4) Section M - PM MAV LFSS 24SEP25 SAM.pdf

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 The Government intends to award a five-year, single award, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity CPFF contract with five priced, one-year ordering periods (OP) for PM MAV Logistic Fielding Support Services (LFSS).

An award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government in accordance with the criteria set forth below and is eligible for award.

M.1.1.1 There are three evaluation factors:

a. Past Performance

b. Cost/Price Factor

c. Small Business Participation Factor

M.1.1.2 Proposal selection will be made utilizing the source selection trade-off process, considering the evaluation factors and their relative order of importance to identify the proposal which represents the best value and is most advantageous to the Government. The Government will weigh the evaluation factors (other than the Cost/Price Factor) against the final evaluated price to the Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal shall be considered in selecting the offeror that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to choose not to award a contract if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.1.3 In making the award decision, the Government will review proposals to determine if any other price adjustments (beyond the GFP Price adjustment already included in the total evaluated price) are required in accordance with the FAR, DFARS, or clauses or provisions contained within this solicitation. If an additional price adjustment is determined to be applicable, then the Government will develop a final price for those offerors impacted by the adjustment(s) and base the final award decision on this final price. When FAR 52.219-4 is included in the RFP and a HUBZone price adjustment is applicable, then all other price adjustments described in the solicitation shall be applied before the application of the HUBZone price adjustment.

M.1.1.4 Importance of Cost/Price. The award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government and is otherwise eligible for award. This may not be the offeror with the lowest evaluated cost/price. However, the closer offerors’ evaluations are to each other in those factors other than the Cost/Price Factor, the more important cost/price becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the evaluation factors stated herein, cost/price may be controlling when:

a. Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-price factors; or

b. An otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or

c. The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

M.1.2 Eligibility for Award. Award will only be made to an offeror who is eligible for award. To be eligible for award:

a. The offeror must be determined responsible (See Section M.3.6)

b. The proposal must not contain a Deficiency(s) (per FAR Part 15.001); and

c. The offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) -see provision 52.204-7, and

d. The offeror must have a SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL)

M.2 Rejection of Offers

M.2.1 The Government may reject any proposal if in the Government's best interest at any time after receipt of proposal. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following proposal conditions:

a. The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions in Section L of this solicitation (e.g. a proposal provides some data but omits significant material data and information required by Section L, the offeror fails to submit pricing Attachment 0015 in accordance with the instructions, fails to provide past performance factor qualifications and/or significant portions of the requested information in the past performance factor, the proposal fails to follow key proposal instructions or format requirements in Section L, etc.).

b. A proposal merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the solicitation terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

c. The proposal proposes exceptions to the RFP requirements, attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or solicitation terms and conditions.

d. The proposal contains one or more Organizational Conflicts of Interest that cannot be avoided or mitigated.

e. The proposal is unbalanced as to price. See Section M.4.2.9.

f. The proposal submitted is for less than all the requirements called for by the solicitation.

g. The proposal’s acceptance period does not meet the Government’s required minimum acceptance period, or the offeror fails to provide a proposal acceptance period.

h. The proposal is not in English (American Standard) or in US Dollars.

i. The offeror does not have a SECRET Facility Clearance at time of proposal.

M.3 Source Selection Process

M.3.1 Compliance Review. After receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions.

M.3.2 Evaluation Process. Selection of the successful offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal not otherwise rejected, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of this RFP, and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described herein.

Proposals not otherwise rejected will be evaluated as specified herein, to include developing narrative support for the evaluation conclusions under each factor.

M.3.3 Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the offeror for contract award. A Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) will provide a written comparative analysis of the proposals and an award recommendation for the SSA prior to the selection decision.

M.3.4 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). An SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation.

The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct this evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria for this solicitation. All proposals not otherwise rejected will be given careful, full and impartial consideration by a team of Government personnel in the evaluation, pursuant to the criteria in this solicitation.

