RFP Attachment 3 Section M-900.pdf

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – CUI”

Section M.

SSP Attachment 3 Section M -900 Evaluation Factors for

Award

1. Basis for Contract Award

a. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically

Acceptable (LPTA) with past performance evaluation source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, 15.3, and 15.305(2) as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the best interest of the Government. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offeror(s). Award will be made to the one (1) offeror having the lowest total evaluated price and determined to be technically acceptable and has acceptable past performance. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, demonstrates acceptable past performance, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 2 below.

2. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

a. General

i. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

ii. Gating: Proposals will be evaluated using four (4) evaluation factors: (1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), (2) Technical, (3) Past performance, and (4) Price Analysis.

The Government will rank the TEP portion of the Price Factor, then Technical Factor, then Past Performance followed by the remainder of the Price Factor analysis (Reasonableness and Balance), as follows:

Gate 1. Rank by Total Evaluated Price. The Government will rank all proposals by the proposed Total Evaluated Price (IAW RFP Attachment C-Excel Cost-Price Volume) from lowest to highest.

Gate 2. Technical Evaluation. The Government will then perform a technical evaluation on the lowest priced offeror as determined from Gate 1 above. If the lowest priced offeror is found technically acceptable, technical evaluations will stop. If the lowest priced offeror is found unacceptable, the Government will perform a technical evaluation of the next lowest priced offeror. This process will continue until an offeror is found technically acceptable.

Gate 3. Past Performance Evaluation. The Government will then assess past performance on the offeror found acceptable via Gates 1 and 2 above. If the offeror meets Gates 1 and 2 and past performance is determined acceptable, past performance evaluations will stop and the Government will proceed to Gate 4. If the offeror who meets Gates 1 and 2 is determined to have unacceptable past performance, the Government will move to the next offeror that meets Gates 1 and

2. This process will continue until an offeror is deemed to have acceptable past performance.

Gate 4. Price Evaluation. The Government will conduct a complete price evaluation to include reasonableness and balance IAW paragraph d. Volume III, Price Evaluation of this section on the offeror with the lowest priced, technically acceptable with acceptable past performance proposal, as selected through Gates 1, 2, and 3. If this offeror is evaluated as unreasonable or unacceptably unbalanced, the offeror will be replaced with the next lowest priced, technically acceptable with acceptable past performance until an offeror has been deemed reasonable and balanced. Should the offeror be determined unreasonable and unacceptably unbalanced, the Government will go back to Gate 1 until an offeror meets ALL gates parameters.

Award Decision: The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures, and the evaluation criteria established within this provision.

b. Volume I, Completed RFP

i. The completed RFP shall be revaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated RFP requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

c. Volume II, Technical Factor

i. General: Each offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the solicitation and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of requirements as outlined in the PWS. For each subfactor, the offeror shall identify risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify risks with the proposed approach beyond those identified by the offerors themselves.)

Subfactor One, UDLM Planning. Subfactor 1 is met when the offeror, Using UDLM Repair, Scenario 1 and PWS UDLM Planning attachments A and G (para

4.2.5 and 4.3.4.1), (No WFP required for this scenario), demonstrates an acceptable understanding of the repair issues and technical risks involved, and demonstrates acceptable depot maintenance and modification understanding in order to recommend repairs or methods which may be outside the scope of 1C-130A-3 (Structural Repair Instructions USAF Series ALL C-130 Aircraft). The narrative and completion of PWS Attachments A and G (para 4.2.5 and 4.3.4.1) demonstrates a logical workflow execution plan that maximizes safety, quality, and work efficiency (para 4.3.3). Oversights that represent a misunderstanding of the effort will not be deemed acceptable. Failing to utilize or making changes to any of the required template formats will not be considered acceptable.

Subfactor Two, UDLM Execution Schedule Development. Subfactor 2 is met when the offeror’s technical approach, utilizing the PWS (para 4.3.4.1.7) and Attachments A and G, provides an acceptable UDLM execution schedule.

Specifically, the proposed UDLM execution schedule breaks the task down into discrete sub steps with estimated execution hours for each sub step, then applies manpower loading based on the requirements of each sub step.

Subfactor Three, Workflow Package (WFP) Development. Subfactor 3 is met when the offeror’s technical approach provides an acceptable WFP (para 4.3.4.1) to comply with execution of TCTOs on AC-130W aircraft. The offeror’s WFP captures all aspects of the task including, ground handling, aircraft preparation for modification maintenance, documentation, and discrete work breakdown that supports a reasonable total man-hour and work-day estimate. Technical Order required Notes, Cautions or Warnings are appropriately included in the WFP (para 4.3.4.1.1). In-Process Inspections required by technical data are appropriately included in the WFP (para 4.3.4.1.3).

