FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 1 of 15

1.0 1.1

M001 SOURCE SELECTION (April 2012) Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), when appropriate, and the Air Force Source Selection Mandatory Procedures (MP5315.3) dated April 2010, when appropriate. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitations requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Sections L and K of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The System Requirements Documents (SRDs), Statements of Objectives (SOOs), and Performance Work Statements (PWSs) contain requirements that must be contractually satisfied, to include meeting the delivery schedule, in order to be eligible for contract award. These requirements are essential characteristics for execution of this contract. The offerors shall be capable of meeting other requirements of the contract such as over and above and special studies efforts as required, special clauses, pricing and delivery of alternate mission equipment as well as unique item identification (UID) requirements. These items are identified as attachments to Section L and will be incorporated into the Model Contract as attachments for ordering purposes. The Government will select the offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best value to the Government based upon Contractor Declaration of Entry Gate Criteria and based upon an integrated assessment of the following factors: Mission Capability, Past Performance and Price. The relative importance of the evaluation factors is as follows: Mission Capability, Past Performance and Price are in descending order of importance with Mission Capability being substantially more important than Past Performance or Price. All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority or superior past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the price difference. The Government is implementing a streamlined approach based on seven (7) objectives within the stated program requirements. Those objectives are identified in Paragraph 2.3.1, Mission Capability Technical Rating herein and in Section L, Attachment L-2, System Requirements Document (SRD) for Acquisition of Light Air Support (LAS) Aircraft. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. While the Government source selection evaluation

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 2 of 15

team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The process for LAS IDIQ source selection and award is outlined below.

All offerors will first be assessed as to whether their proposal either meets all of the requirements of Section L, Attachment L-12, Contractor Declaration of Entry Gate Criteria, or fails to meet any one criterion, on a pass or fail basis. In order to pass, offerors must make an affirmative declaration, YES, in response to Attachment L-12 that the proposed aircraft meets all Entry Gate Criteria at the time of proposal submittal. The Government will continue with proposal evaluation of those offerors affirmatively declaring to meet the Entry Gate Criteria. In the event an offerors proposed aircraft fails to meet any of the criteria, the offerors proposal will not be further evaluated. Any offeror so eliminated will be promptly notified and will be offered a further explanation of the reason(s) that offeror failed to meet the Entry Gate Criteria. The Entry Gate Criteria for the LAS aircraft specified in Section L, Attachment L-12 are single-engine,

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 3 of 15

turbo-prop, two (2) ejection seats, pressurized cockpit, retractable landing gear, tricycle style landing gear and fixed wing. Defined herein are Mission Capability subfactors representing LAS requirements. Subfactor 1.1, Aircraft Technical Requirements, contains threshold and objective requirements. The remaining subfactors have no objective requirements. All aircraft thresholds and objectives are described in Section L, Attachment L-2, System Requirements Document (SRD) for Acquisition of Light Air Support (LAS) Aircraft. The objectives may serve as primary discriminators for the best value decision. 1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a single indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity (IDIQ) contract for the performance of all requirements as defined in this solicitation for the LAS program. Based on the quality of proposals submitted, budgetary limitations, or other appropriate reasons, the Government reserves the right to award multiple contracts or not to award a contract at all. The first Delivery Order (DO), for Afghanistan, will be awarded simultaneously with the IDIQ contract award. Future DOs may be awarded. 1.3 Rejection of Conditioned Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that contains offeror proposed terms and conditions that do not conform to the requirements of the solicitation. 1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offerors proposal does not meet the Governments requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. The Government reserves the right to make one or more competitive range determinations. 1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to conduct discussions. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals (e.g., the relevance of past performance information), respond to adverse past performance information to which the offerors have not previously had an opportunity to respond, or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Exchanges conducted to clarify or respond to adverse past performance information, or to resolve minor or clerical errors, will not constitute discussions (see FAR 15.306).

