Attach 0010_DIABLO Sec M_20230512.docx

Section M Evaluation Factor for Award M-1 Source Selection for Development, Integration, Acquisition, Bridging to Logistics & Operations (DIABLO) Basis for Contract Award This is a best value subjective trade-off source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS and the AFARS. These regulations are available electronically at FAR | Acquisition.GOV. The Government will select the best overall Offeror, based on integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of 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 ACC-APG the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

Evaluation The technical proposal should include all information the Offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding its company’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The best value determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

The Government may evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or seek clarifications if the KO determines they are necessary. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, Offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established, and the KO 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 KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a single Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the DIABLO with Task Order 1 fulfilling minimum guarantee requirements under the base contract at time of award; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

Clarifications and Communications Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the KO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision Rejection of Offerors The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions. Additionally, the Government may reject proposals that are unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

Notice of Award A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Evaluation Factors As described below, the evaluation will consist of two phases. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Phase One Factor 1: Technical Subfactor A – Task Order 1 Phase Two Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor 3: Past Performance Factor 4: Small Business Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2, with Factor 2 more important than Factor 3, and Factor 3 more important than Factor 4.

Factor 1: Technical Phase One Phase One will be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable Technical Evaluation. Offerors that do not receive an acceptable rating on Phase One shall not proceed to Phase Two of the Evaluation and shall be eliminated from further consideration, resulting in proposals being disqualified for evaluation under Phase Two Factors 1, 2, 3 and 4. Offerors that receive an Acceptable rating for Phase One will proceed to Phase Two of the Evaluation.

Subfactor A – Task Order 1 In order to be found technically acceptable under Subfactor A the Offeror shall meet the below criteria:

· For each system identified in Attachment 0014 - DIABLO Task Order 1 Quantities, Tab ‘DIABLO TO 1 Sensors’ the Offeror submits proof of software and depot repair/overhaul capabilities required in DIABLO Task Order 1 PWS paragraph 5.6.1 and 5.15 either via an established agreement as/with an authorized service provider or the identified Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM). Acceptable proof includes a subcontract agreement, service provider agreement, and/or license agreement. If submitting an authorized service provider in lieu of OEM, Offeror shall include a separate letter from the OEM authorizing services and/or proof of negotiated licensing agreements. Any agreements and letters shall not be older than sixty (60) calendar days from the date proposals are due.

The Transition in Plan will be rated separately as either acceptable or unacceptable (see Table M.2.1.1 below):

Table M.2.1.1 Transition in Plan Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Factor 1: Technical Phase Two Phase Two Factor 1 will be evaluated using two distinct but related assessments: the technical rating and the technical risk ratings as outlined below.

Subfactor B – Breadth and Depth Sample Task The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s engineering approach is feasible within the sample task scenario and associated Attachment 0001 - Base PWS requirements 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5; the extent to which success is not contingent upon untried or unproven processes or methods; the extent to which the design optimizes MOSA/SOSA; and the extent to which the Offeror’s methods and approach demonstrates knowledge of technical landscape/engineering processes, accounts for risks, actively manages team members/relationships, and provides the Government a high level of confidence.

Subfactor C - Tier 2/3 Vendor Management and Metric Plan The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets Attachment 0001 - Base PWS paragraph 4.2.3 requirements, identifies realistic techniques to motivate tier 2/3 vendor superior performance, and provides proactive strategies/metrics to mitigate risk, identify opportunities, and/or quickly implement corrective action approaches. The Offeror’s Tier 2/3 Vendor Management and Metric Plan will be incorporated into Section C of the resultant contract.

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Within the technical factor under Phase Two, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. The sub-elements under each respective subfactor are of approximate equal importance to that subfactor. Color ratings will be provided at the subfactor level. Sub-elements under each respective subfactor will not be separately color rated. The color rating will not be rolled up to the factor level. Offerors must receive an acceptable rating under Phase 2 Factors 3 and 4 in order to be considered for the best value determination.

Factor 1 Phase Two is more important than Factor 2, with Factor 2 more important than Factor 3, and Factor 3 more important than Factor 4.

Technical Rating The technical rating provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. Each subfactor under Factor 1 of Phase Two will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Ratings, excerpted on Table M.2.2.4. below.

The technical ratings focus on the strengths, deficiencies, and uncertainties of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the factor requirements.

