Attachment 3_Section M_Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION PROCESS

M1.0 General Information M1.1 Introduction.

This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the Offeror’s proposal for the Long Range Radome Replacement (AN/FPS-117) Program contract. The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the evaluation criteria set forth below. This is a competitive, best value, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215, DoD Source Selection Procedures, dated 20 August 2022, and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) 5315.

M1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded.

The Government intends to award one (1) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract for the Long Range Radome Replacement (AN/FPS-117) Program as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous 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 that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror.

If the Government determines a contract will not be awarded, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offeror(s).

M1.3 Evaluation Criteria for Evaluation Factors and Subfactors.

This acquisition will utilize the tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Volume I – Factor 1, Cost/Price Volume II – Factor 2, Technical Proposal

Subfactor 1: Radome Design and Materials Subfactor 2: Manufacturing and Production Subfactor 3: Installation, Teardown, and Removal Subfactor 4: Testing and Quality Assurance

Volume III – Factor 3, Small Business Participation Submission Volume IV – Factor 4, Administrative and Responsibility Material

Order of Importance: Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government after tradeoffs have been applied which are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The evaluation will be made on three non-price factors and one cost/price factor. The non-price factors include Technical, Small Business Participation, and Administrative and Responsibility Material. The technical factor has four subfactors, each of equal importance, which are: Radome Design and Materials, Manufacturing and Production, Installation, Teardown and Removal, and Testing and Quality Assurance. The technical factor and its four subfactors will be assigned a separate technical and technical risk rating. The other two non-price factors, Small Business Participation and Administrative and Responsibility Material, will be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable. Only proposals evaluated as acceptable under Small Business Participation and Administrative and Responsibility Material will be considered for award. In the best-value tradeoff analysis, the evaluation factors are significantly more important than cost/price.

However, price will contribute to the selection decision.

M1.4 Eligibility.

In order to be eligible for award, a proposal must comply in all material aspects with the requirements of the law, regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in this solicitation;

and the Offeror must be determined responsible according to the standards set forth in FAR Subpart 9.1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal being considered unacceptable.

M1.5 Discussions.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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 remains in the competitive range 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 or may affect the Offeror’s ratings.

M1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals.

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable within the Government’s time constraints or by conduct of meaningful discussion, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range, either as a result of initial evaluations, or after clarifications, communications, and/or meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable.

Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP), and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in the RFP.

M1.7 Cross-Reference Matrix.

The Cross-Reference Matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents Performance-Based Work Statement (PWS), Section L (Instructions, Conditions, and notices to Offerors), and Section M (Evaluation Factors for Award). The Cross-Reference Matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR VOLUMES/FACTORS

M2.1 Volume I – Factor 1, Cost/Price Proposal.

M2.1.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for:

1) Completeness

2) Reasonableness

3) Balance

4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

5) Cost or Pricing Information Requirements

M2.1.2 Completeness The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for compliance with Section L and all other portions of the RFP. The Offeror shall ensure they have provided all requested pricing information. The Pricing Matrix Worksheet must be submitted in a non-PDF, editable Microsoft Excel format.

M2.1.3 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). Generally, adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price.

M2.1.4 Balance Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items and/or labor categories are significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items or sub-line items and/or labor categories.

Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M2.1.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

M2.1.5.1 The Government will evaluate price using the TEP, calculated in accordance with Section L2.2. The TEP will be the sole basis for price evaluation and will be used to determine the Offeror’s ranking under the price factor.

M2.1.5.2 The Government will calculate the TEP as follows:

• Multiply the Offeror’s proposed unit price for each CLIN (0004-6004, 0005-6005, 0006- 6006, 0007, 5007, 0008, and 5008) by the Government's Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs) for that CLIN. CLIN 0008 and 5008, Over and Above (O&A), unit prices are normalized at $100,000.00 for all Offerors to establish a common baseline for comparing offers, however, Offerors are required to submit a proposed profit rate to be used on future O&A work.

• Sum the products calculated in the previous step to arrive at the TEP.

