Air-to-AirRefuel_N00421-16-R-0032_Draft_Evaluation_Criteria_v2.1.pdf

N00421-16-R-0032

DRAFT PROPOSED INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS

Cost and pricing information shall only appear in the Price/Cost volume.

1.0 VOLUME 1: TECHNICAL

The Offeror shall provide all information and data required for the Government to conduct a thorough and complete technical evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal. The Offeror shall address the following in its proposal:

Technical Element #1– Capability Stand-up / Capability Verification

1.1 – List of proposed aircraft by type, model, series (TMS) and serial number.

1.2 – Aircraft acquisition and import plan – The Offeror shall provide an acquisition and import plan which includes each aircraft proposed for this contract. The Offeror shall submit signed purchase or lease agreements if available. The acquisition and import plan shall include the dates of all major milestones.

1.3 – Aircraft modification plan – For each aircraft proposed that requires modification to meet the requirements of PWS paragraph 3.1 the Offeror shall submit a plan detailing the modifications required to bring the aircraft into compliance. Plans shall include all significant modifications required, major milestones, organization performing the modification(s), source of data supporting the modification(s) and airworthiness certification authority.

1.4 – Navy airworthiness certification plan – All aircraft under this contract will require a U.S. Navy issued Interim Flight Clearance (IFC). The Offeror shall submit a plan detailing its approach to obtaining a Navy IFC, including original certification authority, source of supporting data and major milestones.

1.5 – Initial Operational Capability – The Offeror shall submit the proposed date that they will be able to provide services under CLINS 0X01, providing tanker aircraft to begin the certification requirements with receiver aircraft.

Technical Element #2 – Aircraft Performance Requirements - For each TMS aircraft proposed for use on this contract, the Offeror shall demonstrate how the aircraft will meet the requirements described in PWS paragraph 3.1.

Each aircraft proposed, after any modifications shall meet or exceed the performance requirements specified in the PWS. Supporting data (excerpts from flight manuals, published performance data, etc.) shall be submitted to substantiate the aircraft meets the performance requirements.

Technical Element #3– Airworthiness Data - The Offeror shall provide the following documentation relating to aircraft airworthiness.

3.1 - Parts Life Tracking Process and Status report

3.1.1 - The Offeror shall demonstrate knowledge that all categories of parts with Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) defined life limits have been identified, and that a plan is in place for replacing those parts on/before their required dates.

3.1.2 -The Offeror shall include for each aircraft type proposed, the complete list of the parts, including structural components, for which the OEM or prior military user has established a life limit. The Offeror shall include for each life -limited part: (a) the flight hours, cycles, calendar date, or other limiting parameters which require removal or overhaul (b) the source that will be used to acquire or overhaul the replacement parts. The Offeror is not required to list the parts installed on each specific aircraft, only to identify the categories of life limited parts, their limitation and replacement source.

3.2 - Aircraft Modifications Status report

DRAFT dtd 14 APR 17

3.2.1 - The Offeror shall include for each aircraft proposed a list of all currently installed modifications and configuration changes since released by the OEM.

3.2.2 - The Offeror shall demonstrate the airworthiness of each aircraft modification. For each modification, the Offeror shall provide a copy of the FAA Approved Data or Airworthiness certification or, alternatively, the engineering report that clearly states that the modification is airworthy.

3.3 - Maintenance History report

3.3.1 - The Offeror shall demonstrate for each aircraft proposed that the aircraft has been maintained in accordance with the requirements established by the OEM or (as appropriate) civil authorities for the timeframe from manufacture to proposal submittal. The Offeror shall provide a list of documentation, and all data and records supporting the maintenance.

3.3.2 - The Offeror shall include for each aircraft proposed a description of the process and method used to establish the aircraft's maintenance history prior to taking possession of the aircraft.

3.3.3 - The Offeror shall identify and explain any lapses in the documented maintenance history of any aircraft proposed, from the time it was manufactured to proposal submittal.

3.4 - Fatigue Life Status report

3.4.1 - The Offeror shall include for each aircraft type proposed, the OEM's structural fatigue life limits.

3.4.2 - The Offeror shall provide for each individual aircraft: (a) the current total counts on tracked items (e.g. flight hours/cycles/landings) that have been accumulated since the aircraft was manufactured, and (b) the means used to determine the current accumulated counts since the aircraft was manufactured.

3.4.3 - The Offeror shall demonstrate all proposed aircraft have the remaining fatigue life to allow the aircraft to be safely operated throughout the potential five (5) year period of the contract, based on projected combined aircraft usage rates as described in Section B, CLINS 0X01 and 0X02.

Technical Element # 4 -- Aircraft Support

4.1 – Aircraft Maintenance Strategy - The Offeror shall provide an explanation of its maintenance organization and strategy for conducting both scheduled and unscheduled aircraft maintenance.

