Section M Draft.docx

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small Business Participation Submission, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price, with past performance considered significantly more important than price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Utilization, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

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

A. General

1. 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.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Voluntary Protection Plan: The submitted TCIR/DART rates or other comparable rates for the past three (3) calendar years (i.e., calendar years 2018, 2019, and 2020) immediately prior to the calendar year in which this solicitation is being issued, shall be compared to the most recently published Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) national average for the specific SIC or NAICS code identified on the face page of this solicitation (https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag_index_alpha.htm). Failure by the applicable offeror/joint venture partner(s)/subcontractor to submit TCIR/DART or other comparable rates will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Work Statement, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies 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.

Subfactor One - Recruitment/Retention: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides the following:

(a) A comprehensive written plan to recruit and retain qualified personnel for all positions described in the PWS, giving due attention to the relative scarcity of qualified F-15 pilot-instructors and WSO instructors, as well as to the position qualifications for other instructor personnel described in the PWS. Details must be provided regarding recruitment and retention techniques, including specifics on the offerors’ method(s) for retaining incumbent personnel (if applicable).

(b) In addition, submissions must identify the following number(s) of qualified contacts (made within sixty days prior to proposal submission) for the following positions, each of which is identified by AFSC in the PWS, Table 7-2, Appendix 1:

* At least one must be an FWIC graduate ** Must be qualified with respect to F-15E or F-15SG *** Must be qualified with respect to any 4th-generation fighter aircraft, to include flight-line experience and engine run experience.

For the purpose of this sub-factor, a “qualified contact” is an individual (1) who is at the time of proposal submission fully qualified to perform the duties set forth for each position as described in the PWS, and (2) who has been contacted by the offeror within the past sixty (60) days. Identification of each qualified contact shall be made as follows:

equivalent) along with training records and EPR/OPR. Alternatively, qualifications may be evidenced by official training records, teaching certificates or formal training certifications sufficient to prove the individual has the requisite skills and experience to fill the position.

Subfactor Two – Quality Management: This sub-factor is met when the offeror’s Quality Control Plan (QCP) meets the following: (1) all the requirements for the QCP specified in the PWS; (2) all applicable AFIs in the PWS, (3) the Service Delivery Summary as listed in the PWS, and (4) all applicable OSHA requirements. Each offeror also must provide draft plans described in DCMA Instruction 8210.1C, Change 1 and DFARS 252.228-7001.

Subfactor Three – Prerequisite Documentation: This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides draft Flight Operation Procedures (FOPs) and Ground Operating Procedures (GOPs) and a Training Plan. The FOPs and GOPs must meet the requirements of DCMA Instruction 8210.1C, Change 1 and DFARS 252.228-7001. The Training Plan must meet all requirements specified in PWS paragraphs 2.1.3.1, 2.1.3.1.1, 2.1.3.1.2, and 2.1.3.2 including due consideration for the number of hours spent by qualified personnel providing classroom instruction as well as curriculum development. Additionally, each offeror will need to describe its plan for integrating its instructor personnel with the proximate USAF AMXS instructor cadre in the Maintenance Training Section (MTS) to provide instruction to USAF, RSAF and other personnel as required in paragraph 2.1.3 of the PWS.

2. Mission Essential Services: Offerors shall submit a written plan IAW DFARS 252.237-7024. This shall be rated as acceptable/unacceptable.

3. Technical Rating:

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. 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.

D. Volume III, 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 hire any of the personnel identified under Technical Subfactor One or employ more than 40% of the personnel for the maintenance AFSCs.. 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. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years 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) 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) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). 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.

b) 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. 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.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided 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 III of its proposal:

· VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have involved flight operations for fourth generation fighter aircraft and maintenance on fighter or fixed-wing attack aircraft in support of sortie generation.

· RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have involved flight operations for fourth generation fighter aircraft and maintenance on fighter or fixed-wing attack aircraft in support of sortie generation.

· SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. The effort must have involved flight operations for fourth generation fighter aircraft and maintenance on fighter or fixed-wing attack aircraft in support of sortie generation.

· NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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 length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of service. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, PEACE CARVIN V Flight Operations and Maintenance Support Training. They are as follows:

Number of sorties flown by operations personnel or the number of sorties supported by Maintenance personnel Number of aircraft supported Number of personnel employed to support the contracting effort

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no 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 is 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 past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

E. Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation Submission addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

iii) The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated against the FY21 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY 2021 goals are as follows:

NAICS: 488190

2. Small Business Utilization Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. 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 rating will be assigned to the Small Business Utilization factor.

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

F. Cost/Price Factor

The price evaluation will document the fairness and reasonableness of the TEP. Separately priced lines items or subline items shall be analyzed to determine if the prices are unbalanced. The Government will evaluate all option CLINs (FAR 52.217-5), to include the FAR 52.217-8 option CLINs. This does not obligate the Government to exercise any options during performance of the contract.

The government will evaluate offers by Total Evaluated Price (TEP). TEP is a multi-step computation. Offeror’s will enter in their per-unit prices into the document titled Cost Price Worksheet – Attachment 2. This should automatically compute the cost per CLIN.

The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the requirements and are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s proposal. There is a reasonable expectation of competition for this requirement; thus Offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The Offeror’s price proposal shall represent the Offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where an Offeror’s proposed prices appear unrealistically low, Offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an Offeror’s proposal. The government reserves the right to evaluate offers for price or cost realism in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d).