Attachment 21 Section M.pdf

Attachment 21 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 01 April 2016. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for solutions exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, who is deemed technically capable in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by section M of this solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. General Instructions

2.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded -- The Government intends to select one contractor to provide the RATO motors and initiators. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government's best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred. The Government intends and reserves the right to award without discussions.

2.2. Major Proposal Revisions -- If a proposal receives an "Unacceptable" rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range.

2.3. Discussions -- If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. The government reserves the right to not hold discussions.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government will evaluate the factors and subfactors described below. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor One - Price: Completion of the RFP, Section B Schedule will represent the price proposal.

Factor Two - Technical Proposal: Proposal must be technically acceptable in accordance with Sections L and M of this Request for Proposals.

4. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

4.1. An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with this section, and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Next, a technical evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

4.2. If the lowest priced offeror is technically acceptable, meets the requirements in FAR 9 and meets all the other requirements of this solicitation, an award will be made to that offeror.

4.2.1. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

4.2.2. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror; or

4.2.3. Set a competitive range that may include all of the offerors up to and including the first acceptable offeror; or

4.2.4. Continue evaluating additional offerors.

4.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical acceptability.

4.4. Technical evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

5. FACTOR ONE – PRICE

5.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness, (3) balance, and (4) Total Evaluated Price.

5.2. Completeness -- The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with section M of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

5.3. Price Reasonableness -- The offeror's price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.4. Balance -- Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more-line items is significantly overstated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) To determine the lowest price, the TEP must be calculated for the RATO motor and initiator including first Article testing; then both TEPs will be added together to determine the combined TEP. The Government will utilize pre-determined notional quantities for the listed quantity bands for both NSNs on the Pricing Table attachment in Section J. Notional quantities will be chosen in each ordering period for the TEP calculation and SHALL NOT be disclosed to offerors. The notional quantities to be used for all contract evaluations will be determined before any proposals are opened for evaluation. The TEP will be determined by adding all the Total Prices from the notional quantities, including the total First Article Price using prices provided by each offeror from the Pricing Table attachment and ranking the offerors from the lowest to highest (see example below).

The following example will show how the combine TEP will be calculated for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision. In the example below, Offeror X's combine TEP is $40,560,840.00 and Offeror Y's combine TEP is $42,467,100.00. Offeror X is the lower price and would receive the award if the offer were determined to be technically acceptable. (All nominal quantities and unit prices are fictional.)

Step 1: Obtain TEP for RATO Motor CLINs for each ordering period

RATO Motor

CLIN Quantity Band

Chosen Notional Quantity

Unit Price Offeror X

Total Price Offeror X

Unit Price Offeror Y

Total Price Offeror Y

0002 51-100 65 $30,000.00 $1,950,000.00 $32,200.00 $2,093,000.00 1002 151-200 160 $36,000.00 $5,760,000.00 $35,800.00 $5,728,000.00 2002 251-300 270 $37,500.00 $10,125,000.00 $36,450.00 $9,841,500.00 3002 101-150 145 $38,750.00 $5,618,750.00 $43,000.00 $6,235,000.00 4002 351-400 390 $41,380.00 $16,138,200.00 $45,000.00 $17,550,000.00

TEP $39,591,950.00 $41,447,500.00

Step 2: Obtain TEP for Initiator CLINs for each ordering period

Initiator

CLIN Quantity Band

Chosen Nominal Quantity

Unit Price Offeror X

Total Price Offeror

Unit Price Offeror Y

Total Price Offeror Y

0003 51-100 70 $500.00 $35,000.00 $465.00 $32,550.00 1003 151-200 160 $650.00 $104,000.00 $625.00 $100,000.00 2003 251-300 270 $737.00 $198,990.00 $700.00 $189,000.00 3003 101-150 150 $550.00 $82,500.00 $560.00 $84,000.00 4003 351-400 370 $680.00 $251,600.00 $665.00 $246,050.00

TEP $672,090.00 $651,600.00

Step 3: Obtain TEP for Both the RATO Motor FA and the Initiator FA

Government Tested FA + Contractor Tested FA = Total RATO/Initiator FA Price

Total RATO FA Price + Total Initiator FA Price = Total Combined FA Price

First Article RATO Motor

Nomenclature Quantity FA Price Offeror X

Total FA Price Offeror X

FA Price Offeror Y

Total FA Price Offeror Y

RATO Motor 8 $36,000.00 $288,000.00 $45,000.00 $360,000.00 Initiator 8 $1,100.00 $8,800.00 $1,000.00 $8,000.00

TEP $296,800.00 $368,000.00

Step 4: Obtain the sum of the Total Combined FA price, RATO Motor TEP and Initiator

TEP

Combine TEP

Offeror Total First Article

RATO Motor

TEP

Initiator TEP Combine TEP

Offeror X $296,800.00 $39,591,950.00 $672,090.00 $40,560,840.00 Offeror Y $368,000.00 $41,447,500.00 $651,600.00 $42,467,100.00

6. FACTOR TWO - TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

6.1. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to the offeror's capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror.

The government maintains a list of qualified manufactures for the RATO motor and initiator program. During the solicitation period, potential offeror can contact the Contracting Officer to receive the specification data. Any manufacturer that completes qualification procedures set forth in the attached “Justification for Qualification Requirements” prior to contract award will be considered technically acceptable. In the event that all qualification steps are not completed prior to contract award, the award of the contract will not be delayed.

6.2. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each factor and/or subfactor.

Rating Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal Does Not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

6.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor, as a whole, will be rated "Unacceptable" if any single element or sub-factor is rated "Unacceptable”. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government may hold discussions if necessary.

7. Technical Factors

7.1 Subfactor 1 – Rocket Motor Description

The Offeror’s proposal provided a clear description and top-level drawing that met all requirements in Section 3 of the RATO Performance Specification (SP201308658 Rev D).

7.2. Subfactor 2 – Manufacturing

The Offeror’s proposal provided a plan which details the proposed processes, equipment, and facilities that will be used to manufacture the item at the required production rates. The plan included:

7.2.1. A detailed breakdown of the critical processes and process control methods required for fabrication, testing, and sampling.

7.2.2. Information on whether the process/part is manufactured in-house or procured from a sub-contractor/vendor.

7.2.3. Description of any automated equipment and its benefit in maintaining a high production rate.

7.2.4. Description of types and quantities of machines to be used.

7.2.5. Description of how the proposed processes will prevent the formation of critical defects.

7.2.6. Description of inventory management control of critical components to assure meeting the production rate.

7.2.7. A flow diagram of the proposed assembly line or lines. The information described met the requirements for production and was deemed a plausible and acceptable plan by the Government.

8. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

8.1. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being deemed ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

9. DISCUSSIONS

9.1. It is the Government's intent to award without discussions. 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, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

10. PRE-AWARD QUALITY SURVEY

10.1. In accordance with DFARS PGI 223.370-4(iv) the PCO will request DCMA to conduct a pre-award survey within the Pre-Award Survey System (PASS), to include a review of the contractor’s/subcontractor’s facility, and to obtain a pre-award ammunition and explosives safety survey as a part of this source selection. Additionally, the requirements of DFARS PGI 223.370- 4(iv) require that a pre-award survey be conducted before awarding any contracts involving ammunition and explosives, as defined in DFARS 252.223-7002 – Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives. This requirement extends to any subcontractors a prospective contractor intends to use; therefore, to facilitate any potential PASS, the offeror shall provide a list of all locations where the work is to be performed (to include all locations/contractors outside of the United States) and indicate whether such a facility is a division, affiliate, associate contractor, or subcontractor. Results of the PASS will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and shall be a condition of award.