4.2 – Aircraft Logistical Strategy

4.2.1 - The Offeror shall provide its proposed logistical strategy for supporting each proposed TMS aircraft, to include flight and ground crew composition, and ground support equipment requirements.

4.2.2 - For each proposed TMS aircraft, the Offeror shall provide its proposed source of OEM, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or equivalent agency certified parts.

4.2.3 - For each proposed TMS aircraft, the Offeror shall provide its proposed source of OEM, FAA, or equivalent agency certified maintenance and engineering data.

Technical Element #5 – Aircraft Availability

5.l Method of Performing Services

5.1.1 - The Offeror shall describe its method for executing a typical multi-day refueling detachment operation as described in Section 1.0 of the PWS.

5.1.2 - The Offeror shall describe its method of ensuring pilot and aircrew (excluding maintenance personnel) availability during Fleet Exercise detachment operations to ensure it meets the mission effective metric described in the QASP (Attachment 2 under Section J).

5.2 Aircraft Availability/Reliability

5.2.1 - The Contractor will be required to provide aircraft to support each mission as scheduled.

The Offeror shall describe in detail its method of ensuring it meets the mission effectiveness metric described in the QASP (Attachment 2 under Section J).

5.2.2 - The Offeror shall include a discussion of managing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for all aircraft types proposed to enable contract mission completion with minimum impact to the fleet.

Technical Element #6 – Personnel Resources - The Offeror shall submit a one (1) page resume for each aircrew proposed to perform under this contract. Each resume shall include relevant work history, qualifications, licenses and certificates as specified in paragraph 4.4 of the PWS.

6.1 - The Offeror shall address employment status of each aircrew by indicating if they are a current employee, contingent hire or other status, such as temporary employee.

6.2 - The Offeror shall describe the processes used in recruiting, hiring and retaining aircrew. Describe the approach used to fill all aircrew positions proposed. Provide an assessment for hiring the number of pilots with the required qualifications. Provide an approach to personnel retention and turnover.

2.0 VOLUME 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

Reserved. Past Performance will not be evaluated.

3.0 VOLUME 3: PRICE/COST PROPOSAL

3.1 Volume Content:

(a) This Volume shall contain the Contract Compliance information specified below as follows:

i. Offeror Summary Table: The Offeror shall complete the table below. The Offeror shall include all subcontractors and JV team members who will be involved with the performance of the contract and list all sites where the work will be performed. If a JV teaming or subcontracting arrangement is proposed, identify the work share, distribution elements, and ratios that each contractor will perform using the table below. Also provide a definition of the legal relationship between the entities if it is other than a Prime/subcontractor relationship.

Contractor Name (Indicate Prime, JV Team Member, or Sub)

Place of Performance/

CAGE

CODE/DUNS #

Brief Work Description and/or Program Responsibility

% of Total Proposed Price

ii. Signed SF33 or SF1449 for basic solicitation and acknowledgment of each amendment, including completion of any RFP clause or provision that requires a fill-in or response.

iii. Signed Representations, Certifications, and Acknowledgements and/or Online Representations and Certifications Application (ORCA) reference

iv. Guarantee the length of proposal validity (for at least 180 days after proposal submission).

(b) This Volume shall also contain a copy of Section B with the Contract Line Item (CLIN) and Sub-CLIN Unit Prices and, for evaluation purposes, the Total Prices filled in using the estimated quantities value in the solicitation and the instructions below. Section B prices shall be provided separately in one digital data copy in MS Office 2010 Excel format on CD-ROM media. Within all Excel spreadsheets, the Offeror shall use formulas and functions to the maximum extent possible and avoid using output type “value only” cells. If links are utilized, supply those referenced files. Spreadsheets shall not be protected.

(c) All price/cost and price/cost supporting information shall be contained in Section B and the price/cost proposal. No price or pricing information shall be included in any other technical volume including cover letters.

Offeror are responsible for submitting sufficient information to enable the Government to fully evaluate their price/cost proposal.

3.2 Ground Rules and Assumptions:

(a) As this is a competitive acquisition with adequate price competition anticipated, certified cost or pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-1 is not required. However, in the event that adequate price competition does not exist after receipt of proposals, the Government reserves the right to request additional cost or pricing data as necessary from both the Offeror and subcontractors. Further, the Offeror may be required to provide a Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data prior to award, pursuant to FAR 15.406-2.

(b) The Offeror shall provide sufficient information to support its price/cost as well as an explanation of all ground rules and assumptions that affect the price/cost estimates.

3.3 Price Volume Detailed Instructions:

(a) The Offeror shall identify the proposed prices for each CLIN as specified in Section B of this

Solicitation. Offerors are instructed to provide the following detailed information:

Fill in the unit and total price of all CLINs and provide in the excel file stated in paragraph 3.1 (b).

