ATTACHMENT_0007_SECTION_M.pdf

ATTACHMENT 0007

M-2 BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

This best value tradeoff source selection will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15 as supplemented. The solicitation will be issued as a Small Business Set Aside (SBSA) competition.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts after conducting discussions with offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range. 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, then the Contracting Officer 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. Therefore the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms. The Government reserves the right not to award any contract depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and the availability of funds.

A minimum of two awards will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposasl that conform to the solicitation’s requirements and are judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent proposals that are determined to be the most beneficial to the Government. The Government reserves the right to award to a minimum of two contracts if deemed in its best interest to do so. To ensure a balanced approach to satisfy program requirements, the Government will consider the quality of the proposals received and the affordability of the proposals. Awards will encompass the entire LSFMA SOW; no partial awards will be made. Consideration will be given to three evaluation factors: Technical, Price/Cost, and Past Performance. The evaluation order of importance for the factors and subfactors are delineated on the table below:

Evaluation Factors/ Order of Importance

The Technical factor is the most important factor and is more important than the Price/Cost factor.

The Price /Cost factor is more important than the Past Performance factor.

The non-Price/Cost factors combined are significantly more important than the Price/Cost factor.

In order to be eligible for award, an offeror must be assessed:

• A rating of ACCEPTABLE or better under the Technical Factor and each of the Technical Subfactors, with a risk rating of no higher than MODERATE, and,

• A rating of no less than RELEVANT and at least SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE under the Past Performance factor, and.

• The Cost/Price proposal must also be found to be REASONABLE and

REALISTIC.

An inherent consideration during the evaluation shall be the risk of approach associated with an offeror’s proposal for satisfying the Government’s requirement. Offerors are cautioned that the award(s) may not necessarily be made to the offeror(s) submitting the proposal(s) with the lowest price/cost.

M-3 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

FACTOR I: TECHNICAL. The Technical factor is further delineated by four subfactors which are listed below along with the order of importance:

Subfactor Title Technical Subfactor and Order of

Importance

Subfactor a Corporate Capabilities

Quality and Safety Management Systems, Facility and Equipment Requirements Management Team/Personnel Financial Capability

Corporate Capabilities is more important than Sample Order 1, Sample Order 2, and Sample Order 3 individually

Subfactor b Sample Order 1 Sample Order 1 and 2 are equal to each other and significantly more important individually than Sample Order 3

Subfactor c Sample Order 2 Equal to Sample Order 1 Subfactor d Sample Order 3 Significantly less important than all other subfactors The combination of Subfactors b, c, and d are slightly more important than Subfactor a

Evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Subfactor as it applies to the

Statement of Work (SOW). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Section C. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each Subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the offeror’s strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies plus an assessment of risk to cost, schedule and overall contract performance.

FACTOR II: PRICE/COST. The resulting award will be a multiple-award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract. Within this contract, delivery orders may be either FFP, CPFF, or CPIF. The price/cost volume will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, compliance and completeness of the proposed costs. Price competition establishes the price reasonableness of the Contract Rate Pricing submission. Sample Order 3 will utilize price competition by use of the Contract Rate Pricing submission. Additionally, cost realism will be performed on the proposed Cost-Plus-Fixed-Fee Sample Orders 1 and 2. There are two Price/Cost values that will be assessed within the Price/Cost Factor (the Sample Order Pricing value is more important than the Contract Rate Pricing value):

1) Sample Order Pricing: The total Probable Price/Cost combined of Sample Orders

1-2-3. Note: Sample Orders 1-2 are Cost based actions and Sample Order 3 is a Price action.

2) Contract Rate Pricing: Established the Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Cost-Plus-

Fixed Fee (CPFF) associated rates.

Note (1): Sample Order 1 and 2 utilize a CPFF approach, the cost rate Not To Exceed (NTE) tables established in Contract Rate Pricing submission (Attachment D) shall be the direct labor and indirect cost basis of the offeror’s proposal. Sample Order 3 utilizes an FFP approach, the price rate NTE tables established in Contract Rate Pricing submission (Exhibit D) shall be the direct labor and indirect cost basis of the offeror’s proposal. The SSEB will perform a Cost Realism analysis by determining the offeror’s Probable Cost based on the technical evaluation of the submitted labor categories and labor rates provided in the Contract Rate Pricing submission. Sample Order 3 will be strictly used as a price comparison and price reasonableness will be determined by the use of the Contract Rate Pricing submission.