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 4 of 15

1.6

Use of Government-Furnished Property (GFP)

Other than the infrastructure items specified in Section L, Attachment L-7 (paragraph 8.1), Attachment L-8 (paragraph 9.1), and Attachment L-9 (paragraph 9.1), the Government does not intend to provide GFP and the Government reserves the right to reject proposed use of GFP. 2.0 2.1 M002 EVALUATION FACTORS Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Factor 1: Mission Capability Subfactor 1.1: Aircraft Technical Requirements Subfactor 1.2: LAS Aircraft Interim Contractor Support (ICS) Subfactor 1.3: Program Management Subfactor 1.4: Ground Training Devices Subfactor 1.5: Air Advisor Training Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.2

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The relative importance of the evaluation factors and subfactors is as follows: Mission Capability, Past Performance and Price are in descending order of importance with Mission Capability being substantially more important than Past Performance or Price. Within the Mission Capability Factor, the Aircraft Technical Requirements subfactor is substantially more important than any of the other subfactors, with the remaining subfactors being of equal importance to each other. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. 2.3 Factor 1 - Mission Capability

The Mission Capability evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Mission Capability Technical Rating as defined in Paragraph 2.3.1 and the Mission Capability Risk

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 5 of 15

Rating as defined in Paragraph 2.3.2. These two ratings have equal importance for each Mission Capability subfactor. 2.3.1 Mission Capability Technical Rating The mission capability technical rating provides an assessment of the offerors ability to satisfy the Governments requirements. Each Mission Capability subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.1.1, Table 1 Mission Capability Ratings, excerpted below, except that for subfactors 1.2 through 1.5, the color ratings shall be limited to Green (Acceptable), Yellow (Marginal), or Red (Unacceptable). The ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offerors proposal meets the Mission Capability subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor but shall retain subfactor color ratings. The Government may assign one or more proposal strengths only to the Mission Capability subfactor 1.1 requirements as specified below. Mission Capability Subfactor 1.1, Aircraft Technical Requirements, is distinguished from the remaining subfactors in that it is the only subfactor to which a strength or strengths may be assigned and that may receive a Blue (Exceptional) color rating. The evaluation of Subfactor 1.1 will include whether the offeror proposes to meet all SRD requirements, including but not limited to all threshold requirements. All requirements (except objective requirements) must be met to receive a color rating of Green (Acceptable). Failure to meet any requirement (with the exception of objective requirements) will render the proposal deficient, unacceptable and not awardable. The four requirements listed below contain thresholds and objectives: SRD para 3.1.2.3.1 SRD para 3.1.2.22 SRD para 3.1.2.26 SRD para 3.1.2.28.1 Service Life Constant Airspeed Requirements Flight Duration Beyond Line-of-Sight (BLOS)

The three requirements below contain only objectives : SRD para 3.1.2.28.2 Data Link SRD para 3.1.2.31(h) Rail-launched Munitions SRD para 3.1.2.31(i) GPS/Inertial Aided Munitions The seven objective requirements listed above are of equal importance to each other and a proposal strength or strengths will be assigned only when the offerors proposed aircraft and corresponding contractual documents meet or exceed one or more of these seven objectives in a way beneficial to the Government. No proposal strengths will be assigned for exceeding any other requirements. No proposal strengths will be assigned for exceeding a threshold

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 6 of 15

requirement but not meeting the objective. Performance in excess of the objective requirement may be proposed but will receive no additional credit. A strength or Blue (Exceptional) color rating will not be assigned to any Mission Capability subfactor other than 1.1 for performance in excess of the minimum defined requirements. In arriving at a best value decision the Government reserves the right to assign a strength only for subfactor 1.1 for performance that meets or exceeds the objective requirement. TABLE 1 - MISSION CAPABILITY TECHNICAL RATINGS Color Blue* Rating Exceptional Description Exceeds specified minimum performance or capability requirements in a way beneficial to the Government. A proposal must have one or more strengths and no deficiencies to receive a blue. Meets specified minimum performance or capability requirements. A proposal must have no deficiencies to receive a green. There is doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a specified minimum performance or capability requirement, but any such uncertainty is correctable. Fails to meet specified minimum performance or capability requirement(s). The proposal has one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

Green Yellow

Acceptable Marginal

Red

Unacceptable

* This rating is only available for Subfactor 1.1, Aircraft Technical Requirements.