M.3.5 Award without Discussions. This RFP includes FAR Provision 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition, which advises offerors that the Government intends to make award without conducting discussions. Where awards will be made without discussions, exchanges with offerors are limited to clarifications as defined in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a Price and non-Price Factor standpoint. However, under FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government reserves the right to hold discussions, if necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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.

M.3.6 Determination of Responsibility. Per FAR Part 9.103, a contract will be placed only with the offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Prospective offeror(s), in order to be eligible for award for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR Part 9.104, or refer the matter to the SBA per FAR 19.602 when applicable. In addition, the Government may assess the offeror's financial and management capabilities to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all offeror(s) or their subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each offeror's proposal and ensure that a selected offeror is responsible. No award can be made to an offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer. To make sure that you meet the responsibility criteria at FAR Part 9.104, the Government may:

a. Arrange a visit to your facility and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey.

The offeror's refusal to authorize the Government to visit the offeror’s facility may result in a determination that the offeror is not responsible.

And/or

b. Request an offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If the requested information is not submitted within seven calendar days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an offeror refuses the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the offeror non-responsible. If the Government visits the offeror's facility, please ensure that current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.3.7 Consistency. Each volume of the offeror’s proposal shall be consistent with the other proposal volumes and shall demonstrate the understanding and ability to perform according to the statement of work of the contract. The offeror should provide supporting documentation in sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation of the proposal. The Government may conduct a crosswalk between the information provided in offerors proposal volumes to assess whether the offeror submits consistent proposal information.

M.4 Evaluation Criteria

There are three evaluation factors:

a. Past Performance Factor

b. Cost/Price Factor

c. Small Business Participation Factor

The relative order of importance of these factors is as follows: The Past Performance Factor is more important than the Cost/Price Factor. The Cost/Price Factor is significantly more important than Small Business Participation Factor. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Cost/Price Factor.

M.4.1 Factor 1: Past Performance Factor

M.4.1.1 The Government will conduct a Performance Confidence Assessment to establish a Confidence Assessment Rating for each Offeror. The Confidence Assessment Rating assigned will be based on the Offeror’s Recent and Relevant performance record and the expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M.4.1.2 Contracts submitted in the Past Performance Factor volume of the Offeror's proposal will not be considered if the Government determines them to be not Recent, not Relevant, or lacking any credible past performance information. Offerors without a record of Recent and Relevant past performance information upon which to base a meaningful confidence assessment will be rated as "Neutral Confidence," which is neither favorable nor unfavorable.

M.4.1.3 The Offeror may also be evaluated on past contract performance information based on internal Government or private source information including additional contracts, beyond those submitted by the Offeror and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation.

The Government may contact any of the references the Offeror provides and reserves the right to use any information received as part of its evaluation.

M.4.1.4 Past performance which is identified in the Offeror’s Past Performance Factor volume but is not supported with the information requested in Section L may be determined not relevant. In addition, if any other proposal volume indicates the Government will not realize the benefit of the cited past performance during contract performance, then the cited past performance may be determined not relevant.

M.4.1.5 In evaluating the Offeror's performance history, the Government may compare the Offeror's deliveries or performance to the Contract's original delivery or performance schedule, unless the delay was Government-caused.

Schedule extensions that were the fault of the Offeror, even if consideration was provided, may be counted against the Offeror.

M.4.1.6 No evaluation credit will be given for providing data that exceeds the requirements identified above.

M.4.2 Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor (Reference the proposal submission information required in Section L). The Government will evaluate the Cost/Price Factor, as follows:

M.4.2.1. The Cost/Price evaluation will result in the development of the Total Evaluated Price to the Government. The cost/price evaluation will also include consideration of the reasonableness, cost realism of the cost-reimbursement CLINs only, completeness, and unbalanced pricing. The Total Evaluated Price may differ from the total proposed price. The Total Evaluated Price, rather than the total proposed price, shall be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

