Attachment 0005 - NGT Section M (Draft).pdf

Attachment 0005 Section M

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 GENERAL

M.1.1 Basis for Award:

The United States Government (USG) is conducting a source selection for Next Generation Transponder (NGT)- II under FAR Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items in conjunction with the policies and procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. This will be a small business set aside consistent with the size standard associated with North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Code 334111 - Electronic Computer Manufacturing.

The USG intends to award up to six Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. However, the USG reserves the right to award no contract(s), or any number of contracts between one and six contracts, dependent on whether a sufficient number of Offerors are found to be “Acceptable” in the non-price factors or whether the Government can determine fair and reasonable price. The IDIQ will last five years with five one-year ordering periods.

The proposal(s) submitted in response to this solicitation should contain the Offerors best terms for contract award. The USG reserves the right to contact an Offeror for clarification without opening discussions. The USG reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposal at the discretion of the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO).

The USG reserves the right to cancel this Solicitation at any point before the contract award. In the event this Solicitation is canceled, the USG has no obligation to reimburse Offerors for any costs incurred.

M.2 Evaluation Methodology

No rating will be assigned to the Offeror(s) submitted and signed RFP letter and Cover Letter (Volume 1a), but the review will determine if the offer is compliant or non-compliant. A non-compliant submission in any of the required elements may determine the proposal unacceptable and remove it from the competition. None of the information contained in Volume 1 will be considered in any other part of the evaluation.

This source selection will be evaluated as Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA).

The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal for the award:

Factor 1: Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Subfactor A: Technical Matrix [Pass/Fail] Subfactor B: Reseller Agreements [Pass/Fail]

Factor 2: Price

Step One: The USG will list proposals by their Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Total Evaluated prices is the cost of the 5 SLINs within each individual CLINs. If the USG finds an offer unacceptable during Steps Two or Three, the USG may re-insert previously excluded offerors into the evaluation process at that time, beginning with the next lowest-priced offer. It is possible that one proposal may have a qualifying TEP in multiple categories, as each CLIN is evaluated separately and the three qualifying proposals will be counted against the CLIN for which they qualify.

Step Two: The Technical Factor evaluation will then be conducted on the two lowest priced proposals for each CLIN for acceptability. If the lowest priced proposal is determined to be “Unacceptable”, the next lowest priced proposal will be evaluated for acceptability. This process will continue until up to three proposal(s) are deemed to have the lowest price and are “Acceptable”. Proposals found not “Acceptable” will be replaced by evaluating the next lowest-priced proposal (determined by TEP).

Step Three: Proposals passing all previous steps will be reviewed to determine if they are Fair and Reasonable as well as for Balanced pricing. Proposals found not Fair and Reasonable or found Unbalanced will be replaced by evaluating the next lowest-priced proposal (determined by TEP).

Once the USG reaches two fully acceptable proposals for each CLIN, the USG will not evaluate any remaining proposals.

M.3 Volume Specific Evaluations

M.3.1 Volume 1, Factor 1 - Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. Table 1 outlines how proposals are evaluated for Technical Factor.

Table 1: Evaluation Factors – Volume 2, Technical Factor Rating Description Acceptable Offeror receives a “Pass” on all Technical Subfactors.

Unacceptable Offeror does not receive a “Pass” on at least one of the Technical Subfactors.

M.3.1.1 Volume 1a: Technical Subfactor 1a: Technical Matrix [Pass/Fail]

Offerors shall complete the blue cells in Attachment 0002 Technical Matrix, Excel workbook on the applicable tab(s):

However, the USG will only evaluate a subset of these CLINs/ Subline Item Number (SLIN)s, listed in Tables 2-4, for compliance with the PWS requirements (Attachment 0001). Offerors may bid on any combination of product groups in CLINs X001 through X003, but they must propose the complete product group for that CLIN (i.e. all SLINs within each CLILN group). Partial proposals for any CLIN will be rejected.

Table 2 – Cellular Enabled Transponders (CLIN X001) CLIN Description X001AA Cellular Enabled Transponder X001AB Cellular Enabled Transponders 2yr ext warranty X001AC Cellular Transponder Charger Cord X001AD Cellular Transponder Mounting Kit X001AE Cellular Data Plan (1 year)

Table 3 – Satellite Enabled Transponders (CLIN X002) CLIN Description X002AA Satellite Enabled Transponder X002AB Satellite Enabled Transponders 2 yr ext warranty X002AC Satellite Transponder Charger Cord X002AD Satellite Transponder Mounting Kit X002AE Satellite Data Plan (1 year)

Table 4 – Hybrid Enabled Transponders (CLIN X003) CLIN Description X003AA Hybrid Enabled Transponder X003AB Hybrid Enabled Transponders 2 yr ext warranty X003AC Hybrid Transponder Charger Cord X003AD Hybrid Transponder Mounting Kit X003AE Hybrid Data Plan (1 year)

