CUI

Pacific Missile Range Facility (PMRF) Helicopter Services

N0042126R0002

SECTION M; EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) Program Manager, Adversary and Specialized Aircraft (PMA-226)

Contracted Air Services (CAS)

29 June 2026

Controlled by: PMA-226 CUI Category: SSEL Distribution Statement: D POC: Shane Dalpiaz, shane.m.dalpiaz.civ@us.navy.mil

Distribution Statement D: Distribution authorized to the Department of Defense and U.S. DoD contractors only (SSEL) (29 June 2026). Other requests for this document must be referred to PMA-226.

mailto:shane.m.dalpiaz.civ@us.navy.mil

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

I. GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government expects to select one Offeror based on its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. "Best value" means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government's estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest price 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.

A. EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government will evaluate the prerequisite as a pass/fail assessment. The Government will deem any Offeror who does not meet the prerequisite as UNACCEPTABLE and will eliminate them from this competition without further consideration. The Government will not evaluate any proposal eliminated from the competition.

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal that passes the prerequisite 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, past performance, 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. If 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. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation (past performance information, results of questionnaires, site surveys, cost models, etc.).

The Government will perform an initial assessment of the Offerors’ proposals against the submittal requirements of the solicitation. Non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation will be considered a deficiency. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g., Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc.) to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and determines that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-2(b) apply, the Government may require the Offeror to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403.

B. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors listed below, where Technical is the most important factor. Past Performance is more important than Price. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Small Business is evaluated as acceptable/not acceptable and not included in the trade-off decision.

A. Technical B. Past Performance C. Price D. Small Business

The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a program that ensures the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the price proposal, where applicable, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

II. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

A. TECHNICAL

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror's understanding of, approach to, and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. These elements are not weighted or rated separately as part of the Technical factor. Offerors shall address all elements in their Technical proposal.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the following elements:

1. Capability Stand Up

2. Aircraft Performance Requirements

3. Hoist Capability Requirements

4. Airworthiness Data

5. Aircraft Support

6. Aircraft Availability

The Government will assign a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. The Technical Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations. The degree of benefit to the Government associated with strength(s) or significant strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional.

The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. The assessment of technical risk considers the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Appreciably exceeding requirements can potentially produce performance or operational benefits. Beyond the point where there is no additional performance or operational benefit, the Government may assess the benefit as risk reduction. The Technical Risk Ratings of Low, Moderate, High, and Unacceptable will be used to relate the results of the evaluation.

A proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service, or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the Government can have merit if it appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government.

The Government may assess and categorize a failure to address part or parts of the technical factor caused by a lack of information as significant weakness (es), uncertainty (ies), or deficiency (ies). The Government may consider a combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level a deficiency.

Additionally, any approach that relies on additional Government resources or operations (e.g., Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc.) not identified in the solicitation, in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a Technical Rating of “Unacceptable” or “Marginal”, or a Technical Risk Rating of “High” or “Unacceptable” is considered unawardable and may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

B. PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s (defined in Section III., B. Other Evaluation Definitions) and (if applicable) its principal entities demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the CAS solicitation requirements in each of the following areas: 1) meeting quality requirements, 2) meeting schedule requirements, and 3) managing the contracted effort on similar programs. The Government will evaluate the relevance (which includes recency) of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance.

The Government will assess each contract reference and assign a relevancy rating of Relevant

(R) or Not Relevant (NR) based on the definitions in Section M. The Government will not include contract references rated as Not Relevant (NR) in the Past Performance evaluation. The

Government defines relevancy in Section III., B. Other Evaluation Definitions. In general, the Government considers recent performance more relevant than older performance.

The Government will only consider the past performance for prime Offerors with the same CAGE code/UEI. The Government may consider the past performance for prime Offerors with CAGE codes created because of a corporate acquisition, reorganization, merger, or other administrative reasons, but refer to the same division in the same physical location for work performance.

