Atch 03_Evaluation Plan.pdf

EVALUATION PLAN

for

FA9101-20-Q-2019, Traveling Wave Tube Amplifiers (TWTA)

1. Basis for Award

a. The Government will award a single firm-fixed-price (FFP) purchase order resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. The Government will make award to the offeror who represents the best value to the Government based on the information below.

b. The Government reserves the right to evaluate offers and make award without seeking additional information from offeror’s through exchanges. Therefore, the offeror’s initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price, schedule, and performance standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct exchanges with all, some, or none of the offerors if the Contracting Officer

(CO) later determines them to be necessary.

c. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale at least one (1) calendar week before the established proposal due date.

Failure to provide an offer in accordance with the terms, conditions, and structure of the solicited requirement will result in the offer being rejected prior to evaluation.

2. Evaluation Information:

a. The CO will begin the evaluation process by conducting a compliance review for determination of basic offer adequacy prior to conducting evaluations. The Government reserves the right to obtain additional information from offerors solely for making a compliance determination after receipt of offers.

Requests for compliance-based information do not constitute exchanges. By submission of the offer, offerors agree that all items proposed will be utilized for the duration of the contract.

b. Offerors shall propose a unit price for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN). This price should be all-inclusive including any applicable local, city, and state tax and shipping. The Government will evaluate all pricing as a whole, including the basic contract CLIN and the option CLIN. The Government will reject any offer that fails to cite a unit price for each CLIN and the corresponding total price.

c. Only FFP offers will be evaluated for this action. An offer using a sliding price scale or pricing subject to escalation based on any contingency for a FFP designated CLINs will not be accepted.

d. Initially, offers will be ranked according to their total evaluated price (TEP) which will be calculated as the sum total of CLINs 0001 and 1001.

e. Evaluation will begin starting with the lowest priced offeror. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical narrative to determine whether it meets or does not meet the technical evaluation factors noted below in 3c. Following the technical evaluation, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s past performance against the past performance information noted below in 3d.

If the lowest priced evaluated offer is judged to meet the technical criteria and have a Substantial

Confidence performance confidence assessment (PCA), that offer represents the best value for the

Government and the evaluation process stops at that point. Award shall be made to that offeror without further consideration of any other offers.

If the lowest priced offeror’s technical information does not meet the Government requirements, or the offeror is not judged to have a Substantial Confidence PCA, the next lowest priced offeror will be judged

(in order by price) until the Government determines an offeror’s technical information meets the

Government’s requirement and they have a Substantial Confidence PCA, or until all offerors are evaluated. If all offerors are evaluated and no offeror receives a Substantial Past Performance Confidence rating, then the CO shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision where the Government will determine best value by weighting price, technical, and past performance where technical and past performance combined is more important than price.

The Government reserves the right to cancel the solicitation if vendors do not provide adequate technical and past performance information.

3. Evaluation Factors:

a. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers:

Price

Technical

Past Performance

Technical and past performance, when combined, are more important when compared to the price.

b. Price:

Offers will be ranked according to their TEP which will be calculated as the sum total of CLINs 0001 and

1001.

The CO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition in this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, if the CO's determines adequate price competition exists, no additional cost information will be requested. However, if at any time during this competition the CO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit other than certified cost or pricing data to the extent necessary for the CO to determine that the prices proposed are fair and reasonable

c. Technical Narrative:

c.1. Offers will be evaluated by a technical advisor and rated in accordance with Table 2. Documents submitted in response to this solicitation not meeting the requirements of this plan may result in a “Does not meet” rating and be ineligible for award.

Table 2 – Technical Ratings

Rating Definition

Meets Offer clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation and Technical Evaluation Factors 1 and 2.

Does not meet Offer does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation and Technical Evaluation Factors 1 and 2.

c.1.1. Technical Evaluation Factor 1: The offeror's technical narrative shall clearly demonstrate all efforts to be performed in order to manufacture the TWTAs. This shall include any proposed equipment, machinery, and processes, as required. This narrative shall also reflect the capability necessary to manufacture the amplifiers to meet all specifications and requirements listed in the Requirements

Document and associated appendices. Finally, the technical narrative shall identify the manufacturer’s warranty and repair process for the TWTAs, to include average repair timelines.

c.1.2. Technical Evaluation Factor 2: The offeror shall provide a schedule with key milestones for meeting the delivery date listed in the solicitation. The milestones shall include sufficient information for the Government to establish confidence in the offeror's ability to meet the Government's deadline and denote major activities, demonstrations, and acceptance testing.