Note (2): The first objective of the Contract Rate Pricing is to establish rate tables comprised of competitively determined firm-fixed-price (FFP) and cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) rates (inclusive of direct, indirect, G&A and profit/fee elements). The Government will put all offerors on an initial equal footing for the purpose of establishing the Contract Rate Pricing by establishing the total number of expected man hours by calendar year. Every offeror is required to use the same number of hours and material base to establish the Contract Rate Pricing. The total of the both the FFP and CPFF rates will be added together to determine the offeror’s Contract Rate Pricing. The Government evaluators will verify the offerors’ calculations and the Contract Rate Pricing will be evaluated by utilizing the offerors’ final extended Contract Rate Price. The Government’s intention is to have FFP and CPFF rate tables that are inclusive of team members (i.e., partners, subcontractors, etc…- expected to perform more than 10% of the effort defined in Contract Rate Pricing Exhibit D) and the prime contractor. The intent of the rate tables is to provide rates that the Government may unilaterally exercise for sole source actions subsequent to award of delivery orders/Order orders such as Over and Above, Emergency Level of Effort (LOE) surge actions, and change orders. These rates will be binding on the offerors and will be a unilateral option right of the Government. The second objective of the Contract Rate Pricing (rate table) factor is to establish not-to-exceed (NTE) rates for delivery orders. (The NTE CPFF rates will be the ceiling rates used to determine the total estimated cost inclusive of fixed fee at which individual CPFF orders will be awarded. The Government recognizes that the Allowable Cost and Payment Clause 52.216-7 governs the reimbursable cost that the contractor is entitled to under the order at the conclusion of performance. These rates shall become the offeror’s NTE rates for all competitive and sole source delivery orders for the duration of the contract and will be binding rates. The successful offerors will be permitted to bid lower rates in sole source actions and competitions conducted under the multiple award concept. Rates shall be proposed on a calendar year basis (1 January through 31 December).

FACTOR III: PAST PERFORMANCE. The Government will evaluate Past Performance that is recent and relevant to the acquisition requirements and will consider U.S. Federal, State or Local Government or commercial contracts for the same or similar products or services as compared to NAICS 336411. Past performance references that are not determined to be recent (not within the last three (3) years of published date of the solicitation), not relevant (relevant to the acquisition) are not contracts or information references from other than U.S.

sources/points of contact will not be evaluated. Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and assess the performance confidence rating to the program.

A. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Team

(SSET). It is expected that the Government evaluators will be supported by independent contractors in the analysis. The support contractors will be identified to the offerors in the Request for Proposal (RFP), Section L.15.

1. EVALUATION APPROACH: The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. TECHNICAL FACTOR. The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated for the adequacy of the response and feasibility of the approach in order to successfully perform LSFMA requirements.

a) Subfactor a: Corporate Capabilities. The Corporate Capability subfactor will include an evaluation of following areas: Quality and Safety Management Systems, Facility and Equipment Requirements, Management Team/Personnel, and Financial Capability. This entire subfactor will be a single adjectival rating based on strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies from the below areas.

i) Quality and Safety Management Systems: The United States government is self-insured under the Ground and Flight Risk Clause (GFRC). This contract involves contractor work on Army assets that have a total value of millions of dollars and involve flight safety and air worthiness. The Government desires to ensure that the successful offeror(s) have the capability to operate under the GFRC. The offeror will be evaluated on the ability to comply with the Ground and Flight Risk provisions of the contract, and ability to provide a quality product. This shall be evaluated by a review of the following contractor quality processes and procedures:

(1) The current corporate certifications from independent audit agencies for ISO 9001, AS9110, AS9100, and 14 CFR Part 145 Repair Station will be evaluated (please be aware that FAR 52.246-11 clause at revision dated December 2014 will apply to this contract.)

(2) Additionally, compliance with DCMA 8210.1 including both ground and flight operations will be evaluated. Offerors are required to have the certifications and DCMA 8210.1 approval by the effective date of the contract. If the offeror does not have certificates and/or DCMA approved procedures, the offeror will be evaluated on the draft status of both requirements. The draft status of the requirements will be substantiated by demonstrating an effective date of on or before contract award. Substantiation is satisfied by a point of contact in the audit agency that can verify the offeror’s viability in satisfying the proposed schedule. Draft Ground and Flight Risk procedures will be evaluated for offerors without DCMA approved Ground and Flight Risk procedures.

(3) The Government will review the last two External audits (if conducted and completed) and the last two Internal Audits and Findings to substantiate offeror’s established quality processes that: a) are approved under AS9110 and AS9100; or b) have been submitted for approval to the audit agency.

(4) The Government will evaluate specific examples from previous efforts to demonstrate the operation of the offeror’s AS9110 and AS9100 systems that include the following:

(a) Representative work that exercised the proposed AS9110 and proposed AS9100 managed system.

(b) Quality monitoring (near escapes and escapes).

(c) Special initiative processes and results (including frequency).

(d) Examples of continuous improvement processes and results.

(e) Savings or costs realized by performing quality metrics.

