Attachment 0008 Section M Design ES IDIQ 031821.pdf

18 March 2021 Soldier Unmanned Aircraft Systems (SUAS)

Design and Development Engineering Services Solicitation W58RGZ-20-R-0309

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government intends to award a Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Small Business Set-aside contract for Design and Development Engineering Services. Award will be made based on trade-off procedures to determine the best value for the Government. The Government also intends to award in conjunction with that award a Task Order to the offeror that is awarded the IDIQ contract. Interested parties must submit a proposal in response to this solicitation in order to be eligible for contract award. Responsive proposals shall address all Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements and criteria set forth in Instructions to Offerors section and Evaluation Factors section. Evaluation factors in descending order of importance are: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Technical factor is significantly more important than Cost/Price. When combined, all non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. An adjectival rating will not be assigned to the Cost/Price factor, but a cost reasonableness and realism evaluation will be performed..

Offerors must receive a minimum of ACCEPTABLE in Factor 1 Technical in order to be eligible for award. An Unacceptable in any subfactor will result in an overall unacceptable proposal. Costs/Prices deemed not fair and reasonable will result in an overall unacceptable proposal.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.306(a)). However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary, therefore it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially.

However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offerors responses to evaluation notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making award decision. If a Competitive Range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition amongst the most highly rated proposals. The decision to establish a Competitive Range will be made at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer and agreed to by the Source Selection Authority (SSA).

Each proposal will be evaluated in accordance with the evaluation criteria set forth below. In order to be considered for contract award, each offerors’ proposal must be determined by the Contracting Officer as Responsive and Responsible. To be eligible for an award the offeror must be assigned an evaluation rating of “ACCEPTABLE” or higher under the Technical Factor; rating of “RELEVANT” and “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” or higher or a rating of “UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE” under the Past Performance Factor. The offeror’s cost/price must also be found complete, fair, reasonable, balanced, and realistic.

Any proposal that is evaluated as unacceptable in terms of any of the evaluation factors may be rejected for such reasons. Furthermore, any significant inconsistency between proposed Technical, Past Performance, and the Cost/Price submitted, if unexplained, may be grounds for a determination of Non-Responsive and rejection of the proposal due to an offeror’s misunderstanding of the work required or an inability to perform any resultant work under the contract. The Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the offeror’s proposal.

The Government will not evaluate multiple proposal submissions from the same offeror.

An evaluation rating of "LIMITED CONFIDENCE" or ‘”NO CONFIDENCE” in the Past Performance factor will render the entire proposal to be evaluated as

“UNACCEPTABLE”.

UNACCEPTABLE OFFERS. The Government may determine that a proposal is Unacceptable and therefore Non-responsive in that it:

a. Merely offers to perform work according to the RFP terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the RFP terms without support and elaboration as specified in the solicitation.

b. Reflects an inherent lack of technical competence or a failure to comprehend the complexity and risks required to perform the RFP requirements due to submission of a proposal that unacceptable in terms of technical approach.

c. Fails to meaningfully respond to the Proposal Preparation Instructions specified in the solicitation.

d. Incomplete Volumes necessitating the cross reference of information from one volume to another volume to provide a complete response to the RFP. All volumes shall be complete with no cross-referencing between volumes.

e. Is unbalanced within the meaning of FAR Part 15, or is unbalanced as to costs/prices for the first ordering period and for subsequent ordering periods where costs/prices are significantly high or low for one given period versus another period.

1.1 RESPONSIBILITY

Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be placed with offerors which the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104. The Government may access System of Award Management (SAM), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information (FAPIIS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) and other systems to verify responsibility. The Government reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey on any and all offerors.

2. EVALUATION APPROACH

All proposals will be evaluated by a team of Government employees in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305. Offerors are cautioned that their initial proposal submissions should contain their best terms.

The overarching evaluation approach for the technical factors are as follows:

Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate and rate the non- Cost/Price factors based upon the definitions and criteria provided below. An adjectival rating will not be assigned to the Cost/Price factor, but a cost reasonableness and realism evaluation will be performed. Evaluation factors in descending order of importance are: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The Technical factor is significantly more important than Cost/Price. When combined, all non-cost/price factors are significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor.

The evaluation approach for each factor follows:

2.1 FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL (Volume II):

The technical subfactors are #1 Technical Understanding and #2 Initial Task Order.

