.4.1 Performance Confidence Assessment

The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's relevant and recent past performance. Each offeror will receive one overall integrated Performance

Confidence Assessment rating based on an analysis of those risks, negative aspects, and positive aspects of past performance identified. The offerors will receive one of the ratings described in the table below.

Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments

Substantial

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offer will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a low severely degraded performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

Confidence expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No

Confidence

Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown

Confidence

No performance record is identifiable or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past

Performance factor.

More relevant and recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than less relevant or less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

Offerors with adverse past performance information, to which they have not previously had an opportunity to respond, may be given the opportunity to provide additional information and will be given the opportunity to address the adverse information during any other type of exchange per 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 or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small

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

2.4.2 Recency

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.3 Relevance

Contract performance will be considered more relevant and will be given greater weight and consideration, including but not limited to:

a. Contracts for manufacture and delivery of LAS-type aircraft, preferably those currently or recently supporting combat type efforts;

b. Contracts for manufacture, delivery, and support of Ground Training Devices used for flight training;

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm#P131_6012 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P1165_197862 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm#P1192_202339

c. Contracts which include the same type or level of technical engineering; efforts as will be required to achieve compliance with the SRD herein;

d. Contracts which include the same type or level of management and technical efforts as will be required to achieve delivery by the proposed delivery date herein;

e. Contracts for ICS/Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for aircraft serving in a combat-type environment;

f. Contracts for overseas or contingency-type ICS/CLS; or,

g. Contracts with any government or military customer.

The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCE

Highly Relevant (HR) Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant (R) Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

(SR)

Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant (NR) Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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.

2.4.4 Offeror Performance Ratings

Each offeror will be evaluated on their performance on the contracts considered relevant and each evaluated contract will receive one overall Performance Rating in accordance with the following color codes.

TABLE 5 – PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Color Code Performance Level

Blue/Exceptional The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Purple/Very Good The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Green/Satisfactory The contractor’s performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or was satisfactory.

Yellow/Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

Red/Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score.

2.5 Factor 3 – Price

2.5.1 Price Evaluation

Offerors’ Price proposals will be evaluated in the areas identified below. The results of the Price evaluation will be shown to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in determining his/her best value decision.

2.5.1.1 Reasonableness

The Price evaluation will evaluate reasonableness of the offerors’ Price proposal, which includes but is not limited to, CLIN prices proposed by the contractor in Section J, Attachment 34, Summary VIQ Pricing for IDIQ Contract, labor rates proposed by the contractor in Section J, Attachments 29 & 30, Labor Rates Matrix (OCONUS and CONUS) and the offeror’s calculated evaluation price (EP). For a proposal to be reasonable, it must 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 cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. No advantage will accrue to an offeror who submits an unreasonably low priced proposal.

2.5.1.2 Unbalanced pricing

The Government shall also analyze offerors’ proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices or separately priced line items.

(1) Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

(2) All offers with separately priced line items or sub line items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. If cost or price analysis techniques indicate that an offer is unbalanced, the Contracting Officer shall—

(i) Consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the competitive range and in making the source selection decision; and

(ii) Consider whether award of the contract will result in paying unreasonably high prices for contract performance.

(3) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.1.3 Evaluation Price (EP)

The Government will develop an EP for the offeror, using inputs provided in the Evaluation

Price (EP) Workbook.

i. The EP will be the sum of the CLINs identified in the Section L, Attachment L-

20, Evaluation Price (EP) Workbook. EP prices will be calculated at the

Evaluation Quantity (EQ) and using assumptions as identified in the EP

Workbook;

ii. The EQ will be notional quantities, developed to assist in assessing the offeror’s proposed pricing;

iii. The EP will utilize the contractually binding prices proposed by the offeror and reflected in contractually binding CLINs of the LAS contract in Section J, Attachment 34, Summary Variation in Quantity Pricing for IDIQ Contract; and,

iv. The Government will not make any risk adjustments to the offeror’s proposed prices, or the CLIN values reflected in the contract; and

v. The Government may make an adjustment to the Evaluation Price of foreign eligible offers in accordance with FAR 25.5, as required.

3.0 M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

(September 2010)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.