Attachment 0011 - Section M Evaluation Factors dated 4 April 2024.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 Government will make award on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors.

The Government will evaluate the proposals submitted in accordance with this section, and will make a determination considering the following factors:

Technical Ability, Past Performance and Price.

The Government will evaluate the Technical Ability factor on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. If an offeror fails to achieve an “Acceptable” rating for any of the three Technical Ability subfactors, it will receive an “Unacceptable” for the Technical Ability factor overall and will not be further considered for award.

b. As part of the lowest evaluated price determination, the Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor will be rated on an “Acceptable”/”Unacceptable” basis.

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’ and the Offeror’s proposal will not be evaluated further. Furthermore, if an Offeror fails to achieve an “Acceptable” rating for the Past Performance Factor, the Offeror will not be further considered.

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 Guarantee Quantity (MGQ) is 29,300 each for the Propellant Retainer Assembly. 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

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.

Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be awarded to Offerors that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. 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 is the most important factor; the Past Performance factor is slightly less important than the technical factor. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined are significantly more important than price. Although Price is not the most important factor, it could become a controlling factor if proposals under the non-price factors are determined to be relatively equal.

The Technical Factor is comprised of three subfactors: 1) Production Capability,

2) Quality System, 3) Program Management System. Within the Technical factor, the Production Capability subfactor is the most important subfactor; the Quality System subfactor is slightly less important than the Production Capability subfactor; the Program Management System subfactor is significantly less important than the other subfactors.

An Offeror who receives an “Unacceptable” rating in technical factor will not be considered for award.

M.2 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR

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. Evaluation will be conducted at the subfactor level with an overall technical factor rating assigned based on the individual subfactor ratings and findings. The overall technical factor rating will take into consideration the technical subfactors’ order of importance and each subfactor’s evaluation. If any Technical subfactor is assigned an “Unacceptable” rating, the overall Technical factor rating will be “Unacceptable”.

M.2.1 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR

M.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Production Capability:

a. The U.S. Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed manufacturing plan (MP) describing the method by which the Offeror intends to produce, inspect, package, and deliver the M82 propellant retainer assembly. This should include information as to whether the Offeror will manufacture the end item and materials/components in-house, or a subcontractor will supply them in accordance with the Technical Data Package (TDP) and solicitation requirements. The manufacturing plan shall provide an operational flow chart, process map, and a description of each operation and procedure that details how the components and assemblies will be produced. The U.S. Government will evaluate the supplied cycle times, expected downtime, changeover times, and net rates for each operation. The U.S. Government will evaluate expected scrap rates that will be incurred in producing the components. Process prints may also be submitted if they assist in clarifying the proposed manufacturing processes in meeting TDP requirements. All subcontracted work (if any) shall be discussed in the same level of detail as the in-house production. The offeror should provide example from previous programs on how they managed their production capabilities, include but not limited to managing subcontractors, supply chain, processes, risk, and meeting program schedule.

b. The U.S. Government will evaluate the adequacy of the key process parameters and any potential problem areas or risks of the manufacturing process operations shown in the proposal as well as any other adverse manufacturing events, resource shortages, raw material shortage, managing supply chain, and unscheduled process interruptions. The Offeror shall also describe, in detail, how it proposes to mitigate these risks and prepare for contingencies. All sub-contracted work (if any) shall be discussed in the same detail as in-house production.

c. The U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the contractor process map of their proposed assembly line, including but not limited to test, inspection, and build for all major assemblies, subassemblies, and parts to meet TDP requirements. The Offeror shall evaluate details of the locations of the engineering, manufacturing, and test facilities (either at the Offeror’s location or a potential subcontractor location), describe the facilities for storage and vendor material, including storage capacity, and environmental controls. The Offeror shall indicate which facilities and equipment are not currently owned or leased by the Offeror and indicate plans for obtaining the facilities and equipment.

M.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Quality System:

a. The U.S Government will 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 U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s Quality Management System to include Objective evidence, such as independent certifications, that the Offeror’s quality program meets the requirements of ISO 9001:2015. In the event the Offeror proposes the use of a quality system other than that specified by ISO 9001:2015, the Offeror should describe the degree to which the proposed system is equivalent to and in compliance with ISO 9001:2015. If the Offeror is not currently compliant with ISO 9001:2015 requirements, the Offeror shall describe their plan to become compliant, including a schedule with milestones compared to the major milestones of the contract.

c. The U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the processes for prevention and control of key parameter to meet the requirements (including but not limited to performance and reliability) of the solicitation.