Subfactor #1 is significantly more important than Subfactor #2. The Offeror shall describe their technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the PWS cited in this solicitation. The Offeror shall describe their approach and processes as outlined in the following two subfactors, Technical Understanding and Initial Task Order, and the Offeror submits a proposal that clearly outlines their approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the Quality Assurance Surveillance Plan (QASP).

Subfactor 1 – TECHNICAL UNDERSTANDING

The Government will evaluate the offeror on how the offeror intends to perform SUAS technical support services in accordance with (IAW) Section 3 of the Performance Work Statement (PWS) as well as base contract CDRL deliveries as defined within the Document Summary List. . The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal on how well the offeror understands these service support requirements and demonstrates an understanding of the Army PEO Aviation UAS Project Office mission and programmatic needs. The Government will evaluate how the offeror meets these performance requirements as outlined in the QASP.

Subfactor 2 – INITIAL TASK ORDER

The Offeror shall propose to the task order that will be evaluated and issued in conjunction with the IDIQ award to establish a minimum guarantee using the criteria established in the Government-provided PWS and the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The Offeror shall describe their technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the Task Order. The Government will evaluate the offerors use of proposed labor hours and labor mix in regards to realism and efficiency.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s technical approach in meeting the Program, Contract, and Management objectives as stated in the Task Order Performance Work Statement (PWS). The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to meeting Performance Requirements as outlined in the QASP. The Government will evaluate the offerors use of proposed labor hours and labor mix in regards to realism and efficiency.

2.2 FACTOR 2- PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume III):

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Past Performance of cost, schedule and performance against a probability of success in performing work specific to the PWS requirements.

Section I - Past Performance Information (RELEVANCY) The Government will evaluate Past Performance information on contracts (as a prime or subcontractor) for relevancy to the effort required.

Each past performance submittal must be deemed recent and relevant to receive a positive rating. “Recent” for this solicitation is defined as within the past four years from the date of release of the RFP. “Relevant” for this solicitation is described as contracts equal to or greater than $500,000 and with comparable scope as this PWS. A record of more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and may have more influence on confidence assessment than a favorable record of less relevant past performance. The most relevant past performance records are contracts supporting Army Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

Section II – Performance (CONFIDENCE) The Government will evaluate the recent and relevant Past Performance Citations provided by the offeror and as documented in CPARS, SAM; Excluded Parties List System (EPLS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) and other sources of information available to the Government. Based on the offeror’s input and other Government Past Performance research, the Government will make a Past Performance Confidence Assessment which will include assessing the risk associated with an offeror's likelihood of success in performing the solicitation requirements as indicated by the offeror's record of Past Performance.

The Government will evaluate offeror's narrative explanation of each contract listed in Section I. This narrative shall describe the objectives achieved and detail how the effort is relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will evaluate all performance aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the offeror’s record of:

1) conforming to contract specifications to include the timely supply of products or material resources;

2) maintaining program execution within proposed cost/price;

3) adherence to contract milestone schedules;

4) ability to resolve technical problems quickly and effectively;

5) professional concern for the interest of its customers;

6) establishing and maintaining adequate management of Subcontractors (e.g.: 1X

Subcontractor turnover rate); and

7) specific details of compliance with the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

The Offeror’s recent/relevant experience and past performance will be evaluated as a measure of the Government’s confidence in the likelihood of the Offeror successfully performing this contract based on previous and current contractual efforts of similar nature and complexity relevant to this program.

To be considered for award, a rating of no less than “RELEVANT” with “SATISFACTORY CONFIDENCE” or higher must be achieved for the Past Performance factor. In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant Past Performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful Past Performance rating can be assigned, the offeror will be rated as

“UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE.”

An offeror with a rating of “UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE” is eligible for an award.

2.3 FACTOR 3- COST/PRICE (Volume IV):

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for offerors’ Cost proposals. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same. The Government will fully evaluate all cost/priced CLINs. For award purposes, the total proposed cost/price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The offeror’s Cost proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The offeror’s Cost proposal will be evaluated for the following:

(a) Compliance with Section L, Paragraph 2.4 Cost: The Cost proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L, Paragraph 2.4 Cost instructions.

(b) Unbalanced Pricing: The offeror’s Cost proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated cost/price, the cost/price of one or more contract line items is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to cost/price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for information on unbalanced pricing.

