Att. 4. Section M.pdf

SUBSAFE / LEVEL I

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) The Government intends to make awards as a result of this solicitation resulting in a competitive Multiped Award Contract (MAC) with competition of production units at the order level. The Government anticipates awarding approximately five awards.

(b) The Government intends to award a contract on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary by the Source Selection Authority.

(c) The Government will evaluate the Solicitation Documentation to ensure that all the required information has been provided and to verify compliance with all requirements.

1.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be determined based on the Government’s evaluation of each Offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors identified in this solicitation. Award will be made to responsible Offerors whose proposal meets all Pass/Fail Requirements and is technically acceptable.

1.2 SOURCE SELECTION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate each Offeror's proposal in accordance with the evaluation factors to determine the acceptable proposals. The evaluation factors represent key areas of importance to be considered in the source selection decision. The factors have been chosen to support meaningful discrimination between acceptable and unacceptable offers.

FACTORS

1. Technical Capability

2. Past Performance

3. Cost/Price

There is no relative importance and offers will be evaluated as Pass/Fail for the Pass/Fail criteria and Acceptable/Unacceptable for the factors one through three.

2.0 PASS/FAIL EVALUATION

Offerors will be evaluated based on a Pass/Fail rating on the requirements listed below. Offerors must receive a Pass rating under each Pass/Fail Requirement to be eligible for award. A fail may result in no further consideration for award. The Government reserves the right to not evaluate proposal volumes I, and III if an Offeror is assigned a “fail” rating for any Pass/Fail requirement. The Pass/Fail evaluation criteria are as follows:

2.1 Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's small business participation in accordance with the small business objective as set forth in Section L.

2.2 Assertion of Qualification Status

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s narrative and qualification evidence to determine if the offeror substantiated it meets the following qualification status requirements:

a. Full Qualification: The Government will evaluate the proof of qualification status submitted by the Offeror which includes the Offeror’s NAVSEA 05 First Article Qualification Letter to determine if the Offeror has built complaint TR-317 Series Hull Penetrators IAW the current revisions of the drawing package and CIPS (SOW ADs 3.1 and 3.2).

b. Partial Qualification: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proof of partial qualification status which includes contract for same product which documents the revision of the DWGs & CIPS the Offeror has built to (including the associated RFVs) as well as their NAVSEA 05 First Article Qualification Letter or other proof of successful First Article Qualification of the same product to confirm that the Offeror is qualified to produce compliant units to an earlier revision of ADs 3.1 and 3.2, including under a RFV approved by the Government.

c. Undergoing Qualification: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proof of ongoing qualification process, which includes the current stage of the process and anticipated completion date to confirm the Offeror is currently undergoing qualification for the TR-317 Series Hull Penetrator.

d. Not Currently Qualified: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s statement for confirmation that they are not currently qualified or currently undergoing qualification to produce TR-317 Series Hull Penetrators.

2.3 Quality Management System

The Government will evaluate based on the following criteria depending on if they have a current ISO 9001:2015 Certificate of Registration or operate under a non-ISO certified system:

a. In the case where the offeror indicates it has a current ISO 9001:2015 Certificate of Registration the Government will evaluate as Pass any offeror that provides the objective quality evidence in the form of a certificate of registration.

b. In the case where the offeror indicates it does not have an ISO certification the Government will evaluate the documentation of its Quality System to determine if it is adequate to meet the requirements of SOW AD 3.8.

3.0 NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS

The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-cost/price evaluation factors based on the offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses solely on deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal, resulting in a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The following term and definition will be used for proposal evaluations:

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

3.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

The Government will evaluate proposals and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated below for Factor 1.

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable and risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Where an offeror is not currently qualified, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposal demonstrates understanding of and capability to successfully perform the requirements and the soundness of the approach. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and ability to develop first article and production TR-317 Series Hull Penetrator Assemblies as follows:

3.1 Factor 1 – Technical Capability

3.1.1 Design Overview

The Government will evaluate proposals to assess each Offeror’s proposed design overview, including the illustration of the design showing the components of the proposed design to meet the requirements of ADs 3.1 and 3.2.

3.1.2 Requirements Table

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of each of the critical elements to determine its understanding of CIPs requirements, critical design features and process controls to determine the Offeror’s understanding of and ability to achieve the requirements of the CIPS.

3.1.3 Performance and Analysis of Proposed Design

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s predicted hull penetrator performance, including critical aspects of the proposed design which pertain to the CIPS requirements listed in the table in section 3.1.2.2 of Section L.

3.1.4 Basis for Predictions

The Government will evaluate the basis of performance predictions and the description of the measured data or the modeling data and determine whether the Offeror provides objective quality evidence to support its predictions (e.g. measured data, modeling/analysis outputs, or both). If the Offeror is basing its design on a model, the Government will evaluate the description of the basis of the model and the detailed model output data.

3.1.5 Facilities, Tooling and Equipment

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description of its facilities, tooling and equipment required to successfully design, manufacture, test and deliver TR-317 Series Hull Penetrators which meet the requirements set forth in the ADs, including but not limited to:

a) Incoming inspection

b) In-process testing and inspection

c) Special test equipment and tooling

d) Special manufacturing equipment

e) Calibration equipment and techniques

f) Final inspection

g) Packaging and shipping

h) Documentation control

i) Data retention and distribution

j) Secure storage for government-furnished information

The Government will assess the Offeror’s attestation of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award to either subcontract out the testing or acquire the needed facilities, equipment, other resources, or personnel to satisfy the test requirements.