Pass: The Offeror’s Technical Matrix (Attachment 0002) applicable tab:

Must satisfy the following requirements:

1. Contain the following company information:

a. Full Company Name

b. Cage Code (from SAM.gov)

c. Unique Entity ID (from SAM.gov)

2. For the CLINs/SLINs in Tables 2, 3, and / or 4, meet the PWS minimum requirements.

3. Provide the following information for all CLINs/SLINs:

a. Model/ Part Number

b. Manufacturer

c. Part Description

d. Quantity

e. Is the Device capable of following the Interface Control Document (ICD)

(See Attachment 4 - NGT II ICD Example)

f. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) Testing Completed

g. Does the item comply with MIL-STD-464A?

h. Does the item comply with MIL-STD-461F?

i. Has the item completed HERO Testing per MIL-STD-464A?

j. Has the item been tested and compliant with Medium Robustness Level as defined in the Common Criteria Protection Profile (CCPP)?

k. "If the answer above is yes, skip this question;If the answer above is No answer this question; When will the item be submitted for testing?"

l. Does the item comply with DoDI 4650.01?

m. Does this item comply with DODD 5000.01?

Fail: The Offeror fails to meet one or more of the criteria outlined in the Pass definition.

M.3.1.1 Volume 1b: Technical Subfactor 1b: Reseller Agreements [Pass/Fail]

Pass: This definition, Pass, applies ONLY IF ALL the following criteria are met for each of the CLINs/SLINs that an Offeror has chosen to bid on in Tables 2-4 of Section M:

For each CLIN/SLIN proposed (Tables 4-6), offerors must submit written proof on company letterhead, signed by an authorized officer, documenting either:

1. The offeror's OEM status, or

2. The offeror's formal business partnership/agreement with the OEM

This documentation must:

• Describe the relationship between the offeror and the OEM

• Detail the OEM's commitment to technical support, warranty services, and product updates

• Include the OEM's NAICS code (or explain its absence)

Qualifying OEM Status (any one of the following):

Direct Manufacturer: The offeror designs, develops, and manufactures the product in their facilities

Original Design Manufacturer: The offeror designs the product but outsources manufacturing while controlling design specifications

White-Label Manufacturer: The offeror brands products made by others but maintains customization and quality control

Exclusive Manufacturing Rights: The offeror holds exclusive rights to manufacture another entity's design

Full Product Responsibility: The offeror assumes complete responsibility for product performance, warranty, and support

Reseller with OEM Agreement: The offeror has a formal agreement transferring full product responsibility from the OEM to the offeror

Fail: The Offeror fails to meet one or more of the criteria outlined in the Pass definition.

M.3.2. Volume 2: Factor 2: Price

Competition will determine price fair and reasonableness based on the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each separate CLIN. The calculation process is as follows:

1. Start with individual CLINs/SLINs:

a) Weighted Evaluated Price (WEP) = Proposed Unit Price (blue cell) ×

Calculated Quantity

2. For each Ordering Period:

a) Ordering Period Total (OpT) = Sum of all WEPs for that ordering period

i. Exclude:

• Unpriced CLINs/SLINs (e.g., Series XX11)

• CLINs/SLINs priced at the order level (e.g., Series XX07, XX09)

3. TEP:

a) TEP = Sum of all OpT.

The table below shows a visual example of how these calculations would apply.

In this example:

Example Calculation:

• Weighted Evaluated Price (WEP) for CLIN/SLIN XX01AA:

o Ordering Period 1: 160 x $10.00 = $1,600.00 o Ordering Period 2: 160 x $20.00 = $3,200.00

• Ordering Period Total (OpT):

o Ordering Period 1:

$1,600.00 + $48,000.00 + $7,700.00 + $8.000.00 = $65,300.00 o Ordering Period 2:

$3,200.00 + $56,000.00 + $8,400.00 + $8,500.00 = $76,100.00

• Total Evaluated Price (TEP): $141,400.00

M.3.2.1 Fair and Reasonable Price

The USG anticipates that adequate price competition will support a determination of price reasonableness. In the absence of adequate price competition, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined based on the information provided in the offer, the USG may request additional information, including other than certified cost and pricing data, in accordance with FAR 15.4 to support the proposed price. The USG may employ price analysis techniques as outlined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine price reasonableness.

M.3.2.2 Balanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting offers with unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more price elements (e.g., CLINs/SLINs) are significantly overstated or understated, as determined through price analysis techniques consistent with FAR 15.404-1. The USG will analyze offers to identify potential unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1, offers determined to exhibit unbalanced pricing may be rejected if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

M.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical, and price requirements, as detailed in this narrative, in the solicitation document, and its associated attachments (e.g., Attachment 0001 PWS NGT 2). Offers must comply with all attachments and exhibits included with this solicitation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for an award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.