Attachment 0009 - Section M - Evaluation Factors For Award.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete and thorough explanations for each factor/subfactor submitted as required by Section L. Each volume, to include all factors/subfactors, shall be submitted with its initial proposal, and the U.S.

Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information.

Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(d)(4).

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

a. The U.S. Government will evaluate proposals submitted IAW this section and will make a determination considering the following factors: (1) Technical (2)

Past Performance, and (3) Price. Further, within the Technical Factor, there are three subfactors that will be evaluated: 1) Production Capability, 2)

Quality System, and 3) Program Management Plan.

A Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection Process

IAW FAR 15.101-2 will be utilized to select the successful Offeror. Award will be made to the Offeror who provides an acceptable Technical Factor proposal and an acceptable Past Performance Factor proposal with the lowest evaluated price. The U.S. Government plans to award one Fixed Price

(FP) with Economic Price Adjustment (EPA), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite

Quantity (IDIQ) contract for Canister Grenade Metal Components that will consist of five, one-year ordering periods.

b. The Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor will be rated on an

‘Acceptable’ / ‘Unacceptable’ basis. However, if an Offeror fails to achieve an ‘Acceptable’ rating for the Technical Factor, the Offeror will not be further considered for award. If an Offeror submits a full Technical proposal in accordance with Section L, an overall Technical rating of ‘Acceptable’ shall only be given if all three subfactors, 1) Production Capability, 2) Quality

System, and 3) Program Management Plan, receive ‘Acceptable’ ratings. If one subfactor receives an ‘Unacceptable’ rating, the overall Technical Factor rating shall be ‘Unacceptable’. If an Offeror fails to achieve an ‘Acceptable’ rating for the Past Performance Factor, the Offeror will not be further considered for award.

c. Selection of the successful Offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal against the solicitation requirements and the cited evaluation criteria. The criteria will be used to evaluate and assess the information provided by the Offerors in response to the information required by Section L of the Solicitation.

d. The U.S. Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with

Section M.

e. The Minimum Guaranteed Quantity (MGQ) is 100,000 each of M18 Smoke

Hand Grenade – Top and 100,000 each of M18 Smoke Hand Grenade –

Body. The first Delivery order, which will consist of the MGQ, will be issued concurrently with the IDIQ contract award to the successful Offeror.

M.1.1 DISCUSSIONS

Each proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for award of a contract under the solicitation. The U.S. Government intends to award without discussions. The Contracting Officer may contact Offerors for clarification, as described in FAR 15.306(a) and FAR 52.215-1, without opening discussions. However, the U.S.

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit Offerors to revise its proposals if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, they will be held IAW

FAR 15.306.

M.1.2 OTHER EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS

a. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments or contain significant unbalanced prices may be considered an indication of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in the contract requirements and may be determined unacceptable.

b. Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be awarded to Offerors that the

Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Separate from the best value source selection criteria, Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The U.S. Government may conduct a pre-award survey on any Offerors considered for award, to assist in the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsibility.

M.1.3 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor will be rated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. However, if an Offeror fails to achieve an “Acceptable” rating for the Technical Factor and / or Past Performance Factor, as outlined above, the Offeror shall not be further considered for award.

M.1.4. EVALUATION FACTORS

Volume I: Technical Factor

Subfactor 1 – Production Capability Subfactor 2 – Quality System Subfactor 3 – Program Management Plan

Volume II: Past Performance

Volume III: Price

M.1.5. EVALUATION PROCEDURES, CRITERIA, AND RATINGS

Each Offeror will be evaluated against the evaluation criteria to determine whether the Offeror has the technical expertise, equipment, and personnel required to manufacture and deliver/manage the product in accordance with the delivery schedule as delineated in Section B of the solicitation. The U.S. Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” for all the non-cost factors.

The definition of the Technical Factor rating is below:

Acceptable: Proposal adequately meets the requirements of the solicitation

Unacceptable: Proposal does not adequately meet the requirements of the solicitation

M.2 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR EVALUATION CRITERIA

Offerors will be evaluated for the technical factor utilizing the following three subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Production Capability Subfactor 2 – Quality System Subfactor 3 – Program Management Plan

The U.S. Government will evaluate the technical proposal to determine if the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding and ability to comply with the requirements of this solicitation. The evaluation process will consider the adequacy of responses for each proposal to determine whether the Offeror has adequately and completely satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. The evaluation process will also consider the feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to successfully accomplish the solicitation and TDP requirements within the required schedule.

M.2.1 TECHNICAL FACTORS

M.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Production Capability:

a. The USG shall evaluate the Offeror's proposed manufacturing plan, operational flow chart, and description of individual operations to determine if the plan demonstrates an adequate approach and sufficient understanding of the solicitation and technical data package requirements.