2.3.1.1 Subfactor 1.1: Aircraft Technical Requirements Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offerors proposed LAS aircraft and assess whether or not the offerors technical proposal, including corresponding contractual SOWs (Basic and DO 0001) and specification, meets (as noted above in Paragraph 2.3.1) the threshold or objective requirements set forth in the LAS SRD. The Government will not assign additional proposal strengths for capabilities of proposed LAS aircraft that are not identified in the stated USG SRD requirements. The LAS Aircraft Technical Requirements Subfactor 1.1 is met when: The offerors technical proposal evidences that (1) the aircraft, in the specific configuration proposed meets all LAS SRD requirements (including objective requirements proposed to be met), and (2) the Flight Operations Manual (FOM) for the aircraft, in the specific configuration proposed, is approved by the manufacturers

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 7 of 15

appropriate engineering authority and clearly documents that the aircraft proposed meets the LAS SRD requirements (including objective requirements proposed to be met). The proposed aircraft shall require no additional modification, shall be production ready and shall hold a recognized airworthiness authority certification allowing all standard LAS combat mission and SRD requirements, including objective requirements proposed to be met. See Section L, paragraph 4.1.3, FOM instructions on the required content of the FOM. OR If the offerors proposed aircraft does not currently meet one or more LAS SRD requirements (including objective requirements proposed to be met); or if the manufacturers appropriate engineering authority has not approved a FOM that clearly documents that all LAS SRD requirements are currently met (including objective requirements proposed to be met); or the offerors proposed aircraft does not currently hold a recognized airworthiness certificate allowing all standard LAS combat mission and SRD requirements to be met (including objective requirements proposed to be met), the offeror may submit a plan for meeting or exceeding these requirements. An acceptable plan must, at a minimum: (1) demonstrate a comprehensive, technically sound, realistic and reasonable approach for the aircraft to meet all LAS SRD requirements (including objective requirements proposed to be met), in the proposed configuration; (2) ensure achievement of First Article Test (FAT) as stated in Section L paragraph 4.1.5 First Article Test (FAT); and (3) allow achievement of USAF Airworthiness Military Type Certification (MTC) prior to Functional Configuration Audit (FCA)/Physical Configuration Audit (PCA). The offerors technical proposal and approved FOM (or redlined FOM together with an acceptable plan, as discussed in Section L, paragraph 4.1.3, and the preceding paragraph) shall serve as the means for determining whether the offerors proposed LAS aircraft can meet the requirements in the SRD (including objective requirements proposed to be met). Any plan for meeting USAF Airworthiness Military Type Certification will be evaluated in conjunction with the offerors submitted Section L, Attachment L-14, MIL-HDBK-516B-C1, Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria (TACC) Checklist. Submission of the TACC Checklist alone shall not constitute a comprehensive, technically sound, realistic, and reasonable plan; a detailed outline of the process to achieve MTC is required. The TACC Checklist will be used solely for the purpose of evaluating the comprehensiveness, technical soundness, realism, and/or reasonableness of the submitted plan, along with any risk apparent in the plan when viewed in conjunction with the content of the TACC Checklist. 2.3.1.2 Subfactor 1.2: LAS Aircraft Interim Contractor Support (ICS) Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offerors ICS CONUS and OCONUS Contractor Performance Work Statements (PWSs), to be incorporated in Section J, Attachment 7, PWS for CONUS Stationed Aircraft ICS, and Attachment 8, PWS for OCONUS Aircraft ICS,