M.4.2.2 The Total Proposed Price shall be identified within the “Totals & USG MPC” tab of Attachment 00xx - GFPM of the Offeror’s proposal. The Total Proposed Price is calculated as follows:

i. Ordering Period 1 Subtotal, PLUS

ii. Ordering Period 2 Subtotal, PLUS

iii. Ordering Period 3 Subtotal, PLUS

iv. Ordering Period 4 Subtotal, PLUS

v. Ordering Period 5 subtotal, PLUS

vi. Option to Extend Services FAR 52.217-8

M.4.2.3 The Total Evaluated Price equals the sum of the following:

(a) The most probable cost to the Government for the cost-reimbursement CLINs. The most probable cost to the Government will consist of the Offeror’s Total Proposed Price for the cost reimbursable CLINs only, plus or minus any cost realism adjustments determined necessary IAW the Government’s Cost Realism analysis (detailed in Section M.4.2.6 below); PLUS

(b) Any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required IAW the (i) FAR; (ii) DFARS; or (iii) the RFP (to include RFP attachments);

(c) however, it does not include DBA Insurance Cost.

M.4.2.4 Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the price reasonableness of the Offeror’s total proposed price to ensure that in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government will employ the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine that a price is fair and reasonable.

M.4.2.5 For the cost-plus-fixed-fee CLINs, the Government will verify that the Offeror’s proposed fee meets the requirements of FAR 15.404-4. If the Offeror’s proposed fee does not meet the requirements of FAR 15.404-4, the Offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award.

M.4.2.6 Cost Realism (cost-reimbursement CLINs only): For the cost-reimbursement CLINs only, the Government will conduct a cost realism analysis IAW FAR 15.404-1(d) by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the offerors proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic. The result of the cost realism evaluation will be a determination of the most probable cost to the Government (which consists of cost and fee (if applicable)). The most probable cost will be determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions to cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

M.4.2.7 The Government will verify that all direct labor rates proposed by the Prime AND its Subcontractors are at or above the Direct Labor Floor Rates as specified in Section L of this RFP. The GFPM and GFPM-Subs will auto-calculate the proposed direct labor rate as the floor rate in instances where a prime offeror or subcontractor proposes a direct labor rate below the floor rate. If the GFPM or GFPM-Subs is modified in any way that results in corruption of the auto-calculation, resulting in any of the proposed direct labor rates by either the Prime or its Subcontractors being below the Government established Direct Labor Floor Rates, then the proposed direct labor rates will be increased to the Government established Direct Labor Floor Rates through a cost realism adjustment. Offerors are reminded that they are responsible for ensuring that any and all Subcontractors provide a full and complete labor rate build that provides complete transparency for the direct labor rate component, and each indirect rate applied to it, along with the profit or fee, regardless of contract type.

M.4.2.8 Completeness. The Government requires complete proposals with respect to price. A complete proposal includes all information required by the RFP. Attachment 00xx - GFPM, shall include pricing for each Ordering Period, Travel, ODC, material, and Defense Base Act (DBA) Insurance, and must be consistent with the instructions contained in this RFP.

M.4.2.9 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced pricing.

M.4.3 Factor 3: Small Business Participation Factor

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the Offeror’s approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the SBP Factor goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the extent of SBP proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the SBP Factor goals for this solicitation.

During its evaluation, the Government will check for consistency within the proposal, and any inconsistencies found may impact the assessed credibility of the offeror’s proposed goal(s) and/or the Offeror’s rating in this Factor.

Please note the solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this SBP Factor in Section L.4.3.2(c).

The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

____ % Small Business (SB)

____ % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) ____ % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB) ____ % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB) ____ % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB) ____ % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business Offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

____ % of ‘Total Contract Amount’ ___5 % of ‘Total Subcontracting Amount’

M.4.3.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Each of the Government Goals.

Where the Offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government's goal and the Government has determined that achievement of said small business participation is credible, or where the Offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government's goal, the Government may assign the Offeror a strength against such proposal. Where the Offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government's goal, or where the Offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the Government's goal, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.