3.1.6 Technical Risk Assessment

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identified potential risks and the proposed mitigation approach for each identified risk within the following areas:

- Sub-Contractors and/or Vendors (if applicable) –The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s details on the use of sub-contractors for critical processes or critical subassemblies, and/or sole source vendors for critical or long-lead parts and details on the supply chain to ensure material (will be available for the life of contract, inclusive of its own efforts.

-Meeting all performance requirements in the CIPS and how it affects the first article and production plan and schedule.

3.1.7 Configuration Management

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s internal configuration management procedures to assess the Offeror's ability to effectively manage and control the design and manufacturing configuration of the TR-

317 Series Hull Penetrator Assembly which includes ensuring that the correct revisions of drawings are used, and that Government-approved engineering changes are properly implemented and tracked throughout the manufacturing process.

3.1.8 First Article Design

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to developing, testing, building and verifying of the First Article design for qualification including the details of the manufacturing equipment, fixtures, facilities, measurement tools and analysis equipment. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s identification of whether the aforementioned items are currently in place or will be procured or developed as a part of First Article. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s description for how initial subassembly-level testing will be used to refine the final design.

3.1.9 Test and Inspection

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s outlined processes for receipt inspection of material procurements and data obtained from in-process testing that will be delivered as part of the Certification/Data Reports, First Article Test/Inspection Reports and Production Test/Inspection Reports.

3.2 Factor 2 - Past Performance

The Government will evaluate the past performance references for recency, relevancy and quality of performance. Recent performance includes efforts performed within the past five calendar years from solicitation release date. Relevant performance includes efforts that are of similar scope and complexity as identified in the SOW. Past performance references that reflect projects with a similar scope and complexity to efforts described in this solicitation will be considered to have greater importance in the evaluation of this factor. The Government will evaluate all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating.

The Government reserves its right to collect and use information from sources other than those identified in the proposal to evaluate past performance. This may include, but not limited to, Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, and/or personal knowledge. The Government may contact past or current customers to collect additional information for use in evaluating past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact other references than those provided in the proposal. The Government reserves the right to not perform a past performance evaluation on any Offeror that is assigned an “Unacceptable” adjectival rating under Factor 1 - Technical.

For subcontractors proposed to perform more than 25% of the total contract value, the Government will verify that the offeror included a commitment signed by the offeror and subcontractor certifying that if a contract is awarded as a result of the proposal, the parties commit to joint performance as proposed. If the signed commitment is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal then the subcontractor references will not be evaluated or considered.

For affiliate companies, sister companies, teaming arrangements, joint venture agreement, etc., proposed to perform more than 25% of the total contract value, the Government will verify that documentation shows the primary offering entity demonstrated that the affiliate will perform significant and critical aspects of the contract if awarded. Documentation must include a copy of the signed arrangement (ex. documented affiliation, a copy of the teaming agreement, a copy of the joint venture agreement). If the signed arrangement is not fully executed by both parties and provided with the Past Performance Proposal then the references will not be evaluated or considered.

4.0 COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate proposed prices by performing a price and/or cost analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 procedures solely for CLIN 0002 for the qualification units. The Government will also evaluate for unbalanced pricing per FAR 15.404-1(g).

1. The following is an example of how the Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price

(TEP):

2. Contract line-item numbers (CLINs) with a single quantity range:

For CLINs with a single quantity range, the Government will multiply the quantity by the unit price to derive the total line amount. The following is an example:

CLIN SUPPLIES/SERVICES QTY UNIT U/PRICE AMOUNT

0001 Post Award Conference 1 Job $2,500 $2,500

0002 First Article Widgets 12 EA $1,000 $12,000 0003 Production Units 1 Lot $98,160,000 $98,160,000

TOTAL TEP $98,174,500

3. The TEP will be the awarded contract dollar value ceiling.

NOTE: For CLIN 0002, the above prices are examples only. This example does not obligate the Government to purchase these quantities; it is simply to demonstrate the method the Government will use to calculate the total weighted average prices for the TEP. CLINs 0001 and 0003 are the plug figures identified in Section B of this solicitation.

5.0 TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY AND ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARD

The following table indicates all factors that will be considered in awarding this requirement.

FACTORS

1. Technical Capability

2. Past Performance

3. Price

Offerors with a deficiency will be determined to be Unacceptable and therefore unawardable. Offerors with no deficiencies will be determined Acceptable and therefore awardable.

6.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

(a) The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-cost/price evaluation factors and subfactors based on the offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on any deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor. Cost/Price and Pass/Fail Requirements in Section L Instructions to Offerors will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

(b) Technical Capability Factor Ratings: Combined Technical and Risk Ratings

The following combined technical and risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with technical.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is unawardable.

Definitions:

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

(c) Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract's requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor's performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

(A) The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror's past performance. Recency is a measure of the elapsed time since the past performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(B) The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration is given to those aspects of an offeror's history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are two (2) levels of relevancy as shown below in the table. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Adjectival Ratings Description Relevant Present/Past Performance effort involved similar 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

(C) The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror's past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror's past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror's performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror's overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings shown below.

Rating Description

Acceptable Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable or greater expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort or 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.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.