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 8 of 15

for compliance with the requirements defined in Section L, Attachment L-7, Performance Work Statement (PWS) for CONUS Stationed Aircraft LAS Interim Contractor Support (ICS), and Section L, Attachment L-8, PWS for OCONUS Stationed LAS Aircraft ICS & Maintenance Training. The evaluation includes: 1) the offerors capability to implement and conduct effective ICS at any CONUS and remote, austere OCONUS operational locations for the LAS aircraft, 2) the offerors capability to provide training for effective transition to an organic organizational-level maintenance capability within a 24-month ICS period, and 3) the offerors capability to effectively implement ICS during the three (3) months prior to aircraft first delivery and complete ICS implementation before arrival of the first aircraft. The ICS subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal clearly articulates and demonstrates sound planning and processes for implementing and providing LAS logistics support to include personnel, support equipment, spares and repair/overhaul of spares and support equipment; transportation; organizational level maintenance training; and identification of a recommended spares parts package for organic maintenance support after ICS. ICS must be shown to support 60 flight hours per month per aircraft with a fully mission capable rate (FMC) of 80% on a fleetwide basis. Additionally, the offeror must describe an effective plan to develop, deliver and maintain operations and maintenance manuals for aircraft and ground support equipment to be used during the ICS period of performance and to be retained by organic maintenance organizations after ICS ends. 2.3.1.3 Subfactor 1.3: Program Management Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offerors proposed program management approach and assess whether or not the offerors approach supports managing and controlling activities and processes which will result in successful accomplishment of the LAS program. The Program Management subfactor is met when the offeror provides a thorough, detailed and comprehensive program management approach demonstrated by the following: a. Proposals and supporting documentation shall provide for LAS aircraft in-country (Afghanistan) delivery as stated in Section L, Attachment L-5. The contractor shall propose, Section J, Attachment 34, Summary Pricing for IDIQ Contract, allowing for aircraft initial deliveries for future delivery orders, if any, not to exceed (NTE) eighteen (18) months After Receipt of (Delivery) Order (ARO), with all supporting Contractor activities, actions and CLINs aligned to support proposed aircraft initial and follow-on deliveries. The contractors contractual schedule proposed in Section J, Attachment 34, shall provide for follow-on delivery orders, in terms of months ARO, required to complete all delivery orders (CONUS and OCONUS); LAS Offerors Statement of Work (SOW) for the basic IDIQ contract, and Offerors Afghanistan Delivery Order SOW; Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) that substantiates an approach to organize and manage the program; Integrated Management Plan (IMP) effective for all delivery orders; Integrated Management Schedule (IMS) effective for all delivery orders;

b. c. d. e.

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 9 of 15

f. g.

Reserved; Risk Management Plan describing the offerors integrated risk management approach and an initial LAS program risk assessment; h. USAF Military Airworthiness Type Certification plan per MIL-HDBK-516B-C1 in accordance with Section L, Attachment L-14, MIL-HDBK-516B-C1 Tailored Airworthiness Certification Criteria (TACC) Checklist, which details tasks and management responsibilities for certification. Under this Subfactor, the plan will not be evaluated for its technical merit, but only for its thoroughness and detail as a Program Management tool. The offerors plan to achieve certification must identify reliance on any Government support of any kind; i. Process plans that ensure manufacturing product quality and prevent defects (both at the prime and subcontractor levels) while meeting the requirements set forth in the LAS SOO, PWS and SRD requirements documents; j. Detailed description of the process and results of contractor self-assessment of current Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of the proposed LAS aircraft, in accordance with the DoD Manufacturing Readiness Assessment (MRA) Deskbook. Include plans and schedule to achieve the target MRL 10 for LAS aircraft production supporting Section L, Attachment L-5 and follow on delivery orders; k. Approach to identifying, implementing, managing, tracking and sustaining warranties, to include pass-through warranties; l. Draft transportation and ferry plans (to include acquiring all necessary import and export licenses) required for manufacture and delivery of LAS aircraft and Ground Training Devices and perform ICS and CLS in any future delivery order CONUS or OCONUS location, to include, but not limited to, the delivery order locations specified in Section L, Attachment L-5, SOO for LAS Aircraft and GTDs (Afghanistan Delivery Order); m. Engineering and configuration management processes for the LAS aircraft and GTDs, including processes that allow modifications or changes to the LAS aircraft and GTDs in subsequent delivery orders including modifications to communication and navigation capabilities; n. Updated Section L, Attachment L-11, Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) lists of Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) based on proposed aircraft configuration baseline and equipment necessary for performing standard LAS combat mission described in the LAS SRD Paragraph 2.3.2 or other missions as defined by delivery order; o. All equipment proposed shall have delivered product specifications provided with sufficient detail to allow future procurement and attachment to the model contract. p. Data deliverables shall respond to all requirements in the solicitation, including the SOOs, PWSs and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL); q. The Contractor-proposed data rights list, submitted IAW DFARS 252.227-7013, -7014, -7015, -7016, -7017 and -7037, shall describe all data rights, restrictions, and assertions. 2.3.1.4 Subfactor 1.4: Ground Training Devices Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offerors Ground Training Devices as proposed and assess whether or not the offerors technical proposal meets the requirements set