This evaluation shall include the steps and operations required for manufacture. Proposed subcontracted work will be evaluated in the same level of detail as in-house-work.

b. The USG shall evaluate the adequacy of the submission’s narrative to demonstrate sufficient understanding of the critical parameters and potential problem areas for each operation. The evaluation shall include the Offeror’s ability to identify these parameters and the adequacy of how they will be controlled and proposed remedies. The USG shall evaluate if the narrative adequately and completely addresses remedies for any shortfalls of manufacturing equipment or skills coupled with contingency plans that address potential supply chain issues.

M.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Quality System:

a. The USG shall evaluate whether the Offeror’s General Quality Manual demonstrates that the Offeror’s quality program complies with the solicitation requirements as listed in FAR 52.264-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement.

b. The USG shall evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed plan to control and verify the requirements contained in this solicitation, to include the inspection equipment to be used, inspections to be performed and their frequency. The USG shall evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s plans and concepts for process control including inspection equipment, methods, inspection points and frequency for dimensional inspections.

c. The USG shall evaluate the Offeror’s plan to identify and prevent the occurrence of critical defects and how the Offeror can identify, notify, and recover from an occurrence of a critical defect during production to meet the TDP and solicitation requirements.

d. The USG shall evaluate how the Offeror will ensure the Quality Management System’s requirements are flowed down to subcontractors and how the Offeror shall verify subcontractor compliance to the contractual quality requirements.

M.2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management Plan:

a. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Program Plan to determine the adequacy and level of understanding of the programmatic requirements of the solicitation. The evaluation will include determining if sufficient level of detail is provided and if the schedule is realistic and achievable.

b. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of significant program risks to determine if it demonstrates an adequate approach and sufficient understanding of the requirements. The evaluation will include the appropriateness of the risk mitigation efforts as well as the inclusion of key events into the risk mitigation plan as well as communication strategies to ensure successful execution.

M.2.2 VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The U.S. Government will assess the degree of confidence it has that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the contract terms based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the U.S. Government may use information obtained from other sources or may use information with regard to other projects/contracts performed by the Offeror which it has knowledge, whether or not those projects/contracts are disclosed to the U.S. Government by the Offeror.

In evaluating performance history, the U.S. Government may review the Offerors current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement: quality of performance; products and services;

timeliness of performance; operations management; subcontractor management; problem resolution and, if applicable; cost control.

The U.S. Government will consider the recency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates as well as quality, general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. Contract references shall represent recent and relevant performance in support of the Department of Defense (Air Force, Army, Navy, Foreign Military Sales (FMS) etc.). A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may have an impact on the assessment and the overall rating.

The relevancy of the past performance information will be determined as follows:

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same, similar, or 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.

Offeror’s Past Performance will be rated as follows:

Acceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Absent of any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be determined to have unknown past performance and the Offeror’s proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, unknown shall be considered acceptable.

The U.S. Government is not required to interview all POCs identified by the Offeror. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L.

The U.S. Government is not obliged to make another request for the required

References provided on classified contracts cannot be verified and will not be evaluated. Recent contracts to foreign entities will only be verified when a U.S.

Government POC with phone and email is provided.

M.2.3 VOLUME III – PRICE FACTOR

The U.S. Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposals based on the TEP from the Price Matrix, and any other price related factors required by the solicitation. The TEP is the sum of the Total Weighted FOB Destination Price and Total Weighted FOB Origin Price.

a. The Evaluated FAT price is the sum of the proposed FAT price for each of the five ordering periods. The FAT price will be priced separately and will be added as applicable.

b. The Weighted Evaluated Price for each ordering period is calculated by multiplying the proposed unit prices for each quantity range by their respective weight and maximum quantity for each range, and then summing their totals. The weight associated with each range represents the likelihood that an order, if placed, would be placed within that range.

c. The Total Weighted Price for FOB Destination and FOB Origin will be calculated by summing the total weighted price with the calculated use of Government- Owned Property (if applicable). The Total Weighted Price and use of Government- Owned Property (if applicable) are then added together and multiplied by the weighting factor to calculate the Total Weighted FOB Destination Price.

d. The overall TEP is the sum of the total weighted price from the FOB

Destination and FOB Origin worksheets.

If an Offeror fails to propose unit prices for each CLIN for all quantity ranges and ordering periods, the U.S. Government may reject that offer as unacceptable.

Price Analysis shall be used to determine price reasonableness. The TEP will be evaluated utilizing the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the contracting officer. These methods of evaluation may include the use of information/input from sources such as (but not limited to) other Government agencies and personnel.

As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the U.S. Government.