Table M.2.2.4 Technical Ratings

Technical Risk Rating The Technical Risk evaluation focuses on the weaknesses or significant weaknesses associated with an Offeror's proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Each subfactors under Phase Two will receive one of the risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted in Table M.2.2.5 below.

Table M.2.2.5 Technical Risk Ratings

Definitions The following ratings terminology is applicable for Tables M.2.2.4 and M.2.2.5:

Significant Strength - is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength - is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness - means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness - in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency - is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Uncertainty - is a doubt regarding whether an aspect of the proposal meets a material performance or capability requirement. It requires additional information from the Offeror to further explain the proposal before the evaluator can complete his/her review and analysis and if the proposal remains in the competitive range it should generate the issuance of an Evaluation Notice (EN).

The ratings terminologies focus on the strengths, deficiencies, uncertainties, and weaknesses of the Offeror's proposal.

Factor 2: Cost/Price Evaluation The Offeror's cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404; a color rating is not assigned to the cost/price factor. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. The Government will determine completeness of the Offeror's proposal by verifying that all solicitation requirements have been priced, figures are correctly calculated, and costs are presented in a clear and useful format. The Government will evaluate Offerors' proposed costs for reasonableness, completeness, and realism in total in accordance with the below:

Firm Fixed Price CLIN(s) FFP QRC pricing will be evaluated using Price Analysis and will be evaluated to ensure the proposed pricing is not unbalanced.

FFP Hardware will be evaluated using Realism, Price Analysis, and will be evaluated to ensure the proposed pricing is not unbalanced. The Government is offering a Delivery Incentive, as such, the Government is requesting Offerors to propose an FFP that includes no more than 8% profit calculated against value added costs (not including the direct costs for materials or subcontracting cost).

CSC-Rs Delivery Incentive The Government requires delivery and acceptance of CSC-R orders no later than 600 days after award. In the event all ordered CSC-R units are delivered and accepted 510 days or less after order award the Government will add $78,200 profit per unit as an incentive to delivery early. In the event that delivery and acceptance occurs late, between day 601 and day 780 after award, the proposed price will be reduced $78,200 per unit. In the event delivery and acceptance of all ordered CSC-R units occurs significantly late, 781 days after award or later, the proposed price will be reduced $156,400 per unit.

SS-4000/SS-4500s Delivery Incentive The Government requires delivery and acceptance of the SS-4000s and SS-4500s no later than 420 days after award. In the event delivery and acceptance of all ordered units 330 days or less after award (early), the Government will add $71,400 for each SS-4000 ordered and/or $89,300 for each SS-4500 ordered in profit (as an incentive to delivery early). In the event that delivery is late and is delivered on day 421 through day 480 the proposed price will be reduced $71,400 for each SS-4000 ordered and/or $89,300 for each SS-4500 ordered. In the event delivery and acceptance of all ordered SS-4000 and/or SS-4500 units are delivered and accepted significantly late on day 481 or later the profit will be reduced $142,800 for each SS-4000 ordered and/or $178,600 for each SS-4500 ordered. An offer may be rejected if the KO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Inclusion of a profit rate greater than 8% of value added costs only in the proposed FFP unit price will result in an un-awardable FFP price and the Offeror will be eliminated from the competition.

*Note: the above lump sum values are for examples purposes only fee amounts subject to unit price proposed.

Total Evaluated Price for FFP CLINs In order to develop a total evaluated price, the FFP unit prices per range and item will be weighted as detailed below and applied to a Government Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) for each year in order to develop the evaluation price for the FFP CLINs.

Weightings:

Year 2

100%

Best Estimated Quantities:

Task Order 1 The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs for Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs on Task Order 1. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical/management proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). Failure to demonstrate a clear understanding of the effort or failure to provide adequate support in order for the Government to determine the proposed costs realistic may result in an undeterminable probable cost. Offerors with an undeterminable probable cost are not eligible for award.

Overall Total Evaluated Price The total evaluated cost/price will be computed as follows:

· The quoted FFP unit price for the QRC extended by the BEQ of six (6) per year.

· The quoted FFP incentive Schedule unit price multiplied by the weighting factors listed above and applied to a BEQ of two (2) per year.

· The probable cost for Task Order 1.