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 10 of 15

forth in Section L, Attachment L-3, SRD for Acquisition of LAS Aircraft Ground Training Devices (GTDs), and Section L, Attachment L-9, PWS for OCONUS Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for GTDs. The Ground Training Devices subfactor is met when the offeror provides a thorough, detailed and comprehensive technical proposal in response to the requirements set forth in Section L, Attachment L-3, SRD for Acquisition of LAS Aircraft Ground Training Devices (GTDs); Section L, Attachment L-4, Statement of Objectives (SOO) for LAS Aircraft and GTDs (Basic Contract); Section L, Attachment L-5, SOO for LAS Aircraft and GTDs (Afghanistan Delivery Order); and Section L, Attachment L-9, PWS for OCONUS Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for GTDs. The technical proposal shall include Ground Training Devices SOW, Contractor PWS and Ground Training Devices specifications, to be attached to the model contract as follows: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. Section J, Attachment 2, Specification for CBT GTD; Section J, Attachment 3, Specification for BATD GTD; Section J, Attachment 4, Specification for FTD GTD; Section J, Attachment 6, SOW for LAS GTD; Section J, Attachment 9, PWS for OCONUS CLS for CBT GTD; Section J, Attachment 10, PWS for OCONUS CLS for BATD GTD; and Section J, Attachment 11, PWS for OCONUS CLS for FTD GTD. Reserved

2.3.1.5 Subfactor 1.5: Air Advisor Training Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offerors proposed Air Advisor Training program approach defined in the PWS. The Air Advisor Training subfactor is met when the offeror provides a thorough, detailed and comprehensive Contractor PWS for Air Advisor Training in accordance with Section L, Attachment L-10, PWS for Air Advisor Pre-Deployment Pilot & Maintenance Training to be attached to the model contract, Section J, Attachment 12, PWS for Air Advisor Pilot Training and Attachment 13, PWS for Air Advisor Maintainer Training. 2.3.2 Mission Capability Risk Rating

The Mission Capability Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach for subfactors 1.1 through 1.5 above, and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Mission Capability subfactors will receive one of the Risk ratings described in AFFARS MP5315.3, paragraph 5.5.1.2, Table 2 Mission Capability Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The Government may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for the Mission Capability Risk Rating. The Government will announce the schedule for the site visit within thirty (30) calendar days after proposal due date. The results will be used to assess the risk in the Mission Capability Factor.

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 11 of 15

TABLE 2 MISSION CAPABILITY RISK RATINGS Rating Low Description Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties. Can potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties. Likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Extraordinary contractor emphasis and rigorous Government monitoring may be able to overcome difficulties.

Moderate

High

The existence of a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses that is very Unacceptable likely to cause unmitigated disruption of schedule or severely degraded performance such that there is a likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

2.4

Factor 2 Past Performance

Past performance information is one indicator of an offerors ability to perform the contract successfully. The currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in offerors performance shall be considered. The Government intends to make use of any available data that meets the criteria for relevancy and recency in performing the past performance evaluation. Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Group (PCAG) evaluates an offerors past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offerors probability of successfully performing as proposed. The PCAG will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users needs, including cost and schedule. The PCAG will also consider the relevant demonstrated performance record of the proposed aircraft or that of any highly comparable aircraft. The PCAG will evaluate offerors submissions for past performance consideration submitted in accordance with Section L of the LAS RFP as well as Government-obtained past performance information. 2.4.1 Performance Confidence Assessment The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's relevant and recent past performance. Each offeror will receive one overall integrated Performance