M2.1.5.3 The BEQs used for the TEP calculation are for evaluation purposes only and not binding on the Government. They do not represent the actual quantities the Government will order under any resultant order.

M2.1.5.4 The unit prices proposed in the Pricing Matrix Worksheet (Attachment 5) are binding and will be used to determine the cost of future orders. The cost of each order will be calculated by multiplying the awarded unit price by the actual quantities ordered at the time of order issuance.

M2.1.6.5 Unacceptable Technical Subfactors

If at any time during the evaluation the Government finds a technical subfactor to be unacceptable, the evaluation of pricing will reflect, "Not Determined" for Reasonableness and

Balance, due to the Offeror's price not reflecting an acceptable technical approach. The Government may also decline to consider the Offeror's TEP for purposes of competitive range or award if the Offeror has any unacceptable rating.

M2.1.7 Cost or Pricing Information Requirements M2.1.7.1 Accounting System The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has a Government acceptable accounting system. Failure to possess or obtain Government acceptability of the accounting system may result in disqualification from award. If the Offeror and/or subcontractors do not currently have a Government accepted accounting system, the Government may conduct a Pre-award Survey as part of this source selection, using the Pre-award Survey of Prospective Contractors, Attachment 6 of this solicitation. Results of the Pre-award Survey (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M2.1.8 Pricing Assumptions The Government will review the Offeror’s pricing assumptions, scope limitations and/or qualifications of the Volume I – Factor 1, Cost/Price Proposal for implications it may have on acceptability of the Offeror’s proposal.

M2.2 Volume II – Factor 2, Technical Proposal.

M2.2.1 The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal, and a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the evaluation of Factor 2 and its subfactors. Evaluation of proposals will focus on the Offeror’s ability and approach to understand and meet the Long Range Radome Replacement Program PWS requirements. If an Offeror’s proposal receives an Unacceptable rating for any technical subfactor, it will result in an Unacceptable rating for the overall technical proposal factor.

Offerors that simply restate the Government’s requirement will be rated Unacceptable.

M2.2.1.1 The Technical Rating includes consideration of proposal strengths and deficiencies, defined below:

Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Deficiency is 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.

M2.2.1.2 The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses, defined below:

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M2.2.1.3 Technical Rating The Technical Rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of an Offeror's proposal. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table M2.2.1.3

Technical Rating

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable.

M2.2.1.4 Technical Risk Rating Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses. Technical Subfactors will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color rating in Table M2.2.1.3) as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Table M2.2.1.4

Technical Risk Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

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

High

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

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

M2.2.2 Subfactor 1: Radome Design and Materials The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed radome design and materials under this sub-factor. The evaluation will consider the following aspects:

• M.2.2.2.1 The degree to which the proposed radome design meets the requirements specified in the Air Force specifications, including the extent of any testing necessary to complete development.

• M.2.2.2.2 The strength and relevance of the Offeror's proposed materials selection and procurement process, including the use of industry and military standards such as ASTM and MIL-STD.

• M2.2.2.3 The Offeror's ability to demonstrate a clear understanding of the technical requirements and challenges associated with radome design and materials, including requirements and challenges associated with radar and radome performance within an arctic environment.

M2.2.3 Subfactor 2: Manufacturing and Production The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed manufacturing and production approach under this sub-factor. The evaluation will consider the following aspects:

• M.2.2.3.1 The completeness and feasibility of the proposed manufacturing process, including the production lead-time and schedule management, quality control measures, supply chain strategy, adherence to industry and military standards, and inspection procedures.

• M.2.2.3.2 The strength and feasibility of the Offeror’s proposal in handling arctic hardening, survivability, and durability of the radome during transportation and long-term storage in an outdoor frigid environment.

M2.2.4 Subfactor 3: Installation, Teardown, and Removal The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed installation, teardown, and removal process under this sub-factor. The evaluation will consider the following aspects:

• M2.2.4.1 The completeness and feasibility of the proposed radome installation, tear down, and removal approach, including the use of specialized equipment, personnel, logistics, timeline and shipping.