(f) Personnel - monitoring, execution performance, and training.

ii) Facility and Equipment Requirements: The offeror’s primary facility must be located within the Huntsville-Decatur-Albertville Combined Statistical Area as defined in the Office of Management Budget (OMB) Bulletin No.

13-01, dated 28 February 2013. The facility and equipment requirements are divided into minimum and objective requirements. Proposals which exceed the minimum requirement or meet and/or exceed objective requirements will be more favorably evaluated. Proposals which do not meet minimum requirements will not be evaluated favorably.

(1) Hangar/Production/Modification Space and Logistics Support Operations: The Government will evaluate hangar, production, modification and logistics support space.

(2) Tooling, Equipment and Facilities: The Government will evaluate

Tooling and Equipment.

The Government may evaluate the offeror’s facility by performing a site visit. If the offeror’s facility has not been acquired at the time of proposal submittal, the offeror shall provide information to the Government outlining facility plans as specified in Section L.

iii) Management Team/Personnel: The offeror’s Human Resource Plan will be evaluated to ensure the availability of an adequately certified/qualified staff.

The offeror must have a viable approach to obtaining and maintaining a qualified workforce capable of accomplishing the mission. The plan will be evaluated on the approach for recruiting, training, screening, and certifying employees to provide a sufficient number of fully qualified employees, with complete and required background checks to begin assuming responsibility for contract function by contract start date. The offeror’s management team will be evaluated for the ability to manage the orders included in the scope of work. Areas of relevance include all efforts associated with modification of Army aviation managed systems.

iv) Financial Capability: The financial requirements are divided into minimum and objective requirements. Proposals which exceed the minimum requirement or meet and/or exceed objective requirements will be more favorably evaluated. Proposals which do not meet minimum requirements will not be evaluated favorably. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s financial capability based on a review of access to capital or financing.

b) Subfactors b & c: Sample Orders 1 and 2. The CPFF based Sample Orders will be evaluated using the following criteria:

i) These two Sample Orders are CPFF based and will be evaluated in a best value type of determination. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in attachment to be provided with the Formal RFP.

ii) The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable.

• To what degree does the proposal demonstrate the offeror’s understanding of all federated and integrated requirements set forth in the statement of work required to perform the aircraft modification? The offeror shall be evaluated on the completeness and accuracy of the submitted approach to produce a modified aircraft in the offeror’s technical narrative.

iii) The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques.

• To what degree does the offeror’s plan demonstrate expertise in applying modifications? To be properly evaluated the offeror shall provide, in the technical narrative, a detailed substantiation of at least one example but not exceeding two of the examples of relevant similar experience.

iv) The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed orders and technical requirements within the required schedule. The offeror should provide evidence of sufficient planning to show work will be accomplished, as required and on schedule, utilizing all available resources through the use of an integrated master schedule (IMS), risk matrix, opportunity matrix, and issue schedule.

• To what degree does the offeror’s proposed Integrated Master Schedule

(IMS) demonstrate integrated compliance and accuracy with the offeror’s submitted technical narrative? To be properly evaluated the offeror shall provide an initial IMS as part of the technical narrative substantiation.

Additionally, the IMS will be evaluated for consistency and completeness as compared to the technical narrative.

• To what degree does the offeror’s proposal demonstrate that the proposed technical solutions provide a comprehensive and integrated risk management process? The offeror shall be evaluated on the completeness and accuracy of the submitted risk/opportunity/issue management approach to produce a modified aircraft in their technical narrative. To be properly evaluated the risk/opportunity/issue management discussion should be integral with the technical narrative.

v) The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror clearly indicates the offeror has performed adequate planning to include labor categories and hours in order to accomplish the support orders as defined in the statement of work.

• To what degree does the offeror’s plan demonstrate that appropriate labor categories and labor mix of trained and experienced personnel will be provided to effectively carry out the requirements? To be properly evaluated the offeror shall complete a basis of estimate and the labor skill mix in ATTACHMENT YY as part of the technical narrative substantiation. Additionally, the labor categories/mix will be evaluated for consistency and completeness as compared to the technical narrative.

• To what degree does the offeror’s plan demonstrate the proper level of effort (i.e., labor hours as related labor mix and efforts) is directed toward the requirements defined in the Sample Order. To be properly evaluated the offeror shall provide complete labor hours as part of the technical narrative substantiation. Additionally, the proposed level of effort will be evaluated for consistency and completeness as compared to the technical narrative.

c) Subfactor d: Sample Order 3. The FFP Sample Order will be evaluated using the following criteria:

i) This Sample Order will utilize best value technical evaluation procedures.

The Sample Order is written as an example of a FFP build-to-print requirement. The offerors will be evaluated on the following technical requirements:

• To what degree does the offeror propose a complete Bill of Material

(BOM)

• To what degree does the offeror describe the process for ordering hardware

• To what degree does the offeror did the offeror describe the plan/process for kitting the ordered hardware

• To what degree does the offeror propose a complete IMS schedule

(including risks, opportunities, or issues)

ii) Completeness and thoroughness demonstrated in any or all of the areas can be utilized by the Government to show strength of proposal and provide better ratings.