(c) Business Systems: The Government will verify the adequacy of the offeror’s business systems.

(d) Reasonableness: The Cost proposal submitted by the offeror will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable. In accordance with FAR 31.201-3, a cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business.

(e) Cost Realism: A cost realism analysis will be performed on the CPFF CLINs and on the indirect costs included in the cost reimbursable Travel, Material, and Other Direct Cost (ODC) CLINs to determine whether specific estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of contract requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance described in the offeror’s Technical proposal. The realism analysis will also be used to evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the contract’s technical requirements and the risk associated with the offeror’s Technical proposal. Therefore, the offeror is advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. The offeror’s CPFF proposal and estimates will be traced from the Cost proposal volume basis of estimates to the performance of the requirements addressed in the Technical proposal. The Government will perform an evaluation of the technical elements contained within the offeror’s Cost proposal to perform the PWS. The results of the Government’s evaluation of the CPFF proposal’s technical elements will be incorporated into the cost realism evaluation.

The offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be utilized in the Government’s evaluation of the CPFF CLINs. The offeror’s proposed fee dollars will be evaluated to verify that they do not exceed the statutory limitation of FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i). For a CPFF contract, the fee shall not exceed 10 percent of the contract’s estimated cost, excluding fee.

The results of the cost realism evaluation will determine the probable cost of performance as it relates to the technical approach proposed by each offeror and will be utilized in the selection of the offer that provides the best value to the Government. As part of the cost realism analysis to determine the probable cost, the Government will calculate an evaluated cost by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. The evaluated cost may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost that is most likely to result from the offeror’s proposal. If the total evaluated cost is higher than the proposed cost, the total evaluated cost will be used in the probable cost. If the total evaluated cost is lower than the proposed cost, the proposed cost will be used in the probable cost.

The Total Evaluated Cost/Price consists of summing the probable cost amount plus proposed fixed fee for the CPFF CLINs (CLIN 0001, CLIN 1001, CLIN 2001, CLIN 3001, CLIN 4001, and CLIN 5001), the Cost (no fee) Government provided plug amounts, and the probable indirect expenses applied to the Government provided plug amounts. The cost for Task Order 0001 will not be added to the total evaluated cost/price.

3. DEFINITIONS

Adjectival Rating Definitions. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the technical factors.

Figure 1 Technical Ratings

Although risk will not be separately rated in this evaluation, the consideration of risk in the combined technical/risk ratings identified above shall be based on the following descriptions:

Low Risk – Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Risk – Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Risk – Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Risk – Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, 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, 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Past Performance Factor Rating Definitions. A rating of Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, No, or Unknown Confidence (as defined below) will be assigned to the Past Performance Factor.

Figure 2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

Figure 3 Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

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

Satisfactory Confidence

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

Limited Confidence

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

Performance Confidence Assessments

No Confidence

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that assignment of meaningful confidence assessment rating is not feasible.

Cost/Price Evaluation No adjectival ratings shall be utilized for evaluating cost/price. The Government will evaluate the cost elements included in the offeror’s burdened rates.

Definitions Deficiency. 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. See FAR 15.001.

Examples of deficiencies include a statement by the offeror that it cannot or will not meet a requirement, an approach that clearly does not meet a requirement, or omission of data required to assess compliance with the requirement.

Strength. 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.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness. A flaw or omission in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001

Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

4. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SELECTION.

The Contracting Officer will make the announcement of the selection of successful contractors directly or through his/her designee, and contracts award through SAM.gov.

5. DEBRIEFING OF UNSUCCESSFUL OFFERORS.

The Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) will chair any debriefing session upon receipt of an offeror’s timely, written request (see FAR 15.503, 15.505, and 15.506).

The debriefing serves to assure offerors that the Government properly evaluated their proposals and made the award determination in accordance with the RFP. Since each offeror puts considerable resources into preparing and submitting a proposal, fairness dictates that the PCO promptly debrief offerors and explain why a proposal was excluded from the competitive range or was successful or unsuccessful. Timely and thorough debriefings increase competition, encourage offerors to continue to invest resources in the Government marketplace, and enhance the Government’s relationship and credibility with Industry. The debriefing also provides feedback to offerors to assist in improving future proposal submissions. An effective debriefing often deters a protest by demonstrating that the Government conducted a thorough, fair evaluation and made a sound decision according to the established source selection methodology.

Debriefings may be done orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable by the Contracting Officer.