• M2.2.4.2 The strength and relevance of the Offeror's proposed approach to identifying and mitigating installation, tear down, and removal issues, including radar protection, base ring deficiencies, and adverse weather conditions.

• M2.2.4.3 The strength and feasibility of the Offeror’s capacity for performing radome installation, teardown, and removal at multiple sites within a calendar year’s work period as allowed by seasonal weather constraints.

M2.2.5 Subfactor 4: Testing and Quality Assurance The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed testing and quality assurance process under this sub-factor. The evaluation will consider the following aspects:

• M2.2.5.1 The completeness and feasibility of the proposed testing and evaluation processes, including the extent of testing necessary to complete validation of the radome design against the FPS-117 radome specification.

• M2.2.5.2 The completeness and feasibility of the proposed quality assurance plan, including quality assurance processes affecting manufacturing, production, and installation.

M2.3 Volume III – Factor 3, Small Business Participation M2.3.1 Each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the Offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation Submission addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

M2.3.1.1 An adequate description is provided for the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist, including the company names with CAGE codes the Offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract.

M2.3.1.2 An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided.

M2.3.1.3 The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet, and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph M2.3.1.3 above in the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission will be evaluated against the FY24 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

The DoD FY24 goals are as follows:

Business Size Sub

Small Business 22.43%

Small Disadvantaged Business

(SDB)

11.55%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

3.00%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

5.00%

Service-Disabled Veteran- Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

5.00%

Veteran-Owned Small Business

(VOSB)

5.00%

M2.3.2 Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Program objectives. The Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

Table 2.3.2 Small Business Participation Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

M2.4 Volume IV - Factor 4, Administrative and Responsibility Material:

The Government will evaluate Volume IV for completeness and compliance with instructions.

This Volume shall be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Table 2.4 Administrative and Responsibility Material Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Acceptable

Proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of all administrative and responsibility requirements. All required documentation is complete, accurate, and compliant.

Unacceptable

Proposal fails to meet one or more essential administrative requirements or responsibilities.

Significant deficiencies or omissions are present in the documentation.

M2.4.2 Subcontracting Plan The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror completed and submitted a subcontracting plan and how well the plan identifies small businesses and the extent of the commitment to use them.

M2.4.3 Contract Forms and Certifications.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror completed all required signatures and contract clauses, and all representations, certifications, acknowledgments, and statements in SAM.gov, or submits the Section K representation, certification, acknowledgement or statement.

Offerors who fail to complete these requirements will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume IV.

M2.4.4 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements.

If applicable, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror listed all exceptions to solicitation requirements in the required format. Offerors who fail to complete this requirement or do not provide an acceptable exception will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume IV.

M2.4.5 Contractor Team Arrangement.

If utilizing a Contractor Team Arrangement, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it contains a copy of the approved arrangement, outlining the roles and responsibilities of both partners. Offerors who fail to complete this requirement will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume IV.

M2.4.6 Authorized Offeror Personnel.

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror provided an authorized person for this solicitation. The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror provided the required letter outlined in Section L5.1.6. Offerors who fail to complete this requirement will receive an unacceptable rating for the overall Volume IV.

M2.4.7 Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) The Offeror’s OCI analysis will be evaluated for completeness, ensuring it addresses all requirements of Section L, including the analysis of the Offeror, its teammates, and Subcontractors.

The Offeror's identification and classification of actual or potential OCIs will be evaluated based on their relevance to the acquisition.

If a significant potential OCI is identified, the necessity and feasibility of the proposed mitigation plan will be evaluated. The plan must directly address the specific OCI and be realistically achievable.

During evaluation of proposals, the Government may, after discussions with the Offeror and consideration of ways to mitigate or avoid identified significant conflicts of interest, insert a clause or term and condition in the resulting contract which disqualifies the Offeror from further consideration for award of future contracts

Exchanges necessary to resolve OCI issues shall not be considered discussions. As such, the Contracting Officer may issue Evaluation Notices to the Offeror prior to any decision to enter into discussions in order to resolve questions or concerns with the Offeror’s OCI analysis or mitigation plan.