L M Table Multi Engine Repair Services 20231220 1344.docx
DOCX document 41 KB Posted
- Attached to
- PRATT & WHITNEY & GENERAL ELECTRIC ENGINE REPAIR Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- 19AQMM24N0025
About this file
This document contains a draft statement of work, draft evaluation factors, and past performance questionnaire for a potential single-award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract seeking an Original Equipment Manufacturer approved source to provide overhaul, repair, and modification services for various Pratt & Whitney and General Electric turbine aircraft engines. The Department of State requires engine services for 28 T700 engines, 9 PT6T engines, 2 PT6A-67D engines, 2 PT6A-114A engines, 4 PW123E engines, and associated equipment over the potential five-year period of performance. Offerors must provide documentation demonstrating OEM authorization, FAA certification, qualified personnel, access to engine test cells, and ability to provide on-site technical support globally. Past performance will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable based on recency and relevancy. The estimated ceiling for this acquisition is $50 million.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Multi-Engine Repair Services FINAL DRAFT SOW PWC and GE Engines 20240320 1420.docx | DOCX document | |
| Multi-Engine Repair Services FINAL DRAFT SOW PWC and GE Engines 20240123 1114.docx | DOCX document | |
| Multi-Engine Recompete CLIN STRUCTURE.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
L & M Table
INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS TECHNICAL / EVALUATION FACTORS AND CRITERIA
L&M Table
Section L: INSTRUCTION TO OFFERORS
Section M: TECHNICAL EVALUATION FACTORS
| L-2.1 Proposal Content Requirements |
| M-2.1 General Information (How the Government will evaluate the data) |
L-2.2 (a): Factor 1 – Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) Approved Engine (OEM) Source
Provide documentation from both Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) Original Equipment Manufacturer OEM sources that clearly states the Offeror is an Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Authorized Service Center and is a Certified source for overhaul, repair, and modification of Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) turbine aircraft engines in accordance with the requirements of this SOW.
M-2.2 (a): Factor 1 – Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) Approved Engine (OEM) Source
The proposal will be evaluated to assess documentation provided clearly states the Offeror is an approved Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) Authorized Service Center and is a Certified source for overhaul, repair, and modification of Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) turbine aircraft engines in accordance with the requirements of this SOW (Ref: Para 2.1 and Table 1).
L-2.2 (b): Factor 2 - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 14 CFR PART 145 Repair Station.
Provide documentation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that clearly states the Offeror and the Offeror’s facility where the engine work will be performed is an approved FAA Part 145 repair station with demonstrable capabilities to inspect, evaluate, test, troubleshoot, clean, overhaul, repair, modify and preserve both Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) turbine aircraft engines, components, assemblies, and associated equipment in accordance with the requirements of this SOW.
M-2.2 (b): Factor 2 - Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 14 CFR PART 145 Repair Station.
The proposal will be evaluated to assess for documentation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that clearly states the Offeror and the Offeror’s facility where the engine work will be performed is an approved FAA Part 145 repair station with demonstrable capabilities to inspect, evaluate, test, troubleshoot, clean, overhaul, repair, modify and preserve both Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) engines, components, assemblies, and associated equipment in accordance with the requirements in this SOW (Ref: Para 3.1).
L-2.2 (c): Factor 3 - Qualifications of Proposed Personnel
Provide documentation indicating offeror’s both Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) turbine aircraft engine technicians are qualified, trained, and certified for FAA Part 145 turbine aircraft engine maintenance, quality systems and engineering services to meet all requirements in accordance with the requirements in this SOW.
M-2.2 (c): Factor 3 - Qualifications of Proposed Personnel
The proposal will be evaluated to assess documentation of both Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) turbine aircraft engine technicians are qualified, trained, and certified for FAA Part 145 turbine aircraft engine maintenance, quality systems and engineering services to meet all requirements in accordance with the requirements in this SOW (Ref: 3.1.5).
L-2.2 (d): Factor 4 - Engine Run and Test Cell(s)
Provide documentation stating the offeror maintains or has access for use, a currently certified Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) turbine aircraft engine performance run test cell/s to determine acceptable engine performance for DoS turbine aircraft engines in accordance with the requirements in this SOW.
M-2.2 (d): Factor 4 - Engine Run and Test Cell(s)
The proposal will be evaluated to assess the offeror maintains, and makes available to the USG documentation during the period of performance of this contract that states the contractor maintains or has access for use, a currently certified Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) turbine aircraft engine performance run test cell/s to determine acceptable engine performance for DoS turbine aircraft engines in accordance with the requirements in this SOW (Ref: Para 3.5.3).
L-2.2 (e): Factor 5 - On-Site Technical Assistance
Provide a narrative that addresses the SOW requirement to provide both Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) engine on-site technical assistance and support at both CONUS and OCONUS locations on an as needed basis engines in accordance with the requirements in this SOW.
M-2.2 (e): Factor 5 - On-Site Technical Assistance
The proposal will be evaluated to assess the offeror’s capability to provide both Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and General Electric (GE) engine on-site technical assistance and support at both CONUS and OCONUS locations on an as needed basis in accordance with the requirements in this SOW (Ref: 3.17).
L-1.2 (f): Factor 6 - ITAR Compliance
Offeror’s shall provide narrative and documentation to demonstrate experience and expertise to comply with all International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITARs), customs clearances, and any import/export requirements.
M-2.2 (f): ITAR Compliance
The proposal will be evaluated to assess the offeror has the experience and expertise to comply with all International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), customs clearances, and any import/export requirements (Ref: ITAR Clause).
| L-2 Past Performance |
| M-2.4 Past Performance |
| Offeror’s shall provide the past performance questionnaires as Attachment 2 to appropriate points of contact with a request to return completed questionnaires to the Contracting Officer at the Dept of State within 10 days of solicitation closing date. |
| M-2.4 Factor 7 - Past Performance |
The Offeror will be evaluated to assess past performance using recent (within past 3 years) of relevant CPARS data and Offeror provided questionnaire information. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (and principal subcontractors and team members) demonstrated recent and relevant record of past performance in supplying products and services meeting contract requirements. In particular, each of the following areas will be considered:
1) quality of product/service (meeting technical requirements),
2) adherence to contract schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance,
3) controlling contract costs,
4) managing the contracted effort (history of reasonable and cooperative behavior),
5) commitment to customer satisfaction and businesslike concern for the interest of its customers.
TECHNICAL RATING
Under this LPTA solicitation process, the comparative assessment in FAR 15.305(a)(2)(i) does not apply. Therefore, past performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis.
Rated definitions:
Acceptable: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the offeror’s past performance is acceptable.
Unacceptable: Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the offeror’s past performance is unacceptable.
The TET will perform past performance evaluations on all offers received, in accordance with the SSP. Past performance evaluations will include, but are not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) assessment retrieval and information obtained from past performance questionnaires.
The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government will also use, to further evaluate past performance, existing databases which includes, but is 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; Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; and Contract Administration Offices (CAOs).
| (i) | 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 must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.
| (ii) | Relevancy Assessment. |
| The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information |
obtained. 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, joint venture partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Past performance questionnaires and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing past performance:
PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY CONSIDERATIONS
| Rating |
| Definition |
| Very Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved comparable scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. |
| Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved much of the magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Somewhat Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
| Not Relevant |
| Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. |
image1.png
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .