Attachment 05 Section M Risk Price 7 Nov 22.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1 (of 9)

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

07Nov22

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Tradeoff Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals, to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. Tradeoffs will be made only between Technical Risk and Price factors among those offerors who have been determined technically acceptable. A contract award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the requirements of the solicitation (to include all stated terms, conditions, provisions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L, Instruction to offerors) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines a technically acceptable proposal with superior technical risk of a higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference with lower priced offerors.

1.1.1. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 20 Aug 22, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the acquisition.gov site, https://www.acquisition.gov.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.3. Competitive Range Determination:

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, IAW FAR 15.306(c). As part of the competitive range determination, the Government will consider the correction potential of any proposal, including any aspect of the technical proposal evaluated as a deficiency, weakness, and/or significant weakness. The correction potential is based on the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirements.

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(d)(5). The competitive range determination can be based on Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Technical Risk, Factor 3

Price, or a combination of the three factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm https://www.acquisition.gov/

2 (of 9) issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency IAW FAR 15.306(c)(2).

If offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.4. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but 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, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions.

1.5. Reviews and Visits

Site visits are not planned.

1.6 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, Statement of Work (SOW), and System Requirements Document (SRD) requirements, other than those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

This paragraph is not applicable to anything under Factor 1: Technical or Factor 2: Technical Risk.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination of factors deemed most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: SRD Cross-Reference Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements Subfactor 3: SRD Non-Compliance (Performance Gap) Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation Subfactor 5: Delivery Requirements Subfactor 6: CDRL Data Rights

Factor 2: Technical Risk Factor

Factor 3: Price

3 (of 9)

2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors:

For this solicitation, technical acceptability is a prerequisite to the best value analysis and potential tradeoff between Technical Risk and Price factors. The order of importance is used to explain how the other factors will be traded on technically acceptable proposals.

Factor 2 Technical Risk and Factor 3 Price are approximately equal. A proposal must be found technically acceptable under Factor 1 Evaluation Criteria in order to be considered for best value tradeoff between Technical Risk and Price factors.

2.1.3. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings for all factors will be established for each offeror in determining the competitive range. For Factor 1 Technical, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning adjectival ratings of Acceptable, or Unacceptable. The proposals shall be evaluated against the subfactors listed in paragraph 2.2 below. For Factor 2 Technical Risk, proposal will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.3 below. Factor 3 Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.4 below. For the award decision, the SSA will assess the technical risk rating, along with supporting information, and price for all technically acceptable offers to make an integrated assessment of which offeror provides the overall best value.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency (IAW FAR 15.001) within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor.

Adjectival

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: SRD Cross-Reference

The Government will assess the offeror’s SRD Cross-Reference matrix (Section L, Appendix 1).

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the matrix is completely filled-in clearly indicating compliance and non-compliance for the proposed solution.

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: SRD Requirements

The Government will assess the offeror's proposed approach for the requirements listed below.

Offerors are required to present all information as stated in Section L, Instructions to offerors (ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s

4 (of 9) proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides documentation/convincing rationale on how their approach meets or will meet the requirements for all of the following.

a. Successful Flight Check – The approach must ensure the Offeror will provide a successful ICAO or FAA flight check per SRD QLT-2 upon first delivery. The approach may include documentation of a successful FAA flight check on a system in its proposed configuration or near-similar setup that is electronically the same (i.e., repackaged transmitter and/or antenna), listing the part numbers of the transmitter and antenna that is being claimed as near-similar.

b. Portability – The approach must ensure the requirements of SRD PER-1, KPP are met for a 2-person lift (with or without transport aide) during man-carry activities.

c. Set up Time – The approach must ensure the requirements of SRD PER-2 are met for a set up time of no more than 75 minutes for the proposed MP TACAN replacement system.

d. Transmitter Power Out – The approach and test documentation must ensure SRD QLT-5 requirement of no less than 75 nm at 0.5 degrees are met to include as a minimum a 50% power setting.

e. Remote Monitoring & Maintenance (RMM) – The approach must ensure the requirements of SRD RMM-2 for a Remote Control and Status Unit (RCSU) with reset capability (RMM-2b) are met.

f. Mean-Time-Between Failure (MTBF) – The approach shall provide adequate documentation down to the LRU level to successfully demonstrate the requirements of SRD QLT-17 for an MTBF of no less than 10,000 hours for the overall system and all major subsystems.

2.2.3. Subfactor 3: SRD Non-Compliance (Performance Gap)

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed approach for overcoming/meeting each performance gap identified in Subfactor 1 to fully meet the threshold requirements listed in the SRD to the fullest extent possible. It is not the intent to drive significant redesign. The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements and provides documentation or convincing rationale on how their approach will meet, or meet to the fullest extent possible, the requirements for each identified performance gap.

SRD elements QLT-2, PER-1, PER-2, QLT-5, RMM-2, and QLT-17 shall be fully discussed in subfactor 2 and will not be evaluated in subfactor 3.

2.2.4. Subfactor 4: Small Business Participation

The approach must be consistent with both FAR 52.219-9 and DFARS 252.219-7003 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (DoD Contracts) or DFARS 252.219-7004 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Test Program).

2.2.5. Subfactor 5: Delivery Requirements

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for meeting delivery requirements.

The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an acceptable approach with milestones to meet the threshold delivery schedule within SOW paragraph 6.4.2 and a

5 (of 9) production schedule IAW 6.4.3.

2.2.6. Subfactor 6: CDRL Data Rights

The Government will evaluate the Government requested data rights versus the offeror’s data assertions. The subfactor minimum is met by completion of the CDRL matrix (Section L, Appendix 2) with supporting documentation for any assertion less than the Government requested.

