Attachment 0003 Section M_OCWS_SPRRA225R0016.docx

M. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. This acquisition is a small business set-aside, as provided in FAR 52.219-6 (Notice of Total Small Business Set-Aside). Additionally, this acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 as supplemented in PGI 215.300-90 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The rating methodology is described in the paragraphs below. Tradeoffs will be made between technical, past performance, and price. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer reasonably determines that a superior technical approach and past performance rating of the higher priced offeror outweighs the Total Evaluated Unit Price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the Contracting Officer will utilize the technical team's evaluation of the factors described in the solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described below in Paragraph C.

B. The Government reserves the right to make multiple awards. If multiple awards are made, future delivery order awards will be based on a best value tradeoff between price, contract performance, and schedule.

C. For the purposes of award, offers will be evaluated on the following factors listed below:

Evaluation Factors

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Price

The Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor are equal in weight. When combined, the Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor are significantly more important than price.

The Technical Factor (Factor 1) shall be evaluated first. Only offerors who receive a rating of “Acceptable” or better will move to the Past Performance evaluation factor (Factor 2). A rating of no less than “Neutral Confidence” must be achieved for Past Performance in order to be considered for award. The proposed prices in Factor 3 will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in the range pricing, along with calculating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) using the price range at the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) for that year.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (organized by volume):

1. Volume I, Completed RFP

The Government will review the RFP for completeness, to include all required fill-in clauses, Section B/CLIN pricing, and signed page 1 of the RFP. The Government will review the cover letter, any exceptions, and will verify the offeror’s small business status for NAICS code 336992 size standard of 1,500 (in number of employees) in SAM.Gov. Those offeror’s proposals who are not considered a small business in the size standard in SAM.Gov will not be evaluated or considered for award.

2. Volume II, Technical Factor (Factor 1)

1. General: Each offeror's technical proposal shall be evaluated based on their approach to overall project management, quality, and schedule. The evaluators will determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation team’s assessment of the offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirement. The offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine the rating of the technical factor, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to the Technical Approach based on significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, and deficiencies identified by the technical team. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an "Acceptable" or above rating for this factor. Each offeror's technical/management/risk proposal shall be evaluated based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

The Government will not evaluate any information on pages that exceed the page count listed in Section L.

Technical Ratings:

NOTE: Offerors who receive less than an Acceptable rating shall not be considered for contract award.

3. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance assessment will assess the confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror's demonstrated present and past work record. The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance and overall performance by reviewing a Present/Past Performance Summary (PPS) sheet for two (2) recent and relevant contracts submitted by the offeror. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past three (3) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will review the PPS contracts for recency and relevancy. The offeror shall send Present/Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) to the primary customers identified in the PPS contract. The customer shall submit the PPQs directly back to DLA at DLAHSVPMContracts@dla.mil. The Government shall also review the two (2) contracts Contractor Performance Assessment Rating System (CPARS). If no PPQs are submitted to DLA by the time and date listed in Section B, the Government may conduct follow-up discussions with any of the people identified in the offeror's Present/Past Performance Volume (PPS). The Government may obtain other information by sending out additional questionnaires and/or through other sources. The Government reserves the right to change, alter, and/or supplement the questionnaire without further notice to the offeror(s).

2. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent two (2) submitted contracts. Both of the relevancy determinations will be considered in the past performance evaluation rating. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy.

The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror's proposal:

Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

· Contract valued ≥ $10M

· Assembling and delivering weapon stations* with multiple parts and technical specifications that support DoD or other US Government weapon systems.

· Manufacturing/producing systems that support DoD or other Government weapon systems.

· Machining, welding, and assembling components comprised of armor grade metals.

· Contract valued from ≥ $5M - < $10M

· Assembly and delivery of weapon stations, kits, or systems that support DoD or other US Government weapon systems.

· Machining, welding, and assembling components comprised of armor grade metals.

· Contract valued from ≥ $2M - < $5M.

· Assembly and delivery of weapon stations, kits, or systems that support DoD or other US Government weapon systems.

· Contract valued at < $2M

· No experience in assembling and delivering weapon stations, kits, or systems that support DoD or other US Government weapon systems.

*Weapon station for this section is defined as a medium or light-caliber weapon system that consists of mechanical, electrical, and electromechanical components (i.e., gunner protection), cable harness assemblies, turret (or other) drive motors, controllers, and transparent armor that can be installed on a ground combat vehicle.

3. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. The Evaluation Team will review all past performance information (PPS, PPQ, and CPARS) 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 performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below:

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating.

4. Price Proposal Factor

Price Factor. The offeror's proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance in the range pricing, along with calculating the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) using the price range at the Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) for that year.

*NOTE: The BEQ is the Government’s “best estimate” of the procurement quantities over the next three years and is not guaranteed, as the quantities could go up or down depending on the Government’s requirement. This acquisition is an IDIQ with a minimum guaranteed order of 50 (total) over the three years. Additionally, there is potential for multiple awards. The minimum guarantee for a single award will be for a quantity of 50 to be awarded concurrently by delivery order at the same time the basic IDIQ contract is awarded. The minimum guarantee for a multiple award will be a quantity of 50 for each vendor, awarded concurrently by delivery order at the same time the basic IDIQ contract is awarded. Offerors should keep the above information in mind when pricing.

A. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

B. Range pricing: The offeror’s proposal should include range pricing. Offerors should submit their unit price associated with that price range. Delivery orders will be placed at the unit price associated with the total quantity for the order. When submitting the proposal, offerors should fill out the following table:

REQUESTED RANGES

UNIT PRICING

PRODUCTION

YEAR 1

BEQ – 240

PRODUCTION

YEAR 2

BEQ – 45

PRODUCTION

YEAR 3

BEQ – 45

The Government will calculate a total evaluated price, using the unit price associated with the BEQ quantity price range times the BEQ, and adding all three years together.

Example provided below:

REQUESTED RANGES

UNIT PRICING

PRODUCTION

YEAR 1

BEQ – 240

PRODUCTION

YEAR 2

BEQ – 45

PRODUCTION

YEAR 3

BEQ – 45

Total Evaluation Price = $24,000 + $15,750 + $11,250

TEP = $51,000

C. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated average unit price, the price of one or more contract line items (Basic Contract Ordering Periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced, separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror's response to the pricing structure. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

If there is a significant difference between ranges and years, please explain what is driving the differences (e.g. minimum material buys, recurring costs, etc).

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104