Subfactor Four, WFP Update/Control. Subfactor 4 is met when the offeror’s technical approach acceptably demonstrates the offeror’s processes and controls to ensure WFPs for repetitive tasks have an issue and control process (para 4.3.4) and demonstrates the offeror’s standard operating procedures (SOP) and their proposed local operating instruction are AS9001 compliant.

ii. Technical rating (TR). The TR reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The technical risk associated with the offeror’s proposed technical approach will also be considered as part of the technical acceptability decision. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Government’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document the reason(s) why it is or is not found acceptable.

The Government may independently identify risks not identified by the offeror and assess its impact to the successful performance of the contract. Should the Government determine that any risks identified by either the offeror or the Government pose too great a risk to the program and does not address a suitable mitigation, the Government may consider the proposal technically unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

iii.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

d. Volume III, Price Evaluation

General: The offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and a Total Evaluated Price and will be calculated in accordance with the following:

1. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

2. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items in the Basic and Options, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the Schedule. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government will calculate the total evaluated price (TEP) (as stated in completed RFP Attachment C: Excel Cost_Price Model) as follows:

a. Total Yearly Pricing for (FFP ST Labor) CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001, 5001, 6001, 7001, 8001, 9001 and *9101 (This CLIN will NOT be included on the RFP or Contract, but is for evaluation purposes ONLY, as part of FAR Part 52.217-8). CLINs X001 will be calculated by multiplying the proposed rates for each labor category by the hours associated with each category in RFP Attachment C: Excel Cost_Price Model. The total for each labor category will then be added together to calculate the TEP for CLINs X001.

b. Total Yearly Pricing for (FFP OT Rates) CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002, 5002, 6002, 7002, 8002, 9002, and *9102 (This CLIN will NOT be included on the RFP or Contract, but is for evaluation purposes ONLY, as part of FAR Part 52.217-8). CLINs X002 will be calculated by multiplying the proposed rates for each labor category by the hours associated with each category in RFP Attachment C: Excel Cost_Price Model. The total for each labor category will then be added together to calculate the TEP for CLINs X002.

i. The included hours for OT listed in the RFP Attachment C: Excel

Cost_Price Model are for evaluation purposes only. These set number of hours will provide a basis for the Government to evaluate OT costs. These hours are not guaranteed for any contractual awards.

c. CLINs X003, X004 and X005 will not be included in the Total Evaluated Price calculation as these CLINs are listed and priced as Cost Reimbursable (CAP/CAS and Travel) or shall be Not Separately Priced (Data).

d. Total Yearly Pricing for CLIN 0006 (FFP Transition In) shall be included in the evaluation. This CLIN shall be priced only in the basic award year.

e. The total evaluated price shall be summarized and totaled on the Offeror Tab in the RFP Attachment C: Excel Cost_Price Model.

f. The total evaluated price will be used for evaluation purposes only. Once the TEP is set, the Government will follow the gating process established in Section M (2)(a)(ii). For services pursuant to FAR Part 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, an evaluated price will be calculated for CLIN 9101 and 9102 by using the offeror’s proposed “Unit Price” from CLIN 9001 and 9002 multiplied by half the respective quantities.

e. Volume IV, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself, that will perform modification, maintenance, fabrications, inspections, and technical evaluations in direct support of specialized C-130 weapons systems, subsystems, and support systems. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past seven (7) years (with at least three years of performance history) from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation AND if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Supplier Performance Risk System: Pursuant to DFARS PGI 204.76(b), (c) and (e), the Government will assess the offeror’s profile in SPRS for supplier risk, including, but not limited to, quality and delivery, to consider the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk. IAW DFARS 252.204-7024, offerors may access their own risk assessments and the SPRS User Guide at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm. Additionally, SPRS evaluation criteria are available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf.

b) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), and the Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

c) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

3. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself.

Offerors are reminded that the Government shall not evaluate efforts for ordering type contracts without the identification of an order or series of orders. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality. Offerors are reminded that submitting an ordering-type contract without identifying orders for evaluation will result in the effort not being evaluated.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, rather than a single order under a basic ordering contract, the offeror shall have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up all total dollar values in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Dollar Value for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the total quantity for each order to calculate the Total Quantity Repaired for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The total dollar value, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for the series of orders, will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.e.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.e.4, the scope and magnitude and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders

“Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104 – CUI” http://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm http://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf submitted demonstrating the same or similar work as the instant effort, the greater the potential for a higher relevancy rating.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

c) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. The availability of CPARS reports constitutes an offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor as having had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented.

The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

4. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided and/or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume IV of its proposal:

For the purpose of this solicitation, On-Site Depot Support is defined as providing highly skilled, highly qualified, fully functional, highly responsive Specialized C-130 Contract Depot Maintenance Team (CDMT) to support an agile, limited, gap-filler depot maintenance and modification capability for AFSOC C-130s worldwide.