2.3. Factor 2 – Technical Risk:

Evaluation of Factor 2 Technical Risk assesses the degree to which the offeror’s technical approach under Factor 1 Technical may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk is manifested by the identification of weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses.

The technical risk evaluation does not consider the offeror’s proposed price.

The definitions of Weakness and Significant Weakness, and Deficiency IAW the FAR 15.001 and DoD Mandatory Source Selection Procedures.

The offeror was also instructed to provide a risk assessment for each identified non-compliances/performance gap. As part of the determination for weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies the Government will consider the number of non-compliances/performance gaps and/or the impacts the non-compliances/performance gaps have in relation to the SRD requirements. The Government will consider the gaps as a group in deciding a weakness, significant weakness, or deficiency.

The offeror’s risk assessment provided IAW Section L, ITO, paragraph 3.3 will be evaluated by the Government in addition to any Government assessed risk. The evaluation will consider risk mitigations proposed by the offeror, and whether the mitigation approach is manageable. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine if there is any risk, which was not identified by the offeror. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s proposed risk rating.

The Government will utilize the data, information, and approach in the Volume I Technical Proposal submitted by the offeror to perform the Technical Risk evaluation.

The Government will review and analyze the offeror’s approach and apply professional judgment in determining whether the approach includes weakness(es), significant weakness(es), and/or deficiencies in relation to Subfactors 2, 3, 5, and 6. The Government may utilize any data it has available to assist in formulating probability and consequence during each risk assessment. Technical Risk will not be evaluated on Technical Subfactors 1 and 4.

All the assessed risk will be combined into an overall rating. Each proposal will receive one of the overall risk ratings described below. To be eligible for award, an offeror must receive an overall Low or Moderate technical risk rating. Best value determination will be made by making tradeoff considerations for any, or all technical risk(s), identified in each offeror’s approach.

The source selection evaluation team will specifically consider the probabilities and consequences of the potential realization of the risk.

6 (of 9)

The overall technical risk ratings are defined as follows:

2.4. Factor 3 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness),

(2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award. Additionally, an offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing, to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all offerors, to include the prices in the Basic Period, and all Option Periods. The TEP will be calculated IAW the calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (Appendix 3). These calculations will include all evaluation periods: a five-year Basic, one two-year Option Period, and a six- month Option Period to extend services.

The Extension Period is in accordance with Clause 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services is included for Interim Contractor Support only. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

The offeror’s price proposal will be based on the prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix (Section L, Appendix 3).

2.4.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in

7 (of 9) order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404- 1(b)(2). The Government may also use other techniques as needed. To evaluate completeness, the Government will confirm all unit prices and rates in the Pricing Matrix (Section L, Appendix 3), have a dollar amount, or rate proposed as applicable. Offerors shall provide rationale if any proposed unit price or rate is entered as zero in the Pricing Matrix (Section L, Appendix 3).

2.4.2. Unbalanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. The Government will evaluate any supporting information provided by the offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced.

Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer (CO) if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a. There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced offeror; or

b. The offer is so grossly unbalanced; its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.4.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and must ensure the price does not pose an unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism.

To evaluate price realism, the Government intends to use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.4.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing.

2.4.5. Rounding

If any pricing proposal deviates from the format described in Section L, Instructions to offerors, paragraph 4.2.6, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

Note: The Pricing Matrix (Section L, Appendix 3) includes a rounding formula when calculating the extended totals to automatically round the proposed unit prices/rates to the correct format.

8 (of 9)

2.4.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Section L, pricing instructions. The TEP calculation methodology is detailed in the Pricing Matrix (Section L, Appendix 3). The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The six (6)-month extension period is not to be considered part of option one (1), the last option period, and will be a separate option exercise if it is utilized in support of ICS.

2.4.6. Estimating Techniques and Past Experience

The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was established.

The relevance and application of the offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract Business Analysis Repository as considered necessary.

2.4.7. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate Management Decision The Government will review the offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. The offeror’s explanation of how any reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at an unacceptable performance risk will also be reviewed.

2.4.8. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing.

Such information will be used to understand the offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate.

Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.9. Labor, Travel General & Administrative (G&A), and Material Handling The Government will review the Price Volume to ensure the offeror has indicated their understanding that proposed ceiling rates will apply to all out-years despite what current actuals are running at the time.

2.4.10. Service Contract Labor Standards (SCLS)

Although it is the offeror’s responsibility to comply with SCLS, understanding and acknowledgement of compliance with SCLS will be reviewed. Offerors must understand proposed rates and unit pricing shall be sufficient to be compliant with SCLS.

2.4.11. Probable Subcontractors

The Government will review the subcontractor information provided to include the subcontractor name, description of effort, contract type, and the methodology used to determine subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable.

9 (of 9)

2.4.12. Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review and confirm submission of the cognizant Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) offices responsible for administration of the offeror’s Government contracts.

2.4.13. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing. All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation may be reviewed and considered, if the Government determines the information will contribute to the evaluation of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.4.14. Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm the Pricing Matrix (Section L, Appendix 3) was completed and utilize it to evaluate offeror’s TEP.

2.4.15. Progress Payments and Performance Based Payments

The request for Progress Payments or Performance Based Payments (PBP) will not be evaluated criteria for this requirement. Proposal pricing and contract award will be based on customary progress payment financing if requested, but the Government may be willing to incorporate PBPs by modification to the contract with the successful offeror if PBPs are determined to be practical and in the best interest of the Government by the contracting officer, the contractor agrees to their use, and adequate consideration is received by the Government (FAR 32.005(b) and DFARS 232.1004(iii)).