The Government will consider performance problems not addressed by the Offeror to still exist.

However, the Government may consider discounting problems addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems.

The Government will assign a Performance Confidence Assessment Rating based on an integrated assessment of all performance areas. This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s relevant past performance and systemic improvement. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral.” Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. As such, the term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to the records that indicate how well the Offeror has performed on recent/relevant work (e.g., CPARs and questionnaires).

The Government reserves the right to use information to evaluate past performance obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror. The Government may send additional PPQs and/or obtain information from sources identified by the Government evaluation team.

C. PRICE/COST

Each Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and whether it contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government will confirm that the proposed prices do not exceed the NTE amounts listed in Section B.

The Government will conduct an evaluation for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR § 15.404-6.

Offerors are advised that IAW FAR § 15.404-6(b)(2) that an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The Government will not be evaluating price realism.

The Government may use various price analysis techniques such as 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 DoW contracts, comparison to the Government’s independent price estimate, comparison to commercial and/or industry standards, among other techniques to perform the price analysis.

Prospective Offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, Attachment L-6 (Price Summary Worksheet), and the Volume 4 Cost Price Narrative, Section B shall prevail. 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 § 15.403-2(b) apply, the Offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with

FAR § 15.403.

In its evaluation, the Government may use commercial published data, same or similar DoW contracts, Government estimates, industry standards, DCAA audit information, or other information as deemed appropriate by the Government. The Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable.

Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP)

The Government will use the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) in the best value determination. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is calculated as the sum of the proposed FFP CLIN amounts as defined below:

1. The total proposed price for FFP CLINs (0002- 0004), which is the sum of the proposed unit price multiplied by the proposed Section B Quantities for these CLINs.

2. The Government provided amount for CLINs 0001, 0005, and 0006 plus any applicable burdens as part of the TEP.

D. SMALL BUSINESS

1. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s SBPCD on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government will evaluate the extent of proposed participation/commitment of small businesses participants in the performance of this acquisition (as small business prime Offerors or small business subcontractors). The Government will review the Offeror’s proposed SBPCD to ensure that the Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) of at least 10% of the total proposed contract price is met. Offerors that do not demonstrate a 10% commitment will be assessed with an Unacceptable rating and are ineligible for award. The Government will incorporate the successful Offeror’s SBPCD into the resultant contract as an Attachment 5 in Section J.

The Government may consider the following when evaluating the SBPCD:

• The extent to which firms as defined in FAR Part 19 are specifically identified in proposals

• The extent to which Offerors demonstrate substantive commitment to small business firms, such as, letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

• Identification of the type and variety of the work small firms are to perform (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

• The extent of participation of small business prime offerors and small business subcontractors in terms of the value of the total acquisition (total contract value) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

• The extent to which the Offeror provides detailed explanations/documentation supporting the proposed quantitative participation

• Extent to which the Offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

• Extent to which the Offeror complied with requirements of FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (when applicable) (i.e., binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements)

2. SMALL BUSINESS (SB) SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

The Government will also evaluate the SB Subcontracting plan provided by Large Business Offerors on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government will evaluate whether the SB Subcontracting Plan conforms to the requirements of FAR 19.7 and DFARS 219.7. This evaluation is part of the responsibility determination, which requires Offerors to provide a SB Subcontracting Plan, Comprehensive or Commercial SB Subcontracting Plan that is acceptable to the Contracting Officer. The successful Offeror’s approved Annex B (Small Business Subcontracting Plan) will be incorporated into the resultant contract as Attachment 6 of contract Section J.

III. DEFINITIONS

A. EVALUATION RATINGS AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS –

EVALUATION RATINGS DEFINITIONS

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

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

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

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates 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 un-awardable.

RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Technical Risk Rating: The risk assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has high expectations 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.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

For the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s relevant past performance and systemic improvement.

