5- Section M 30MAR21.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This source selection involves a tradeoff between Technical capability and Price, and is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air

Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at http://www.acquisition.gov. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated 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 single 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

Attachment 5 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 and Debriefings

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 SSA intends to award this contract without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from both a technical and price standpoint.

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 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 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: Improved Flatness Specification

Subfactor 3: Improved Phase Noise

Subfactor 4: Commercial Warranty

Factor 2: Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. 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 intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Table 1

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactor:

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 proposals claims.

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

2.3 Technical Factor (Subfactors 2 thru 4)

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals by assigning one of the ratings described in Table 2 below for only subfactors 2 thru 4. Subfactors 2 thru 4 will only evaluated if Subfactor 1 is found to be Acceptable. 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 intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Table 2

TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

BLUE Outstanding

Proposal indicates an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

PURPLE Good

Proposal indicates an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements and contains one strength.

GREEN Acceptable Proposal indicates an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements.

YELLOW Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an acceptable approach and understanding of the requirements.

RED Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 2: Improved Flatness Specification

Description: This subfactor evaluates the proposed system’s Flatness Specification.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach and understanding to flatness as set forth in paragraph 2.1.6 of the PD.

Strength opportunities are: Providing improved flatness performance, in the frequency range of

1.4 to 3 GHz at -10 dBm. The reason for the specific specification is due to reduced Test

Accuracy Ratio (TAR) in the calibration of spectrum analyzers.

Subfactor 3: Improved Phase Noise Specification

Description: This subfactor evaluates the proposed system’s Phase Noise Specification.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound approach to phase noise set forth in paragraph 2.1.12 of the PD.

Strength opportunities are: Providing improved phase noise performance at the carrier frequency of 1 GHz and offsets of 100 Hz, 1 MHz and 10 MHz.

Subfactor 4: Commercial Warranty

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Commercial Warranty the OEM is providing with the RF Reference Source.

Measure of Merit: This Measure of Merit is met when the offeror provides a sound approach to providing a commercial warranty.

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

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 FAR 15.404. 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 TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror's proposed extended prices for all five (5) years. Attachment 5 TEP Worksheet shows the buildup of Total Evaluated Price. Evaluation quantities are estimates only; therefore, the TEP is for evaluation purposes only and does not obligate the Government in any way. However, proposed

CLIN prices are contractual and will be used in the pricing of all task orders. The total evaluated price will be calculated as follows:

(1) The CLIN price (unit, data and warranty proposed pricing) will be the price proposed multiplied by a specified quantity based on the time period in the TEP worksheet. The sum of all the time periods for each CLIN will represent the CLIN price.

(2) The sum of all CLINs will represent the total evaluated price.

(3) For price proposals that have quantity ranges for CLINs (only used if proposal has quantity ranges): the Government will multiply the proposed range price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price for each time period (as defined on the TEP worksheet). The sum of all the time periods defined on the TEP worksheet for each CLIN will represent the CLIN price.

For Illustration Only for Quantity Range Calculations:

Quantity Range Example

CLIN From To Quantity per

Range

Unit Price Total Price

X00X 1 10 10 $100 $1,000

11 30 20 $90 $1,800

31 60 30 $85 $2,550

Evaluated

Price for

CLIN

$5,350

3 Solicitation Requirements

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, subfactors, to be eligible for award.