Attachment 0007 Section M Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

SECTION M: Evaluation Factors For Award

Proposals submitted in response to the RFP will be evaluated in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures and the criteria set forth in this Section M. The contract will be awarded to the Offeror 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 assessed, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

Offerors must furnish sufficient details in their proposals to allow the Government to assess the proposals against the evaluation criteria listed below. Offerors should not simply restate or rephrase the Government’s requirements as stated in the SOW.

Rather, the Offeror shall demonstrate in its own words a thoughtful and convincing approach to address how the Offeror intends to perform the specific requirements stated in this RFP.

By submitting a proposal, the Offeror commits to performing all the requirements specified in the solicitation. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal being found ineligible for award.

The award will be made based on the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal offer that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the two evaluation factors, Technical and Price. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical Factor (to include all 3 subfactors). An award may be made to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror if the SSA reasonably determines, based on the assessment of the Technical Factor, the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. NOTE: THE

TECHNICAL FACTOR IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE IMPORTANT THAN PRICE.

The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation.

However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of funds. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror.

C. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each Offeror’s proposal: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price Factor in the event that the Technical evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical Factor is further divided into the following three subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 – Production Approach

b. Subfactor 2 – Manufacturing Resources

c. Subfactor 3 – Management Plan

Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactor 3.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the SOW. A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph D of this section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings. The Government will also assign an adjectival rating to the Technical Factor which will be derived from the evaluation of each of the subfactors. The proposed Technical Factor rating will be based on a “roll-up” of the subfactors, but a rating of Marginal or Unacceptable under any subfactor will result in a Marginal or Unacceptable rating at the factor level, regardless of the other subfactor ratings.

Factor 2: Price: The resulting award will be a Firm-Fixed-Price. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

D. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST)

1. The Technical Factor is divided into the following three subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's proposed Production Approach for the contract ordering period. Marginal levels of overall Production Approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The evaluation will focus on the following:

• The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror's proposed production approach demonstrates the Offeror's level of understanding of and compliance with the TDP (drawings) and the requirements of the RFP for part numbers 1061661-001

(PLATE, STRUCTURAL, AIRCRAFT), 1061116-001 (PANEL, CONTROL,

ELECTRICAL - ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT) and 1061423-101 (CCA, EMERGENCY CONTROL PANEL). The evaluation will include as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.1, 3.9.9, 3.9.10, 3.9.11, 3.9.13, 3.10.4, and 3.11.

• The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed approach to accomplish FAI of the UH-60V Mechanical A-Kit to meet the qualification requirements;

and the feasibility of its approach to integrate FAI into the production approach, incorporate any corrective actions arising from FAI, and deliver the A-Kits on time. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.9.12, 3.9.12.1, and 3.9.12.2.

• The Offeror's subcontractor qualification and management processes will be evaluated for its approach to meet the requirements of the RFP and the extent to which the Offeror complies to limitations on subcontracting and the nonmanufacturer rule. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.1, 3.6, 3.7, 3.9.4, 3.9.6, 3.9.7, and 3.9.11.

• The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror's supply chain management approach ensures the availability of materials and parts and mitigates the risk of supply chain disruptions or counterfeit parts. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraph: 3.14.

• The Government will evaluate how the proposed approach demonstrates understanding of the kitting and packaging processes and the Offeror's ability to ensure the UH-60V Mechanical A-Kits arrive at the final delivery location in a complete and undamaged condition. The evaluation will also assess how well the Offeror's proposal demonstrates experience with kitting and packaging parts kits of similar complexity to the UH-60V Mechanical A-Kit. The experience of proposed subcontractors will also be considered, as will experience of the Mentor if the Offeror has an approved Mentor/Protégé agreement. The evaluation will include as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.9.9 and 3.10.6.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's Manufacturing Resources required to meet a production rate of 48 Mechanical A-Kits per year. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

• The Government will evaluate the Facilities, Equipment, and Tooling to ensure the Offeror demonstrates adequate resources to manufacture the UH-60V Mechanical A-Kits to meet the requirements of this RFP. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraph: 3.1.