Adjectival Rating Description Scope of Magnitude of Effort and Complexities Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

The effort shall demonstrate an agile depot response team that was able to quickly action from Government- provided technical instructions to complete complex depot-level maintenance actions while adhering to Air Force or equivalent safety, quality and performance standards.

Further, the effort shall demonstrate a contract depot maintenance team

To be considered relevant the Past Performance effort involved at least 6 out of 10 of the following services/ technical aspects to include the below complex deliverables, Unscheduled Depot-Level Maintenance (UDLM) or equivalent and or Unplanned Depot-level Maintenance process/plan development, and Workflow Package (WFP) development:

1. C-130J Unscheduled depot level, maintenance such as major maintenance structural replacement at a field unit location.

2. C-130J depot level modification kit installations.

3. C-130J depot level component refurbishment.

4. Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO) A-kit fabrications.

5. Structural Component fabrications that include CNC and depot level welding

(CDMT) that accomplished safety of flight (SOF) and critical safety item (CSI) tasks subject to the ground flight risk clause found in DFARS 252.228-7001 or equivalent.

tested and certified under TO 00-25- 252 and the guidance of AWS D 17.1 to Level II which is attained by qualifying to the 6G position within a base metal group.

6. Electrical harness fabrications complying with technical order 1-1A- 14 and SAE AS50881.

7. Temporary Depot repairs at off station location to recover a non-flyable aircraft.

8. Depot Level Fuel Cell maintenance, trouble shooting and repair.

9. Load Testing, Repair and Refurbishment of Aircraft Component Support Equipment, Slings & Etc.

10. Manufacturing & Fabrication projects to include participation in First Article Form Fit and Function and Production Efforts

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past performance demonstrated less than six of the experience examples provided above.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to dollar values, the length of effort, and type and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the scope and magnitude of effort and the complexities as individual considerations in the overall relevancy rating assigned. If all of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected.

5. Quality of Performance: As described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and FAR 15.304(c)(2), the past performance evaluation shall evaluate quality of performance. The Government will assess the past performance quality of recent efforts that demonstrate some level of relevancy, as discussed above. The Government reserves the right to utilize any and all available means to obtain quality of performance information including, but not limited to, CPARS, DCMA records, questionnaire responses, interviews, etc. In terms of available CPARS, the Government reserves the right to conduct follow up interviews with CPARS reviewing officials as well as any current effort points of contact regarding trends in the performance. Further, the Government will make an independent determination on quality of performance; the Government will not be bound by any ratings identified in questionnaires, interviews or CPARS, but will take into account the ratings provided as well as the narratives and gathered information to make an independent determination. The Government’s quality assessment will not result in a separate quality rating; instead, the quality assessment will result in an overarching narrative assessment discussing identified ratings (CPARS, questionnaires, etc.), narratives, and the Government team’s independent assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on quality of performance.

6. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The Government will evaluate the submitted efforts, as well as any efforts independently identified by the Government, for three aspects: recency, relevancy and quality of performance. These aspects will be evaluated in a sequential manner, as follows:

Each effort will be evaluated for recency, as defined above. For those efforts determined recent, they will be evaluated for relevancy. Should an effort be determined not recent, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

For those efforts determined to have some level of relevancy (i.e., at least a Relevant assigned), they will be evaluated for quality of performance. Should an effort be determined not relevant, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

Quality of performance will be evaluated via questionnaire responses from customer points of contact, telephone interviews conducted with customer points of contact, review of available CPARS, etc., as discussed above. Should the Government be unable to obtain quality of performance information for any effort (i.e., no questionnaires returned, customer points of contact unresponsive, no CPARS available, etc.), that effort will not be considered as a part of the acceptable/unacceptable rating.

In order to be considered acceptable, in the table below, each effort shall demonstrate recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Should any of these three aspects be missing or unable to be determined or evaluated for any effort, that effort will not be included within the acceptable/unacceptable rating. As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, as described above, one of the performance acceptable/unacceptable ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. It is imperative to note that the assignment of a performance acceptable/unacceptable rating is not solely determined on the relevancy ratings. Instead, all three elements of the past performance evaluation (i.e., recency, relevancy and quality of performance) are all considered in the performance acceptable/unacceptable rating assignment. The areas that make up the effort relevancy ratings (both scope and magnitude of effort and complexities) are considered in the assignment of the performance acceptable/unacceptable rating assignment. Offerors are hereby cautioned that just having recent and relevant efforts does not guarantee an “acceptable” rating; the quality of performance information will also be taken into consideration in the assignment of any performance acceptable/unacceptable rating. The performance acceptable/unacceptable ratings are excerpted below.

Table C-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown (see note below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”