Evaluation_Factors.docx

M - (1) EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES) (June 2017)

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 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. Alternative proposals and/or solutions will not be evaluated and, if proposed, may result in a deficiency to the proposal.

For Technical, a separate 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 of the Technical factor, 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

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below.

1. TECHNICAL

2. PRICE

Technical and Price are approximately equal in importance. Within Technical, the Technical Elements are listed in descending order of importance.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

1.0 TECHNICAL

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to assess if the proposed approach meets or exceeds the minimum requirements of the solicitation:

Technical Element #1 – 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 identified in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government intends to assign a strength where an offeror exceeds an aircraft performance threshold. Aircraft equipment offered in addition to the minimum requirements identified in the PWS that will enhance the refueling mission or increase safety may be considered a strength.

Technical Element #2 – Capability Establishment

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed ability to meet initial capability requirements by evaluating the following plans and supporting data, including;

a. Documentation listing proposed aircraft by type, model, series (T/M/S) and serial number.

b. Documentation that provides the Offeror’s acquisition and import plan including each aircraft proposed for this contract. The Offeror will submit signed purchase or lease agreements if available, or proof of ownership or lease for each aircraft already acquired. Proposals not including signed purchase or lease agreements or proof of ownership or lease shall be assessed as a higher risk by the evaluation team.

c. Documentation detailing the Offeror’s modification plans required to bring proposed aircraft into compliance with the solicitation requirements.

d. Documentation detailing the Offeror’s planned approach and milestones to obtaining a Navy IFC.

Technical Element #3 – Airworthiness Data

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the current and continued airworthiness requirements by evaluating the plan and supporting data used to maintain airworthiness, including;

a. Data that demonstrates categories of parts with Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) defined life limits are tracked for each aircraft proposed for use under the contract. Specific parts installed in specific proposed aircraft are not required to be listed; only a comprehensive list of life limited parts for a generic proposed T/M/S aircraft is required. This data also includes identification of the flight hours, cycles, calendar date or other limiting parameters which require removal or overhaul and the source that will be used to acquire or overhaul the replacement parts.

b. Listing for each aircraft proposed of all currently install modifications and configuration change since released by the OEM and data demonstrating that modifications are supported by appropriate engineering analysis/ documentation.

c. Documentation that demonstrates the maintenance history of each aircraft proposed for use under the contract, to include a thorough explanation of any lapses in maintenance history as well as a description of the process and method used to establish the aircraft’s maintenance history.

d. OEM Structural fatigue life limit and limits remaining for each aircraft proposed under the contract to allow the aircraft to be safely operated through the ordering period of the contract based on combined aircraft usage rates as described in Solicitation Section B, CLIN 0001, the current total counts on tracked items (e.g. flight hours/cycles/landings) that have been accumulated since the aircraft was manufactured and the means used to determine the accumulated counts.

Technical Element #4 – Aircraft Support

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the requirements by evaluating the plan and supporting data used to maintain airworthiness, including;

a. The proposed maintenance organization and strategy for conducting both scheduled and unscheduled maintenance. The Government may assess a strength for the utilization of a 14 CFR Part 125, 135 and/or 145 compliant maintenance operations.

b. The logistical strategy for supporting each proposed T/M/S aircraft, the proposed source of OEM, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), or equivalent agency certified parts and maintenance and engineering data.

Technical Element #5 – Aircraft Availability

The Government will evaluate the Offeror' s ability to achieving aircraft availability and reliability by evaluating the offeror’s:

a. Proposed method of executing a typical multi-day refueling detachment operation.

b. Proposed methods of ensuring pilot and aircrew (excluding maintenance personnel) availability during Fleet exercise detachment operations to ensure it meets the mission effectiveness metric described in the QASP (Attachment 2 under Solicitation Section J).

c. Proposed method of ensuring it meets the mission effectiveness metric described in the QASP (Attachment 2 under Solicitation Section J) as it relates to aircraft availability and reliability, to include a discussion of managing scheduled and unscheduled maintenance for all aircraft types proposed.

Technical Element #6 – Personnel Resources - The Government will evaluate the Offeror's ability to meet the aircrew requirements, including the recruitment hiring and retention of adequate numbers of qualified pilots, flight engineers and maintenance managers.

2.0 PRICE

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is 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. Also, each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for realism by determining consistency between the Technical and Price proposals. Inconsistencies between the Technical and Price proposals may be assessed as a proposal risk under the Technical evaluation. 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 all CLINs. The total proposed price is the sum of proposed firm-fixed unit price multiplied by Solicitation Section B Estimated Quantity for CLINs 0001 and 0004, plus the proposed firm-fixed unit price multiplied by the Offeror proposed quantity for CLIN 0002 and CLIN 0005.

• The fuel adjustment calculations listed in Solicitation Section L (section 2.3) for CLIN 0001.

• 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).

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.

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 the period of performance shall not be considered for award.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Solicitation Section B and Volume 2 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

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.

3.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Strengths: An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

Risk: As it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical element or sub element may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.