Provide a narrative for CLINs (0X01, 0X02, option 0X04, and 0X05) describing the buildup of the unit price, assumptions for each CLIN, and the basis for the estimate for the unit price proposed. For the direct/indirect rates utilized in the buildup of the unit price, the Offeror shall identify and use the most current direct/indirect rates that are in effect at the time of proposal submission. The Offeror shall identify whether the rates utilized in the buildup are DCMA Forward Pricing Rate Agreements (FPRAs), forward Pricing rate Recommendations (FPRRs), or other Offeror proposed rates. If Offeror proposed rates are different from DCMA FPRAs or FPRRs, the Offeror must clearly identify the source of the rates (i.e. payroll records, budget information) and substantiate their buildup to determine proposed rates are fair and reasonable. For CLINs (0X01, 0X02, option 0X04, and 0X05), the Schedule B Total Price is equal to the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B maximum for that CLIN.

(b) Fuel Costs: Offerors shall not include cost of fuel to fly Government missions in the unit price.

Fuel will be provided by the Government. However, fuel costs will be evaluated; therefore, for evaluation purposes only, the Offeror shall complete the "Aerial Refueling Aircraft Fuel Information" table below. Based upon the proposed aircraft information, the total fuel cost for CLINS 0X01 and 0X02 will be applied as a CLIN adjustment to the five-year base period for evaluation purposes.

Aerial Refueling Aircraft Fuel Information For each T/M/S by CLIN, an adjustment to the total proposed price for each performance period shall be based on the following calculation:

Calculation for CLIN XXXX: Mfg burn rate with full fuel tanks At 25K MSL at 250 KTS (# of gallons burned for 1 FH) X fuel cost per gallon = cost per FH (col. C x D); cost per FH X est. FHs provided in Section B = total projected fuel costs (col E x F); the sum of total projected fuel costs will be applied to the Offeror’s proposed cost for evaluation purposes.

***EXAMPLE*** ***EXAMPLE*** ***EXAMPLE***

A B C D E F G T/M/S # of AC under Mfg burn rate Fuel Cost/gal Cost per FH Est. Flt Hours Total projected each T/M/S with full fuel (C x D) (Total FHs Fuel Costs tanks shall equal (E x F) 25K, 250 KTS hours in Sec.

(gal/FH) B.)

707 2 550 $3.64 $2,002.00 1790 $3,403,400.00

Total: $3,403,400.00

This is an example of information required for each field and is provided for illustration purposes only.

(c) Limitation on Subcontracting (per 13 CFR 125.6(e) (2), Compliance with the limitation on subcontracting shall be an element of responsibility).

This requirement is being set-aside for the small business. Provide a breakout to demonstrate how the prime contractor will perform at least 50% of the cost of the contract incurred for personnel with its own employees for each period of performance in accordance with FAR clause 52.219-14. Cost of contract incurred for personnel includes direct labor cost, overhead that has only direct labor as its base, and the small business’s General and Administrative (G&A) rate multiplied by the labor cost.

3.4 Use of Government Furnished Property:

- Attachment (3) “Scheduled Government-Furnished Property (SGFP),” specifies the Government Property to be furnished.

NOTE: At time of award there is no GFP, however GFP may be transferred during the contract.

3.5 Place of Performance

The Government will not provide facilities.

3.6 Government Furnished Information

IN ORDER TO ASSIST YOU IN YOUR COMPUTATIONS, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

SHOULD FRAMEWORK THE SERVICES REQUESTED:

1. How many days can the tanker expect to be not flying during a detachment?

a. This question is difficult to answer due to weather playing a major factor on the conduct of any exercise.

However, a typical schedule for a fleet integrated training exercise may have 1 or 2 non-flying days and the majority of those flying days having multiple events. The following information is based on historical use:

a. East Coast: average 2.5 days (low of 0 over 3 days and 7 days over 22 day dets)

b. West Coast: average 3 days (low of 0 over 3 days and 14 days over 26 day dets)

2. Are there any situations where the tanker will be reimbursed for any flights across the country?

a. While it is expected the CAS provider ensure the tanker is in place to perform the tasked mission, the Navy may require a mission that coincides with a non-reimbursable ferry flight. Thus, anytime a tasked mission is attached to a ferry flight it will be reimbursable, such as an aircraft drag from one location to another. The reimbursable portion of the flight can also include 150NM each side of the starting and ending point. These type of missions are not normally considered a funded requirement, but can be used by Naval aviation aircraft transiting coast to coast for training/exercise.