3. PRICE/COST EVALUATION FACTOR. The Price/Cost factor shall be evaluated in order to verify and establish the Sample Order Pricing and the Contract Rate Pricing.

a) Price/Cost Analysis: Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offeror's proposed cost/price volume. Instead, the price/cost proposal will be evaluated for fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, errors, accounting system, cost realism, and fee. The burden of proof for price/cost fairness, reasonableness, compliance, completeness, and cost realism rests with the offeror. An assessment that the proposal is not fair, reasonable, compliant, complete or realistic will result in the offer being considered unacceptable for award.

b) Fairness and Reasonableness: For a price/cost to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price/cost to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The offeror's price/cost proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.4 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. Proposed rates and factors will be verified with the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) or other Cognizant Audit Agency via rate check or formal audit, as appropriate.

c) Compliance: The price/cost volume will be reviewed for compliance with the requirements specified in Section L of the solicitation. The Government will assess the offeror's price/cost proposal and estimates, as appropriate, for completeness, and price reasonableness using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404. Additionally, cost realism will be assessed on Sample Orders 1-2 of the proposal.

d) Completeness: The proposed price/cost volume submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for completeness and currency of information based upon the submission requirements contained in the solicitation instructions. In addition, the offeror will be evaluated based on the traceability of the basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the proposed technical volume.

e) Errors: The offeror's price/cost volume will be reviewed for errors. The offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposal at the sole discretion of the Procuring Contracting Officer.

f) Accounting System: The cognizant DCMA/DCAA office will verify evidence provided by the offeror of an adequate accounting system for accumulating and reporting incurred costs. If the offeror's accounting system has not been audited to determine adequacy, the DCMA/DCAA will be requested to perform a pre-award survey of the accounting system. The offeror must have an adequate accounting system as determined by the DCMA/DCAA prior to award of a cost type contract.

g) Cost Realism: The Government will perform a cost realism analysis on Sample

Orders 1-2 to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror's technical proposal. The results of this evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror. See FAR 15.404-1 (d) for a discussion of "cost realism" and "probable cost”. The probable cost will be determined by adjusting each offeror's proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The probable cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the total of the Sample Orders 1-2. If the Government’s evaluated cost is less than the proposed, the proposed becomes the probable cost. The cost realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of contract technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s technical proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs.

h) Profit/Fee: The offeror's proposed profit dollars will be utilized in the Government's evaluation. The offeror's proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the development of the Government's probable cost. The fixed fee rate(s) shall not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404- 4(c)(4)(i).

i) Evaluation: The Government will fully evaluate all proposed Sample Orders.

The Government will evaluate offers for base contract award purposes by totaling the three Sample Orders prices in order to determine the Sample Order Pricing. The Contract Rate Pricing will be evaluated at the cumulative price.

The proposed sample orders are for evaluation purposes only and may not result in an award of an order. The contract ceiling of $2.4 billion has been established at the discretion of the Government. The Government’s minimum obligation amount is $2,500.00.

4. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a) Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b) The past performance factor considers the offeror’s record of current and past performance to ascertain the probability to successfully perform the required effort of this solicitation. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and team member’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Team members are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the overall proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most relevant current and past efforts (awarded and/or completed within the past three years) in the proposal. Absent any relevant current or past performance history within the past three years, the offeror is considered an unknown performance risk and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources.

This includes data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor’s current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for services that are the same or similar to those listed under the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 336411. Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the solicitation, but may include performance data generated during the past three years (awarded and/or completed) without regard to the contract award date.

c) When submitting contracts for past performance review, offerors may submit up to three (3) Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime and one (1) contract for each team member. These contracts should be in current performance or awarded and/or completed during the past three (3) years (from the issue date of this RFP) and should be relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation.

d) The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect is to evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what is recent and relevant shall include similarity of service/support: complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming. Offerors should note that the Government will also use the required contract quality standards as an evaluation factor in determining relevancy of the past performance. Those contracts which were performed with all of the following certifications: AS9110, AS9100, Government approved Ground and Flight Risk procedures in compliance with DCMA 8210.1 ( to include flight operations) and/or Army regulation

95-20, and ISO 9001:2008 will be judged more relevant than efforts that were performed without these standards in place. The Certifications are listed above in the order of importance for those past performance efforts that do not include all of the above certifications. The offeror’s relevancy shall be evaluated using the ratings identified below:

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

• Relevant – Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

• Somewhat Relevant – Present/past performance involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

ii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the offeror performed on the contracts. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

• 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.

• Unknown Confidence (Neutral) – 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.