The narrative and schedule shall not exceed 15 total pages in length. Text for all narrative shall be single-spaced, on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet with a minimum one-inch margin all around. Font shall be no less than

Times New Roman 11 pt. Graphics, charts, tables, and pictures, while not subject to the same font requirement, shall be legible and easy to read. Pages shall be numbered consecutively. A page printed on both sides will count as two (2) pages. Fold out pages, 11 x 17, may be used for tables, charts, graphs, or pictures (but not text) that cannot be legibly presented on an 8 ½ x 11 sheet. A fold out page will count as one page. All proposal information shall be submitted in either MS Word or PDF. The quote shall be submitted with a cover/transmittal letter on company letterhead that includes the company name, address, and a specific point of contact. The cover letter, title page, any table of contents, and any glossary/acronym list (if necessary) are not included in the total page count of the volume.

d. Past Performance:

d.1. The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the offeror’s performance deemed recent

(defined in paragraph d.2. below) and relevant (defined in paragraph d.3. below) to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the offeror independently, and by the offer’s requested company on the Past Performance Questionnaire form at Attachment 4. The

Government will only accept the Past Performance Questionnaire at Attachment 4 directly from the agency/company filling out the report; it will NOT be accepted directly from offerors. Past performance may be Government or commercial sources; the same weight will be given to all sources.

The evaluation of past performance information will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies when such information is relevant to the current acquisition. An overall past performance confidence rating will be assessed on the contractor, as a whole, after evaluating all past performance submitted and retrieved by the Government. As a note, the Government reserves the right to conduct independent research and retrieve past performance information at the Government’s discretion from Government systems and other companies/agencies as required to make all relevant determinations.

This information is required on offerors, subcontractors, or joint venture partners considered relevant to overall successful performance. Offerors may submit no more than three (3) recent and relevant contracts for the prime contractor and not more than two (2) for each major subcontractor. If the prime is a joint venture, offerors may submit no more than two (2) references per joint venture partner. This information is required for the offeror and all major subcontractors who are to perform 20 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost.

Subcontractor Consent: A prime offeror cannot disclose past performance information pertaining to a subcontractor/joint venture partners without the subcontractor's or joint venture partner's consent. Provide a consent letter from all subcontractors/joint venture partners that will perform on the contract allowing the release of their past performance information to the prime contractor.

d.2. Recent is defined as completed or ongoing contracts with a performance history within the last (4) years from the issue date of this solicitation.

d.3. Relevancy is defined as performance as a subcontractor or prime contractor on past or current contracts (including Federal, State, and local government and private) to manufacture amplifiers with the same as, or similar, specifications to the Government’s requirements as identified in the Requirements

Document and associated appendices. Relevant contracts include experience and expertise manufacturing

TWTAs in various bands and power levels. Relevant contracts would also include demonstrated experience manufacturing the amplifiers to required/custom specifications. Relevancy will be evaluated on the basis of Table 1:

Table 1 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

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

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

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

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

d.4. The Government will consider the performance quality of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent and relevant past performance reference reviewed, the Government will assess the performance quality of the work performed. The quality assessment will consist of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment will result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than a Satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. The Government will only consider process changes when the past performance information demonstrates objectively measurable improvements in performance. The Government will use the following quality assessment rating table when assessing recent and relevant efforts:

Table 2 – Performance Quality Assessment

Rating Definition

Exceptional During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Very Good During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

Satisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting

(or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA): The Government will evaluate recent and relevant past performance information on the lowest priced offer. The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the Government to assess the offeror’s probability of successfully meeting the solicitation requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall PCA of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, Neutral Confidence, Limited

Confidence, or No Confidence.

Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessment

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

d.5. Offerors are advised that while an offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral Confidence, sources of existing information available to the Government including, but not limited to, the Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System, Past Performance Information

Retrieval System, Federal Performance and Integrity Information System, and Electronic Subcontract

Reporting System, may be utilized. The Government may use past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the offeror. The Government reserves the right to use or not use past performance information submitted by the offeror based on whether or not adequate recorded past performance information is available in its Federal databases.