Attachment 3 Evaluation Plan.doc

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)

Office of CBP Air and Marine

EVALUATION PLAN

FOR

AW 139 HELICOPTER PILOT TRAINING

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

NUMBER HSBP1009R2119

U.S. CUSTOMS and BORDER PROTECTION

NATIONAL AIR TRAINING CENTER - OKC

5020 SOUTH MERIDIAN AVENUE

OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLAHOMA

EVALUATION PLAN

FOR

AW 139 HELICOPTER PILOT TRAINING

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose This plan specifies the process used to select a contractor from competing offerors, whose proposal is most likely to satisfy the requirements for the performance of services in support of AW139 Helicopter Pilot Training, as defined in Solicitation Number HSBP1009R2119. This is a full and open competitive acquisition. This procurement is being conducted on a “best value” basis and will include qualitative evaluation factors and tradeoff process procedures. “Best value” means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation.

The evaluation of the proposals and oral presentations, if conducted, will be conducted as necessary, in accordance with this SSP and in conjunction with FAR Clause 52.212-2, Evaluation---Commercial Items contained in the RFP. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements, and is judged to represent the best value to the Government. All persons participating in the source selection process will use only this plan, the solicitation, and accompanying Technical/Cost Evaluation Board Instructions.

1.2 Scope

The terms source selection evaluation plan and technical evaluation plan are synonymous, and refer to the procedures that will be used to assess the technical capability of all offerors responding to the solicitation.

The source selection methodology is designed to:

a. Assure clear understanding by all participants in technical evaluation and source selection activities of applicable Customs and Border Protection and Department of Homeland Security instructions, policies, and procedures.

b. Establish a structure for the evaluation and scoring of proposals that assures fair and equitable treatment of all potential sources through an accurate, thorough and impartial appraisal of each offeror’s response to the solicitation.

c. Assure that each review team assembles, collates, and presents pertinent data and information in support of their recommendations for review by the Source Selection Evaluation Board, Contracting Officer and Source Selection Authority (SSA), if applicable. This methodology will also consider tradeoffs pertinent to costs, risks and technical merits.

d. Enable the Contracting Officer, or SSA, if applicable to select the source whose proposal best satisfies the Government’s requirements at a reasonable cost for award of the contract.

e.

Assure that accurate and complete records of the evaluation and selection proceedings are developed and retained in permanent files.

1.3 Applicable Documents

a.

Copy of the entire solicitation b.

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 12

I. TECHNICAL/COST EVALUATION BOARDS INSTRUCTIONS

1. PURPOSE OF EVALUATION BOARD INSTRUCTIONS

a.

Explain the evaluation procedure.

2.

EVALUATION PROCEDURE

The contract resulting from the solicitation will be awarded to that responsible offeror whose offer conforms to the solicitation and is evaluated to be the best value to the Government, cost and other factors considered. The evaluators shall evaluate offerors’ responses in accordance with the evaluation criteria as presented below.

DEFINITIONS OF RATINGS

Each technical proposal shall be evaluated on an adjectival basis. The adjectives that will be used in assessing the technical and past performance factors are provided below.

The following adjectives will be used in assessing risk factors for each technical factor.

The following will be used in assessing risk factors for past performance.

The adjectives that will be used in assessing the cost factor are provided below.

RATING AND VALUE INSTRUCTIONS

The Board will evaluate responsive offeror’s proposals using rating factors established below. 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 sub-factors described below. Technical Compliance/Management and Past Performance are of equal importance. The evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal cost or price.

The Factors and Rating Ranges established are as follows:

a. TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE/MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY The offeror’s technical compliance and management capability will be evaluated based on the assessed strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks of each offeror’s technical proposal. Subfactor ratings will be individually evaluated then rolled up into an overall rating for the technical factor.

Technical Compliance/Management has five subfactors which are of equal importance:

1.) Use of FAA Qualified Level C or D AW139 Flight Simulator The offeror has demonstrated the capability to conduct the required training in a Federal Aviation Administration Qualified Level C or D AW139 Simulator.

2.) Technical Approach

The proposal provides the required practical exercises in all technical subjects. Minimum standards have been established for the completion of the courses. Equipment will be provided in an acceptable condition to conduct the practical exercises. Pilot training is conducted in accordance with the Federal Aviation Regulations (Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations Part 61 and 142 as appropriate for aircraft type ratings for Commercial and or Airline Transport rated pilots).

3.) Training Content

The proposed course materials are adequate.

4.) Infrastructure

Offeror provides all management, planning, facilities, equipment, aircraft/simulator, course materials and staffing required to conduct training and associated scheduling.

5.) Availability of Classes

Offeror is capable of meeting all requested pilot training dates within 30 days of request from Contracting Officer Technical Representative

b. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying services that meet user’s needs, including cost and schedule. The team will, as deemed necessary, confirm past performance data identified by offerors in their proposals and as submitted on the Past Performance Questionnaire and obtain additional past performance data, if available, from other sources such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System and personal interviews with other relevant Government references outside of CBP.

All proposals will be evaluated to ensure that the proposal describes recent and relevant past performance on contracts for similar types of pilot training projects with Government or private industry, which adequately demonstrates the offeror’s technical expertise.

For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as work completed or ongoing during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

When 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.

All offerors will be given an opportunity to respond to any adverse present and past performance information they have not had the opportunity to respond to. 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.

Offerors without any past performance history will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The offeror shall receive a neutral rating.

A strong record of relevant present and past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral rating.

c.

Cost/Price

The offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR Part 15, in order to determine if the price proposed is fair and reasonable. The base period of performance and all options will be evaluated.

i) Cost/Price Reasonableness

Offerors’ cost volume will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.4, in order to determine if the price proposed is reasonable. A price is reasonable when it provides best value to the Government when consideration is given to the current market prices, technical and functional capabilities of the offeror, and risk.

ii) Unbalanced Pricing

Price analysis will be used to determine if the proposed prices are unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or under-stated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and result in higher proposal risk rating or the offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are approximately equal to cost or price.