M. ____EVALUATION OF USE OF EXISTING GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY

(a) Rent-free use of existing facilities, special test equipment, and/or special tooling, title to which is in the Government or to which the Government has the right to take title (all of which is herein described as property), including rent-free use by prospective subcontractors, will be a consideration in the evaluation of responses to this solicitation. Contractor must provide with their proposal, the list of Government Furnished Property (GFP), the acquisition cost, age, and type of GFP.

(b) For purposes of evaluation only, the unit evaluation factors for each classification of property, computed as follows, shall be added by the Government to the price or prices offered. The evaluation factors shall be computed by multiplying the acquisition cost of each item of property by the rental rates specified below, and then multiplying the product obtained by the number of months of use proposed. A minimum of one month of use shall be required for purposes of evaluation. Fractional portions of a month shall be counted as a full month. This final product shall then be divided by the total quantity of units to be produced using such property to determine the unit evaluation factors. The factors shall be separately set forth by the offeror under the offered unit prices.

Monthly Rental Rates

(1) For land and land preparation, buildings, building installations, and land installations other than those items specified in (2) below: the prevailing commercial rate.

(2) For industrial plant equipment of the types covered by Federal Supply Classification Code Numbers 3405, 3408, 3410, 3411 through 3419 (machine tools), and 3441 through 3449 (secondary metal forming and cutting machines), the following rates shall apply:

Age of Equipment Monthly Rental Rates 0-2 years 3.00% Over 2 to 3 years 2.00% Over 3 to 6 years 1.50% Over 6 to 10 years 1.00% Over 10 years 0.75%

(3) For personal property and equipment not covered in (1) and (2) above

(including all production equipment not in the Federal Supply Classification Codes set forth above, and including special tooling and special test equipment), the following rates shall apply:

-- Two percent (2.00%) per month for electronic test equipment and automotive equipment;

-- One percent (1.00%) per month for special tooling and for all other property and equipment.

(c) If any item of property is to be used on other work for which use has been authorized during the period such property is requested for use on any contract resulting from this solicitation, the evaluation factors shall be calculated in accordance with the following: the acquisition cost of each item of property shall be multiplied by the rental rates specified for the applicable classification of property set forth above, and the product obtained shall then be multiplied by the number of months of rent-free use requested. The resulting product shall be multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the amount of use of the property proposed under this solicitation, and the denominator of which is the sum of the previously-authorized use of the property during the period of proposed use and the use proposed under this solicitation. The final product shall then be divided by the total quantity of units to determine the unit evaluation factor. The measurement unit for determining the amount of use to be considered in establishing the fraction referred to in the foregoing calculation shall be direct labor hours, sales, hours of use, or any other measurement unit which will result in an equitable apportionment of the factor. The measurement unit used and the amount of respective uses in sufficient detail to support the proration shall be set forth for each item of property.

(d) For the purposes of determining the evaluation factors set forth above, the following definitions apply:

(1) The term acquisition cost means the total cost to the Government for an item of property, including the cost of (i) transportation, (ii) installation, (iii) accessories to be used with the item, and (iv) any rebuilding and modernization which has enhanced the original capability of the item;

(2) The age of an item of property shall be based on the year in which it was manufactured, with an annual birthday on 1 January of each year thereafter.

On 1 January following the date of manufacture, the item shall be considered one year old; and on each succeeding January 1st, it shall become one year older (thus, an item manufactured on 15 July 1978 would be one year old on 1 January 1979, and over two years old on and after 1 January 1980).

(e) Where this solicitation provides that the property is offered for use on an as-is basis, F.O.B. loading dock at present location, the Government shall add to the offered price, in addition to the evaluation factors described above, a factor, for purposes of evaluation, which will be composed of the costs to the Government of making such property available at the F.O.B.

point, including the costs of disconnection, preparation for shipment, and placement on the loading dock.

M.__ GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY FOR POSSIBLE USE AND EVALUATION FACTOR FOR USE

OF THE GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY

ALL OFFERORS ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT:

The offeror notifies the Government that there:

( ) is ( ) is not Government-owned property in its plant(s), or in the plant(s) of any of its prospective subcontractors, which, assuming authorization for its use, ( ) will ( ) will not ( ) may or may not (not finally determined as of the date of this offer) be used in the performance of the contract resulting from this solicitation.

