Section M_Attachment 3.pdf

SSP Attachment 3 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

Section M.

1. Basis for Contract Award

a. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 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. 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, 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 two (2) evaluation factors: (1) Technical and (2) Price. The Government will rank the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) portion of the Price Factor, then Technical Factor, followed by the remainder of the Price Factor analysis (Reasonableness and Balance), as follows:

Step 1. Rank by Total Evaluated Price. The Government will rank all proposals by the proposed Total Evaluated Price (IAW OSDS Vol 3 Price Summary) from lowest to highest.

Step 2. Technical Evaluation. The Government will then perform a technical evaluation on the lowest priced offeror as discovered from Step 1 above. If the lowest priced offeror is found technically acceptable, technical evaluations will stop. If the lowest priced offeror is found not acceptable, the Government will perform a technical evaluation of the next lowest priced offeror. This process will continue until an offeror is found technically acceptable.

Step 3. Price Analysis. The Government will conduct a complete price analysis IAW paragraph D of this section on the lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror, as selected through Steps 1 and 2. If this offeror is evaluated as unreasonable or unbalanced, the offeror will be replaced with the next lowest priced, technically acceptable offeror until an offeror has been deemed reasonable and balanced.

Award Decision: The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. If the Government conducts Discussions, and an “Unacceptable” rating is not resolved, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

If the lowest priced offeror is technically acceptable and has fair and reasonable pricing, the Government may award with or without discussions.

b. Volume I, Completed RFP

i. The completed RFP shall be reviewed by the Government and shall be completed with the pricing information completed in the Schedule B. Any and all clause fill-in(s) shall be completed as well.

Offeror proposals that do not include the above information may be deemed unacceptable and rejected.

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.

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), provides a technical proposal that includes a detailed narrative of sufficient detail to convince the government engineering and technical management reviewers that your company understands the repair issues involved, the technical risks and that your company has the experience and adequate depot maintenance and modification prowess 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) shall provide a logical work flow execution plan that maximizes safety, quality and work efficiency (para 4.3.3). Identify and describe your assumptions, trade-offs considered, and any risks associated with your approach. Include all applicable technical orders (figure and indexes), inspection, material and process specifications used for the repairs. Consider all aspects of making the aircraft safe and ready to accomplish the task. Identify any part-specific (or otherwise special) tooling and/or processes required. The narrative and work products shall identify all items required to complete the task. Oversights that represent a misunderstanding of the effort will not be deemed acceptable. Any and all required preparatory subtasks shall be included. All disturbed systems shall be identified. All required materials shall be identified. All fabrication requirements shall be identified. All manpower support shall be identified. All preparation requirements shall be identified. All equipment support requirements shall be identified. The UDLM worker shift coverage shall be identified. Failing to utilize or making changes to any of the required template formats will not be considered acceptable.

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor Two, UDLM Execution Schedule Development. Subfactor 2 is met when the offeror, utilizing the PWS (para 4.3.4.1.7) and Attachments A and G, breaks the task down into discrete substeps with estimated execution hours for each substep, then applies manpower loading based on the requirements of each substep. The offeror shall identify the labor skills found in the PWS Section 4 and Attachment A in providing a task team composition. Based on a 5-day per week, three shift (24-hour) work coverage schedule, the offer shall provide the government with a total direct labor hour estimate and a calendar day start-to finish estimate for task completion. It is crucial to ensure labor loading, estimate and schedule are accurate and consistent.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor Three, Work Flow Package (WFP) Development. Subfactor 3 is met when the offeror provides a fully developed WFP (para 4.3.4.1) to comply with execution of TCTOs on AC-130W aircraft. The offeror’s WFP shall capture 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 shall be included in the WFP (para 4.3.4.1.1). In-Process Inspections required by technical data are considered essential and must be strategically placed in the WFP (para 4.3.4.1.3).

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor Four, WFP Control. Subfactor 4 is met when the offeror provides a detailed narrative describing their processes and controls to ensure WFPs for repetitive tasks have an issue and control process (para 4.3.4), their standard operating procedures (SOP) and their proposed local operating instruction to ensure an AS9001 compliant process is realized. This process shall ensure new updates are incorporated into a master document after a supplement is received and the master WFP is revised prior to release for the next scheduled modification.

This shall not be a restatement of government requirements from the PWS but describe your technical approach to realize quality WFPs for every task.

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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 why that is or is not 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.

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

c. Volume III, Price Factor

i. General: The offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and a Total Evaluated Price 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, 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.

3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will calculate the total evaluated price (TEP) (as stated in completed Attachment: OSDS Vol 3 Price Summary) as follows:

a. Total Yearly Pricing for (FFP ST Labor) CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001 and 5001*(52.217-8) shall be included in the evaluation.

b. Total Yearly Pricing for (FFP OT Rates) CLINs 0002, 1002, 2002, 3002, 4002 and 5002*(52.217-8) shall be included in the evaluation. The included hours for OT listed in the Attachment: OSDS Vol 3 Price Summary 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 Attachment: OSDS Vol 3 Price Summary.

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 (2)(a)(ii) of Attachment M.

* For services pursuant to FAR 52.217-8 Option to Extend Services, an evaluated price will be calculated for CLIN 5001 and 5002 by using the offeror’s proposed “Unit Price” from CLIN 4001 and 4002 multiplied by half the respective quantities.