B. OTHER EVALUATION DEFINITIONS

Strength An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength

An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Risk Reducer An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that reduces risk in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness (FAR 15.001)

“Weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

(FAR 15.001)

A “Significant Weakness” in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Uncertainty

Any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Deficiency (FAR 15.001)

“Deficiency” is any part of an offer that does not conform to a material requirement of a RFP. A material requirement is one that affects price, quantity, quality, or delivery, or that the RFP requires to be met at the time of proposal submission

Reasonableness (from

FAR 31.201-3)

Determining reasonableness.

(a) A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a reasonable person in the conduct of competitive business.

(1) No presumption of reasonableness must be attached to the incurrence of costs.

(2) If the contracting officer, or the contracting officer’s representative, challenges a specific cost, the burden of proof is on the contractor to prove that the cost is reasonable.

(b) Determining cost reasonableness depends on a number of factors, including—

(1) Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the conduct of the contractor's business or contract performance;

(2) Generally accepted sound business practices, arm's length bargaining, and Federal and State laws and regulations;

(3) The contractor's responsibilities to the Government, other customers, the owners of the business, employees, and the public at large; and

(4) Any significant deviations from the contractor's established practices.

(c) Reasonableness of specific costs must be examined with particular care in connection with firms or their separate divisions that may not be subject to effective competitive restraints.

Completeness The adequacy of the cost proposal, in relation to the PWS, considering whether all costs are included or accounted for.

All PWS requirements must be included.

Recency

A measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant. Past performance or corporate experience references that are older than 5 years from the due date of the proposal is not considered recent and therefore is not considered relevant. As it pertains to recent past performance, the more recent past performance references are considered better indicators of future performance.

Relevancy

A measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of past performance or corporate experience examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the past performance is an indicator of future performance.

Relevant (R)

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For this solicitation, a past contract is considered to have essentially the same scope, magnitude, and complexity as the solicitation when the past contract involved the items below:

• Scope: Each contract reference must include services involving a Contractor-Owned, Contractor-Operated (COCO) aircraft performing MK-30 target launch from a MK145 and target recoveries and at least one of the following:

o Transport of personnel/hazardous material to/from ships, shore facilities, or offshore facilities;

o Firefighting

• Magnitude: Contract reference total value of greater than $5.0 M, or annual task order value greater than $1.0 M.

• Complexity: Contract references must include services involving at least one of the following:

o Providing maintenance support and modifications of rotary wing aircraft; external lift, transport of personnel, firefighting, search and rescue and visual surveillance utilizing rotary wing aircraft.;

o Obtaining Airworthiness Certificate(s) for rotary wing aircraft from the FAA or other FAA or DoD recognized Civil and Military Airworthiness Authorities.; or o Maintaining Continuing Airworthiness of rotary wing aircraft (FAA or Military).

Not Relevant (NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires (i.e., does not meet the above definitions of (R); or contracts or the portion of those contracts submitted by the Offeror that meet any of the conditions below:

i. Contracts from an entity that does not have a defined role and responsibility identified in Table PP-1 (Past Performance Contract Data);

ii. Contracts from an entity that does not have any work that matches the entity’s proposed role and responsibility identified in Table PP- 1;

iii. Contracts from any entity that is not a principal entity, including those who do not demonstrate the requisite work share in the Price Volume;

iv. Contracts from a different physical location (e.g., with different CAGE code/DUNS) than the entity proposed in Table PP-1; or

v. Contracts, or those portions of contracts, whose performance is older than 5 years from the proposal due date. (If only a portion of a contract is older than 5 years, then only that portion is not relevant for reasons of recency.)

Principal Entities

The Government will only review the past performance of Principal Entities. Principal Entities are defined as: 1) the Offeror (prime); 2) any first-tier subcontractor performing at least 15% of the total proposed price; 3) any member of a joint venture; and 4) any first-tier subcontractor performing one of the PWS critical functions, regardless of the percentage of work.

B. OTHER EVALUATION DEFINITIONS