· The option to extend cost for 52.217-8 will be part of the evaluation price. In accordance with FAR 52-217-8 continued performance of any services within the limits and at the rates specified in the contract and shall not exceed 6 months. Therefore, the probable cost for the six (6) month POP to be proposed in year two (2) of the Task Order will be duplicated in order to estimate the extension pricing for evaluation purposes only.

The total evaluated cost/price will therefore consist of the Offeror’s proposed FFP Pricing as extended in accordance with evaluation criteria, the Task Order probable cost and the estimate for the Option to Extend the task order.

Note: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Factor 3: Past Performance Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table M.2.4.7.

Past Performance Assessment The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation Sources are as follows:

1. Past performance information provided by the Offeror in Volume IV.

1. Past performance information may also be utilized from established systems such as the Contractor’s Past Performance Assessment System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, KOs.

Recency and Relevancy The past performance references submitted must adhere to the recent and relevant definitions below to be considered acceptable.

Recency An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the original date of issuance of this solicitation, or for ongoing efforts, must have been in place at least nine (9) months prior to proposal due date. Past performance information that fails the recency condition will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality.

Relevancy The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance submissions. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevant past performance means providing evidence demonstrating experience with designing, testing, maintaining, and sustaining MULTI-INT sensing systems on manned platforms that require airworthiness requirements of similar size and scope. Table M.2.4.5 below describes the ratings to be used for the relevant evaluation of each past performance reference.

Table M.2.4.5 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of each recent and relevant effort (i.e., how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for acceptability or unacceptability. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance information provided, CPARS, PPIRS information, and/or interviews with Government customers. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

Table M.2.4.6 Past Performance Quality Ratings

Assigning Ratings As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. The Offeror will receive an overall “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating for the Past Performance factor based on the recent, relevant and quality assessment ratings of all past performance references.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table M.2.4.7 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Small Business Concerns Assessment In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s (both small businesses and other than small businesses) proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) meets the below small business objectives and includes documentation to support how the Offeror will meet their proposed Small Business participation commitment. The Offeror’s Small Business Participation will be rated using Table M.2.5.2 below. A rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved to be considered for award.

The Government will evaluate the following:

1. Whether or not, in accordance with, FAR Part 19, Small Business Concerns (SBC) are specifically identified by name in each category in the Offeror’s SBPCD proposal and the Offeror’s commitment to SBCs.

2. The type, variety, and complexity of work SBCs are proposed to perform.

3. Whether or not the Offeror demonstrates a substantive commitment to SBCs, such as letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment. Binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements.

4. Whether or not the Offeror’s proposed SBC participation meets the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) (small business objective) of 10% of the total contract ceiling value. Failure to meet the MQR shall result in the Offeror being unacceptable for this factor and therefore ineligible for award.

5. The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s detailed explanations/documentation supporting their proposed quantitative participation.

6. Whether or not the Offeror complied with and provided past performance information to demonstrate the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

Small Business Subcontracting Plan Assessment The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required (FAR 52.219-9) for Other Than Small Businesses (OTSB) Offerors ONLY (i.e., Large Businesses). OTSB Firms must submit acceptable subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award. Any Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted shall be relevant to the SBPCD and Volume V, Part D-- Small Business Participation.

NOTE: Subcontracting plans will only be reviewed for acceptability for the Offeror deemed to be apparent awardee.

The Government will review the Small Business Participation Plan on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

Table M.2.5.2 Small Business Acceptable/Unacceptable Method

Additional Requirements Property Management Plan Compliance The Government will review the Offeror’s Property Management Plan in accordance with FAR 45.201(c)(4) and solicitation requirements. An acceptable plan meets all requirements. Failure to submit a compliant Property Management Plan may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

OCI Mitigation Plan If applicable, the Government’s review of the Offeror’s OCI Mitigation plan will consider:

1. The degree to which the offeror addresses OCI concerns

2. The offeror’s approach for mitigating OCI issues

3. The adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs

4. The adequacy of its procedures; and

5. Whether or not the offeror’s OCI plan and/or mitigation strategy complies with all regulatory and statutory requirements, including FAR Subpart 9.5.

An acceptable plan is one that addresses the items above and does not present any actual or perceived conflicts of interest.

Other Information The Government will review other Offeror’s information such as completed DD Form 254 Contract Security Classification(s) and Data Rights Assertion Table(s) in compliance with solicitation requirements and associated terms and conditions. Failure to provide compliant offerings may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

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.

M-2