Attachment3_2023-07-28_RFP Section M EFFA_Acoustics.docx

UNSCLASSIFIED

Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (EFFA)

FOR THE

AFLCMC/XA

Aeroacoustic Reproduction System Effort

Solicitation #FA8684-23-R-B023

28 July 2023

UNCLASSIFIED

Attachment 3 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

UNCLASSIFIED

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page i

UNSCLASSIFIED

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Basis for Contract Award Source Selection Methodology

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one CPFF contract; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented, and whose proposal meets 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 comply with the solicitation requirements may result in the Offeror being determined ineligible for award. Offerors that identify any exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions will be ineligible for award.

Rejection of Offers The Government may reject any proposal from this competition by determining it to be grossly deficient prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment shows the proposal fails to address requirements of the Request For Proposals (RFP), fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP, or does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

NOTE: The evaluation criteria include one Gate Criteria at Section M paragraph 3.1, Factor 1, Subfactor 1. The Government will reject a proposal without reviewing or performing an initial evaluation on the rest of the proposal if the Gate criterion is not met.

Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of proposals that contain any deficiencies. A 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 (See FAR 15.001). The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of a proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the Competitive Range.

Discussions The Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without 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 proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the proposal be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described in Table 1.

Table 1 – Factors and Subfactors

Relative Importance Subfactor 1 is a pass/fail gate used to determine whether an Offeror’s proposal will be further evaluated. Among Offerors who pass the Subfactor 1 Gate, the relative importance of each Factor is as follows: Subfactor 3 is the most important Subfactor, and is more important than either Subfactor 2 or Subfactor 4. Subfactor 2 is the second most important Subfactor, and is more important than Subfactor 4. Subfactor 4 is the least important Subfactor.”

IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price. However, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

Contractual Integration The awarded contract documents will reflect all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above-threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process (e.g., an earned strength associated with a purple or blue Technical rating, above-threshold elements proposed for valued requirements), regardless of source selection process utilized per DAFFARS MP5315.3, Paragraph 3.12.

Strengths A strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess strengths to a proposal that exceeds the requirements. Offerors may identify strengths in the Technical Volume of the proposal for Government consideration.

The Government reserves the right to award strengths that will be contractually binding upon contract award. To incorporate strengths, the Offeror shall make recommendations in the appropriate contractual document(s) to include Section J Attachments with change bars. The Government reserves the right to determine the final contract language to incorporate these strengths into the contract.

Factor 1: Technical Approach/Risk The Technical Evaluation provides for the assessment of technical approach and technical risk as one combined factor. Any Subfactor under Factor 1 evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the proposal unawardable.

Technical Approach/Risk Rating The evaluation of the technical factor provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Technical Ratings will be assessed at the subfactor level, using the Measures of Merit (MoM) set forth below. Subfactor 1 will receive one of the Technical Ratings described in Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable). Subfactors 2-4 will receive one of the technical ratings described in Table 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating (Color Rating), as shown below:

Table 2 – Technical Ratings (Acceptable/Unacceptable) (Subfactor 1 Gate Criteria)

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Blue

Yellow

The offeror’s proposal shall, at a minimum, address each of the subfactors, as they apply to the AFLCMC/XA Aeroacoustic Reproduction System (ARS) Effort Statement of Work (SOW).

The term Technical Risk is used in this section and is defined below:

Technical Risk, as it pertains to this RFP, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The government will utilize the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2B of the DoD Source Selection Procedures (available at https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf).

During the evaluation process the Government will consider technical risk when evaluating Subfactors 2, 3, and 4. In addition to the evaluation of the offeror’s proposal for the technical approach subfactors, the evaluation includes the offeror’s risk identification and mitigation for each subfactor.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Relevant Experience Gate Description: This subfactor constitutes the Gate Criteria. Its purpose is to determine whether or not the Offeror has relevant experience in aeroacoustics and/or acoustic sound systems to develop an aeroacoustic sound system and technical documentation that will be required in the performance of this contract.

Measures of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

a) A sound background in acoustic modeling, design (hardware and software), construction and/or integration, and testing and evaluation (T&E).

b) A sound background in developing applicable technical documentation.

c) A sound approach in applying relevant experience to strengthen technical posture to meet the requirements of the RFP as defined in the SOW.

