4 - Section M REV 20E-102AB-RF_Rev.pdf

Solicitation Number FA2263-20-R-0006 RFP Attachment

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted IAW Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an assessment of Technical capability and Price. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection Decision.

1.2 A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation), and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet the requirements. 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 superior technical performance of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the AFMETCAL Program. However, based on price and other considerations, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.5 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the evaluation factors, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the instructions and evaluation criteria of the RFP.

1.6 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(c), Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, those Offerors may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505, Pre-award Debriefing of Offerors.

1.7 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and price standpoint. However, the SSA reserves the right to award without discussions.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Exchanges conducted to clarify or to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions (see FAR 15.306).

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. In the event discussions are held, discussions will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306, Exchanges with Offerors After Receipt of Proposals. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, 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.

If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.8 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Purchase Description Technical Requirements Subfactor 2: Commercial Warranty Subfactor 3: Technical Excellence (Tuned RF Uncertainty & Other Warranted Measurement Capability)

Factor 2: Price

The relative importance of each factor is as follows: The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Price; however, Price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection Decision. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors are listed in descending order from most important to least important.

2.2 Technical Factor (Subfactor 1)

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals for subfactor 1 as Acceptable or Unacceptable as described in Table 1 below. If subfactor 1 is evaluated as “Unacceptable” it will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Subfactor 1: Purchase Description (PD) Technical Requirements Description: This subfactor evaluates the ability to offer a complete description of the proposed system and its ability to meet the PD requirements. The evaluation shall take into account the level of detail, theory, analysis, and test data used to substantiate the proposal's claims.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is Technically Acceptable when the offeror’s proposal meets the requirements set forth in the PD.

Table 1

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.3 Technical Factor (Subfactors 2 & 3)

Upon being determined technically acceptable the Government’s technical evaluation team shall further evaluate the technical proposals by assigning one of the ratings described in Table 2 below for subfactors 2 thru 3. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Subfactor 2: Commercial Warranty Description: This subfactor evaluates the Commercial Warranty the OEM is providing with the MMR.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when Subfactor 2 is deemed Acceptable.

Strength opportunities are: Examples: Turn-Around-Time, Number of Service Centers and locations of each.

Subfactor 3: Technical Excellence (Tuned RF Uncertainty & Other Warranted Measurement Capability)

Description: This technical excellence subfactor evaluates the improved Tuned RF measurement uncertainty in the region of 10 MHz to 3.5 GHz at the power levels of -120 dBm and below. This technical excellence subfactor also evaluates additional warranted measurement capability that may be of benefit to the Air Force. These are capabilities that do not add any additional hardware to the instrument beyond what is needed to accomplish the Microwave Measuring Receiver duties, but the existing hardware can support other measurements of value. The additional capability must have warranted specifications, but the submitter will assign the specifications.

Strength opportunities are: Improving the uncertainty in this region based on the performance of the specifications of the Spectrum Analyzer or additional hardware provided. Examples: VOR/ILS, Digital Modulation, Pulsed Phase Noise Measurement, Noise Figure Measurements, Spectrum Analysis.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when additional warranted measurement capability that exceeds the PD requirement and supports additional benefit to the Air Force is proposed.

TABLE 2.2A - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

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

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

2.4 Price Factor

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete and/or unreasonable, will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.1 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness.

2.4.2 Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable.

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201- 3.

2.4.3 Unbalanced pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The total evaluated price will be calculated as follows:

(1) On the basic year, the evaluated price will be the unit price proposed multiplied by the specified unit quantity (e.g. 2 EACH) and the price of the Alignment Systems.

(2) For any data cost that exceeds commercial manuals, the price will be the data cost multiplied by the specified unit quantity (e.g. 2 EACH).

(3) For the Commercial Warranty, the evaluated price will be the warranty price proposed multiplied by the specified unit quantity (e.g., 2 EACH).

(4) For the option years, the evaluated price will be the unit price proposed multiplied by the maximum quantity available on the Option CLIN. Evaluated price for option years will include data and commercial warranty as appropriate.

Offerors are advised that the evaluation of options shall not obligate the government to exercise such options.

(5) The sum of all CLINs (Basic Year, Commercial Warranty and Options) will represent the total evaluated price.