NOTE: Offerors checking is AND will or may or may not above must notify the Government representative listed in Block 7 of the SF 33 at least ten days before the date when offers are due under the solicitation, so that the solicitation can be amended to include the appropriate Government property clause(s). If no such notification is given, authorization for the use of such property in this contract may be denied.

Offerors checking IS and WILL above shall also complete the following:

(a) Under each line for entries in the Unit Price and the Amount columns in the Schedule (see Section B of this solicitation), offeror shall add the following evaluation factor line and insert the appropriate unit and total price figures if the conditions of subparagraph c. below are met:

Evaluation factor: $ ____________ $ _____________

b. Computation of the evaluation factor is explained in paragraph M.__ entitled EVALUATION OF USE OF EXISTING GOVERNMENT-OWNED PROPERTY.

c. An evaluation factor entry is to be made only if:

(1) The offeror or any subcontractor, at any tier, will use Government-owned property in production for this contract; and

(2) The offer is predicated on authorized rent-free use of Government-owned property.

d. An offeror's insertion or non-insertion of an evaluation factor constitutes, respectively, the offeror's certification that his offer is or is not so predicated. The evaluation factor will be added to the offered price for evaluation purposes. See additional paragraphs concerning Government-owned property in Sections L and M herein.

e. CAUTION Rental charges for the use of Government-owned property may accrue, if timely and appropriate approval of rent-free use is not obtained.

M.___ CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBILITY AND ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

(a)The Government will award a contract to the offeror that:

(1) submits the lowest evaluated offer if award is based on price only, or the offer that provides the best value to the Government if factors in addition to price are identified elsewhere in this solicitation,

(2) submits a bid or proposal that meets all the material requirements (including technical requirements of the specification, if applicable) of this solicitation, and

(3) meets all the responsibility criteria at FAR 9.104.

(b) To make sure that an offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR

9.104 the Government may:

(1) arrange a visit to the offeror's plant and perform a preaward survey;

(2) ask the offeror to provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information.

(c) If the offeror does not provide the Government with the data requested within 7 days from the date the requested is received, or if the offeror refuses to have an onsite visit to the offeror's facility, the Government may determine the offeror to be non-responsible.

(d) If the Government visits the offeror's facility, please make sure that current certified financial statements and other data relevant to the bid or proposal available for Government personnel to review.

M.__ METHOD OF PRICE EVALUATION

(a) The unit price for each year will be multiplied by the estimated annual requirement for the corresponding year, and the results for each year added together to produce the evaluated price for the total maximum quantity. Based on this method of evaluation, award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer represents the lowest evaluated price, or, if applicable, represents the Best Value to the Government as outlined elsewhere in this solicitation.

(b) If this solicitation contains quantities to be shipped FOB Origin, transportation cost will be evaluated as specified in paragraph M.__ EVALUATION OF TRANSPORTATION COSTS in this Section, and award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer represents the lowest evaluated price including transportation costs, or, if applicable, represents the Best Value to the Government as outlined elsewhere in this solicitation.

M.___ EVALUATION OF INCOMPLETE OPTION PRICING

(a) Per FAR 17.203(d), offerors may price the option CLIN in this solicitation incrementally, by entering different option unit prices that will apply to different subquantities or quantity ranges (in the event that the Government elects to exercise less than 100% of the option).

Notwithstanding this fact, the provision entitled EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (FAR 52.217-5, located elsewhere in this Section M) indicates that the Government's evaluation for contract award will include each offeror's price for 100% of the option quantity.

(b) In light of the above, if an offeror specifies unit prices that apply to one or more option quantity ranges, but does not specify a unit price for 100% of the option, we will evaluate that offer for award as follows. The option price for such offer shall be deemed to be the higher of the unit price that applies to the basic (non-option) quantity, or the highest unit price that is identified against any range or subquantity of the option CLIN.