NOTE: The Offeror must meet all parts of this subfactor to be considered eligible for contract award. If the Offeror fails to meet this subfactor, the Offeror will be considered ineligible for contract award and eliminated without further evaluation of its proposal.

Subfactor 2 – Personnel and Infrastructure Description: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to meet all requirements to provide the necessary personnel and infrastructure with the appropriate capacity required to execute the AFLCMC/XA ARS effort.

Measure of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

a) Evidence of software, facilities, and special equipment planned to model, develop, and test the ARS IAW the requirements of the SOW.

b) Evidence of the ability to operate at the necessary classification level (Lead PM/EN)

c) Evidence of unique qualifications and/or specialty skills applicable to acoustic modeling, hardware and software design, construction/integration, and testing and evaluation (T&E).

Subfactor 3 – System Design and Development Description: The government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to meet all requirements of the AFLCMC/XA ARS Effort as required by the SOW, Section 2 (including all subparagraphs).

Measures of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

a) A sound approach to utilize modeling, simulation and analysis (MS&A), research and development (R&D), and/or T&E to meet system requirements and mitigate performance risks.

b) A sound approach to balancing acoustic performance with expeditionary deployment considerations in order to minimize the transportation footprint and setup time.

c) A sound approach to demonstrate the system meets the necessary requirements, as well as specific recommendations for assessing the system performance in an operational environment.

Subfactor 4 - Program and Risk Management Description: The government will evaluate the offeror’s planned approach to manage and execute the system requirements of the AFLCMC/XA Aeroacoustic Reproduction System (ARS) Effort as required by the SOW, Section 2 and 3 (including all subparagraphs).

Measures of Merit: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal demonstrates:

a) A sound approach to meet Program Management requirements.

b) A sound approach to managing and mitigating potential technical risks.

Factor 2: Cost/Price Evaluation Factor Each offeror’s cost/price proposal shall be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) unbalanced pricing, (3) price reasonableness, and (4) cost realism. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for evaluation purposes will be the most probable cost plus fixed fee of CLINS 0001 through 0004. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offeror may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of option prices as part of the TEP will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Completeness The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the Section L - Instructions to Offerors (ITO).

Submission of an incomplete price proposal will cause the offeror’s proposal to be non-compliant with the terms and conditions of the RFP and may render the proposal ineligible for award.

Unbalanced Pricing The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offeror may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Price Reasonableness The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it shall 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 competition as described in FAR 15.404. For further information, see FAR 31.201-3.

Cost Realism For each offeror's proposed Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) 0001 through 0004 and 0007 the Government will perform a cost realism analysis IAW FAR 15.404-l (d). This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s proposal. For the cost elements to be realistic, they must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort if conducted with reasonable economy and efficiency. The Government will assess whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect clear understanding of the requirements, and are consistent with the technical elements of the offeror's proposal. Cost analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-l(c) to determine realism. Realism analysis will only be conducted on CLINs 0001 through 0004, and 0007 of the proposal and will be used in the evaluation to determine best value in accordance with FAR 15 .404-1(d)(2)(i).

The Government will develop a probable cost estimate as part of the cost realism analysis. The probable cost for CLINs 0001 through 0004, 0006 and 0007 will be developed by adjusting the offeror's proposed cost estimate, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the realism analysis. IAW Section L, if the offeror does not, in the Government's judgment, substantiate its cost proposal in part or as a whole, the Government may consider other data and the judgment of the members of the source selection evaluation team in determining the probable cost. The Government is not limited to accomplishing any probable cost adjustments at the lowest possible level of granularity; rather, the Government will accomplish any probable cost adjustments at the level it deems appropriate, given the nature of its cost realism analysis, the fidelity of relevant historical data, and subject matter expert opinion.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes and will be a consideration in the best value award decision.

The TEP will include prices from the following CLINs for the Base Award and subsequent Option CLINs.

· CLIN 0001: Phase 1 – Research and Analysis

· Option CLIN 0002: Phase 2 – Prototype Design, Development, and Characterization Testing

· Option CLIN 0003: Phase 3 – Full Scale Design, Development, and Operational Assessment

· Option CLIN 0004: Phase 4 – End-User Employment Exercise

· CLIN 0007: Travel