3. How many detachments are conducted on each coast?

a. East Coast: average 8 per year with operations out of MCAS Cherry Point; Wilmington, NC; Myrtle Beach, SC; NAS Jacksonville, FL; Key West, FL.

b. West Coast: average 22 per year with operations out of NAS Pt Mugu (NBVC Pt Mugu); MCAS Miramar;

NAS North Island; MCAS Yuma.

c. OCONUS: average 2 OCONUS detachments/year out of Guam, Hawaii, Japan, Alaska

4. How long are the detachments in days (based on historical data with no anticipated changes to future detachments)?

a. East Coast: average 13 days per detachment (3 days to 22 days)

b. West Coast: average 11 days per detachment (3 days to 28 days)

c. OCONUS: average 13 days per detachment (10 days to 17 days)

5. How many flight events per detachment (includes multiple flight events per day)?

a. East Coast: average 16 per detachment (5 events to 25 events)

b. West Coast: average 10 per detachment (3 events to 22 events)

c. OCONUS: average 18.5 per detachment (12 events to 25 events)

6. How many detachments require two tanker presences?

a. East Coast: average 2 detachments per year

b. West Coast: average 6 detachments per year

c. OCONUS: tanker schedule is typically one on OCONUS detachment

7. How many times per year are tankers operating on opposite coasts (to include OCONUS operations) simultaneously? 7

8. If the Tankers are not scheduled by the Navy for support, may they be used for other business?

Yes, provided the tankers (and aircrew) can be made available at a 72 hour advance notice to fly missions.

DRAFT PROPOSED EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select one Offeror whose proposal offers the “best value” to the Government, using the trade-off method. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit(s) in response to the requirement. The Offeror is advised that the lowest priced proposal meeting the solicitation requirements may not be selected for an award if award to a higher priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher priced proposal must merit the additional price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the government. When a competitive range is established, the Government 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.

For all the Technical factor(s)/subfactors, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal. For proposals containing no deficiencies, the benefit to the Government associated with assigned strengths will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s proposal rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical proposal in meeting the requirement and is evaluated by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. TECHNICAL

Capability Stand-up / Capability Verification Aircraft Performance Requirements Airworthiness Data Aircraft Support Aircraft Availability Personnel Resources

2. PRICE/COST

All technical factors other than cost or price are significantly more important than cost or price.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The evaluation will include an assessment of the following:

Technical Element #1 – Capability Stand-up / Capability Verification

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed ability to meet initial capability requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation.

Technical Element #2 – Aircraft Performance Requirements

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed aircraft performance capabilities, aircraft configuration, and special equipment and validate that the proposed aircraft meet the performance requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation.

Technical Element #3 – Airworthiness Data

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the current and continued airworthiness requirements based on the documents provided as required by Section L of this solicitation.

Technical Element #4 – Aircraft Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation.

Technical Element #5 – Aircraft Availability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror' s proposed method of achieving aircraft availability requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation.

Technical Element #6 – Personnel Resources

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the aircrew requirements based on the information provided as required by Section L of this solicitation.

2.0 PAST PERFORMANCE

Reserved – Past Performance will not be evaluated.

3.0 PRICE

Firm Fixed Price CLINs:

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and whether it contains balanced unit pricing for all CLINs. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government may use various price analysis techniques such a comparison of the Offeror’s proposed price to competing Offerors’ prices in response to this solicitation, comparison to historical pricing for same or similar DoD contracts, comparison to the Government’s independent price estimate, comparison to commercial and/or industry standards, among other techniques to perform the price analysis. The Government will use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value. The TEP is the sum of the following:

• The total proposed price for the FFP CLINs (all CLINS). The total proposed price is the proposed unit price multiplied by the Section B Estimated Quantity for that CLIN, then adding the sum total price for all CLINs to calculate the total proposed price.

• The fuel adjustment calculations listed in Section L (section 3.3) for CLINs 0X01 and 0X02.

In addition, with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors, adjustments to the total proposed price will be made for Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach).

Unrealistically low costs or inconsistencies between the technical and cost proposals may be assessed as proposal risk and could be considered a weakness under the technical factor. Therefore, any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between the technical proposal and cost proposal should be explained in the narrative section of the cost/price proposal.

Normally, competition establishes price reasonableness. In limited situations, additional analysis will be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

If this is a set-aside competition, the contractor’s compliance to FAR Clauses 52.219-14 “Limitation on Subcontracting,” 52.219-27 “Notice of Total Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business Set Aside,” 52.219-29 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Award to, Economically Disadvantaged Women-Owned Small Business Concerns,” 52.219-30 “Notice of Set-Aside for, or Sole Source Awards to, Women-Owned Small Business Concerns,” or 52.219-3 “Notice of Total HUBZone Set Aside or Sole Source Award,” as applicable, will be assessed as an element of responsibility. An Offeror’s proposal that fails to meet the limitation on subcontracting during each period of performance shall not be considered for award.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B and Volume 3 Narrative, Section B prevails.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's proposed approach.

1.0 TECHNICAL EVALUATION RATINGS

Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiples strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.0 TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Technical Risk Ratings: The risk rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance associated with the Offeror’s technical approach.

Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.