d. The U. S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the methods and processes the offeror will use to ensure control of the propellant retainer assembly (13-19-

153) critical characteristic (Spec EA-G-1723 rev C, pg. 24, Para. 4.3.5(n), "Electric match no fire”).

e. The U. S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the methods and processes the offeror will use to ensure the electric match assembly meets the requirement of section (Spec EA-G- 1723 rev C pg. 41 section 4.4.5 “Crimp strength of electric match assembly”)

f. The U. S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the methods and processes the offeror will use to ensure the propellant assembly meets the leakage requirement of section (Spec EA-G- 1723 rev C pg. 42 section 4.4.11 “Leakage”)

g. The U. S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the processes for detection, segregation, and handling of non-conforming material.

h. The U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the process by which the Quality System’s requirements will be flowed down to subcontractors and how the Offeror shall verify subcontractor compliance to the contractual quality requirements.

i. The U. S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the plan proposed to control and verify the requirements contained in this solicitation include but not limited to fully identify the inspection to be performance and their frequency, a complete description of all relevant inspection equipment including expected cycle time and downtime for each operation for major inspection equipment, identify plans and concepts for process control including inspection equipment, methods, inspection points and frequency for dimensional inspections.

j. The U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy of the plan that details how to identify and present the occurrence of critical defect and how the Offeror can identify, notify and recover from an occurrence of a critical defect during production.

M.2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management Plan:

a. The U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy and level of understanding of Program Management Plan that clearly illustrates the tasks, durations, dependencies, and sequencing of all actions and or events the Offeror will have to undertake to comply with contract requirements. The plan should begin at contract award and continue through the final scheduled deliveries of the base and option quantities.

b. The U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy of all significant program risks and include appropriate risk mitigation efforts / contingency plans and describe how key events, such as First Article Testing, fit into this risk mitigation plan 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.

c. The U.S Government will evaluate the adequacy of all system management, business processes, and plans to control technical, cost, and schedule risk. The Offeror shall detail describes of each appropriate system and whether it is already in use or is a proposed new system and its availability. The plan should describe the required levels of engineering, hardware and resources, including risk management to ensure a production run that meets all solicitation requirements.

M.2.2 VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE

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

The U.S. Government may consider the currency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates, as well as general trends in delivery and quality performance.

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 result in a lower past performance confidence assessment rating.

If absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned a Neutral Confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past 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 contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the U.S. Government by the Offeror.

Adverse performance shall be identified on every recent and relevant contract awarded to the Offeror and subcontractors that encountered any performance problems. If there are no contracts with performance problems, the Offeror must state as such. Failure to include this information or a statement may be a cause for rejection of an Offeror’s proposal as incomplete.

M.2.2.1 Recent contracts are defined as prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, and subcontracts where deliverables or services were provided, or are still being provided, anytime within five years of issuance of this solicitation. The U.S. Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance information after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.2.2.2 RELEVANCY RATINGS

Relevant means performance that demonstrates the Offeror has successfully performed on contracts involving the same or similar processes and quality assurance needed to produce and deliver Propellant Retainer Assemblies in accordance with the TDP and solicitation requirements.

The degree to which the contracts are comparable with regard to the complexity of the production processes, size of the production quantities, and total dollar value (more than $1M) to the solicited effort may also be considered in determining relevance.

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

Table 2 - 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.

M.2.2.3 CONFIDENCE PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance will be rated as follows:

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition

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.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

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.

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

NOTE: The U.S. Government advises Offerors that while an Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral Confidence past performance, that Neutral Confidence rating may be considered during a trade-off analysis with other Offerors who have a performance rating other than Neutral Confidence.

The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror. Offerors are advised that while the U.S. Government may use independent data to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance the U.S. Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems. The U.S. Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information.

**Additional outside sources available to the U.S. Government, other than the Offeror’s proposal, may be utilized to evaluate past performance. Outside sources include, but are not limited to, data from CPARS, or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

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 Evaluated CLIN Prices, FAT, and any other price related factors required by the solicitation.

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.

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.

The Technical team will review Attachment 0002 EPA worksheet for acceptability in regard to the EPA clause.

The Government anticipates receiving adequate price competition under this solicitation; therefore, cost or pricing data is not required to be submitted with the proposal. However, in the event the PCO determines that adequate competition does not exist, the Government reserves the right to require certified cost or pricing data to be submitted, which will be required within ten (10) days of request. Additionally, the

Government reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data in the event such data is necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price.

The PCO reserves the right to make no award as a result of the solicitation if, upon evaluation, the proposed price cannot be determined fair and reasonable.