• The Government will assess how the qualifications, skills and availability of the proposed manpower and the Offeror's proposed approach to manage labor demonstrates an ability to produce the Mechanical A-Kits In Accordance With (IAW) the requirement and without production disruptions. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraph: 3.1.

Subfactor 3: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror's Management Plan. The evaluation will focus on the following:

• The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror's proposed production management plan demonstrates the Offeror's ability to manufacture, inspect and test and deliver the UH-60V Mechanical A-Kit in compliance with the TDP and the requirements of the RFP. The Government will assess how well the critical tasks, tasks, durations, dependencies, and sequencing of all actions and events are scheduled to address the requirements of the RFP. The evaluation will evaluate the maturity of the Offeror and proposed subcontractors production/ manufacturing facilities to address the requirements of the RFP and how well the Offeror proposes to address production/ manufacturing constraints to meet the RFP requirements. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.1, 3.9.6, 3.9.9, 3.9.10, and 3.9.13.

• The evaluation will assess the Offeror's approach to address critical parameters and potential problem areas to determine if the Offeror has adequately identified risks to successful production of the Mechanical A-Kit and planned ways to mitigate those risks. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, and 3.14.

• The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror demonstrates an understanding and ability to manage configuration control throughout the production of the UH-60V Mechanical A-Kit and to meet the requirements of the RFP. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.1, 3.9.1, 3.9.2, 3.9.3, and 3.9.4.

• The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates implementation of NIST SP 800-171 to minimize the loss of covered defense information processed, stored, or transmitted through the contractor and the subcontractor information systems. The evaluation will include, as a minimum, the requirements of the following SOW paragraphs: 3.13.1, 3.13.2, 3.13.3, 3.13.4, 3.13.5, 3.13.6, 3.13.7, and 3.13.8.

In accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, effective 1 Sep 2022, , the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/ Risk Rating, (See Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Some, none or all information in the Technical Volume may be incorporated into any resulting contract. Any assessed strengths or significant strengths of the offeror's proposal may be incorporated into the contract.

2. Price Factor. The resulting contract will be a single award Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) contract. The Price evaluation will include an evaluation of the Offeror’s Price proposal for compliance with Section L, unbalanced pricing, business system adequacy, and reasonableness.

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Price proposals. For award purposes, the total evaluated price will not be the estimated contract ceiling. The evaluation of the contract ceiling of 240 Mechanical A-Kits will not obligate the Government to place more than a minimum order. The TEP will be determined based on the information below. The resulting contract may incorporate range quantity pricing based on proposed unit prices. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. FFP Evaluation. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated using one or

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

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

more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

b. Overall Price Proposal Evaluation: The overall Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(1) Compliance: The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance with the proposal submission requirements contained in Section L of the solicitation and the Government provided Pricing Template.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Offeror’s overall Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g), Proposal Analysis Techniques.

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items (including the unit and extended pricing for years 1 to

5) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between contract years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. 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 in RFP Attachment 0008 ‘Pricing Template’. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(3) Errors: The Offeror’s Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

(4) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the Offeror’s business systems to include accounting (if progress payments are proposed), and Contractor Property Management System.

(5) 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.

(6) Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The sum of the evaluated prices of each CLIN will represent the TEP. The evaluated CLIN prices (for each of the various pricing structures) will be calculated as explained below:

i. For CLINs with a fixed quantity (001,002 and 004), the evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit/ lot price times the respective quantity.

ii. For CLIN 0003 that has multiple quantity ranges, the evaluated price will be calculated as follows: the Government will calculate the average unit price for all five years at a quantity range of 24-48 and multiplied by a best estimated quantity of 48 units. NOTE: A maximum quantity of 230 units applies to CLIN 0003.

iii. For CLINs 0005 and 0006 that are Not Separately Priced (NSP) - will not be part of the TEP calculation.

iv. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

E. DISCUSSIONS

1. GENERAL INFORMATION. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), Exchanges with offerors after receipt of proposals, discussion sessions with each offeror may be held.

Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 10 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

2. DISCUSSIONS. The Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror's initial proposal should contain the Offeror's best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If discussions are conducted, the Contracting Officer will notify the Offeror that the ENs are available in ASSIST2Industry. The Contracting Officer will provide additional instructions with the notification. The discussion session will take place in writing.