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 12 of 15

Confidence Assessment rating based on an analysis of those risks, negative aspects, and positive aspects of past performance identified. The offerors will receive one of the ratings described in the table below. Table 3 Performance Confidence Assessments Description Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offer will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has an expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Based on the offerors performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort. No performance record is identifiable or the offerors performance record is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

Rating Substantial Confidence Satisfactory Confidence Limited Confidence No Confidence Unknown Confidence

Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. More relevant and recent performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less relevant or less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance. Offerors with adverse past performance information, to which they have not previously had an opportunity to respond, may be given the opportunity to provide additional information and will be given the opportunity to address the adverse information during any other type of exchange per FAR 15.306. For this acquisition, adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offerors evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. 2.4.2 Recency An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed within three (3) years from

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 13 of 15

the date of issuance of Amendment 0008. Past performance that fails this condition will not be evaluated. 2.4.3 Relevance An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine its relevance to the proposed effort. Contracts for the following types of efforts will be considered relevant: a. Contracts for manufacture and delivery of LAS type aircraft as defined in Section L Paragraph 1.1 preferably those currently or recently supporting combat type efforts; b. Contracts for manufacture, delivery, and support of Ground Training Devices used for flight training; c. Contracts which include the same type or level of technical engineering; efforts as will be required to achieve compliance with the SRD herein; d. Contracts which include the same type or level of management and technical efforts as will be required to achieve delivery by the proposed delivery date herein; e. Contracts for ICS/Contractor Logistics Support (CLS) for aircraft serving in a combattype environment; f. Contracts for overseas or contingency-type ICS/CLS; and g. Contracts with any government or military customer. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts: TABLE 4 PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCE Rating Description Highly Relevant (HR) Past/present performance effort involved essentially the same magnitude and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant (R) Past/present performance effort involved much of the magnitude and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant Past/present performance effort involved some of the magnitude (SR) and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Not Relevant (NR) Past/present performance effort did not involve any of the magnitude and type of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Where relevant (HR, R, SR) performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 14 of 15

2.4.4 Offeror Performance Ratings Each offeror will be evaluated on their performance on the contracts considered recent and relevant and each evaluated contract will receive one overall Performance Rating in accordance with the following color codes. TABLE 5 PERFORMANCE RATINGS Performance Level The contractors performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many (requirements) to the Governments benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective. Purple/Very Good The contractors performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some (requirements) to the Governments benefit. The contractual performance was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective. Green/Satisfactory The contractors performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance contained some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or was satisfactory. Yellow/Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions or the contractors proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented. Red/Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance contains serious problem(s) for which the contractors corrective actions appear or were ineffective. Not Applicable Unable to provide a score. Color Code Blue/Exceptional Factor 3 Price

2.5

2.5.1 Price Evaluation Offerors Price proposals will be evaluated in the areas identified below. The results of the price evaluation will be shown to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in determining his/her best value decision.

FA8637-10-R-6000-0008 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award 30 April 2012 Page 15 of 15

2.5.1.1

Reasonableness

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, the Government will determine price reasonableness based on adequate price competition. The Government will conduct the analysis necessary to support a potential determination prescribed by FAR 52.215-1(f)(8). 2.5.1.2 2.5.1.3 Reserved Evaluation Price (EP)

The EP will be the sum of the CLINs identified in the Section L, Attachment L-20, Evaluation Price (EP) Workbook. i. ii. EP prices will be calculated at the Evaluation Quantity (EQ) and using assumptions as identified in the EP Workbook; The EP will utilize the contractually binding prices proposed by the offeror and reflected in contractually binding CLINs of the LAS contract in Section J, Attachment 34, Summary Pricing for IDIQ Contract; The Government will not make any risk adjustments to the offerors proposed prices, or the CLIN values reflected in the contract; and The Government will make adjustments to the Evaluation Price as, and if, required by FAR Part 25, or DFARS Part 225.

iii. iv.

3.0

M003 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.