B08 Attachment 0015 - CHS 6 Section M.docx

Solicitation: W15P7T-23-R-0001 Attachment 15, Section M 8 August 2022

COMMON HARDWARE SYSTEMS (CHS)

SECTION M

EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD

M.1. Basis for Contract Award

The Government will make a single award to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best overall value and be the most beneficial to the Government.

M.1.1 SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

M.1.1.1 All proposals will be subject to evaluation by the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), and evaluation will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) the Request for Proposal (RFP), including the evaluation criteria defined herein.

M.1.1.2 The award will be made based on the best value to the Government on the basis of the Trade-Off source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. Award will be made to the best overall (i.e., best value) proposal that is determined to be the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to Technical, Cost/Price, and Past Performance in the Trade-off. The Technical factor is approximately equal in importance to Cost/Price, and Technical and Cost/Price are each significantly more important than the Past Performance factor. When all non-cost factors are combined they are approximately equal to Cost/Price.

M.1.1.3 The Technical Factor is composed of four Sub-Factors; Sub-Factor 1 - Processes, Sub-Factor 2 - Logistics/Warranty Program, Sub-Factor 3 - Configuration Management (CM), Quality Assurance (QA), and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM), and Sub-Factor 4 - Program and Data Management. For the Technical sub-factors, Processes is more important than Program/Data Management. Program/Data Management is more important than Logistics/Warranty. Logistics /Warranty is equal to CM, QA & SCRM.

M1.1.4 Volume V -- Small Business Participation will be rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis. Additionally, any other than small business Offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a).

M.1.1.5 To receive consideration for award, the following minimum ratings must be achieved

· Volume II -- Technical; Marginal

· Volume III -- Cost/Price; Must be determined Fair and Reasonable

· Volume V -- Small Business Participation; Acceptable Offerors are cautioned that award may not be made to the highest technically rated or the lowest price proposal. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Cost/Price factor in the event that the Technical and Past Performance evaluation results of all of the offerors’ proposals are substantially the same M.2. Evaluation Scheme

M2.1 VOLUME I – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

M.2.1.1 The Executive Summary is for information purposes only and will not be evaluated.

M2.2 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL

M.2.2.1 Each of the four sub-factors within Volume II – Technical (Sub-Factor 1 - Processes, Sub-Factor 2 - Logistics / Warranty Program, Sub-Factor 3 - CM, QA, and SCRM, and Sub-Factor 4 - Program and Data Management) will be evaluated for adequacy of response, feasibility of approach, and understanding of requirements as follows:

M.2.2.1.1 Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the Offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP and PWS. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal IAW Section L of the RFP.

M.2.2.1.2 Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven procedures and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

M.2.2.1.3 Understanding of Requirements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding of all technical features involved in solving the problems and meeting the requirements, and the extent to which uncertainties are identified and solutions are proposed.

M.2.2.2 Strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies will be assigned during evaluation as applicable. The following definitions will be used:

M.2.2.2.1 Strength: is the 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.

M.2.2.2.2 Weakness: means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.2.2.2.3 Significant Weakness: means a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.2.2.2.4 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.

M.2.2.3 Based on the Government’s evaluations of each sub-Factor of Volume I – Technical using the above definitions, the Government will use the Table 1A – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method and Table 1B – Risk Descriptions below, to apply one color/adjectival rating for each of the four Technical sub-Factors. The Government will then roll-up the four technical sub-factor color/adjectival ratings to determine one overall color/adjectival rating for Volume I – Technical. A minimum overall rating of “Marginal” must be achieved to be considered for award.

Table 1A – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Table 1B – Risk Descriptions

M.2.2.4 The following information elaborates on how the four Technical sub-factors will be evaluated, in addition to the above evaluation techniques:

M.2.2.4.1 Technical Sub-factor 1 -- Processes

M.2.2.4.1.i Processes Element 1 -- Technology Insertion (TI) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s TI proposal to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.1.i of the RFP and PWS 3.3, with an emphasis on how the proposed approach, processes and OEM/Vendor relationships are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.2.4.1.ii Processes Element 2 -- Delivery Order (DO) The Government will evaluate the contractor’s DO proposal (including the information the Offeror provides in Attachment 0012) to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.1.ii of the RFP and PWS 3.4, which an emphasis on how the proposed approach and processes are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.2.4.1.iii Processes Element 3 -- Task Order (TO) (Other than Design & Engineering Services) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s TO proposal to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.1.iii of the RFP, PWS 3.6, and PWS 3.8.2 with an emphasis on how the proposed approach and processes are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.2.4.1.iv Processes Element 4 -- Design and Engineering (D&E) Services The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s D&E Services proposal to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.1.iv of the RFP and PWS 3.6(a), 3.8.2.5, 3.10, 3.11 and 3.12 with an emphasis on how the proposed approach and processes are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.2.4.2 Technical Sub-factor 2 -- Logistics/Warranty Program

M.2.2.4.2.i Logistics/ Warranty Program Element 1: Warranty and Repair Support The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Warranty and Repair Support proposal to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.2.i of the RFP and PWS 3.18, with an emphasis on how the proposal is comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefits the Government.

M.2.2.4.3 Technical Sub-factor 3 -- Configuration Management (CM), Quality Assurance (QA) and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM)

M.2.2.4.3.i CM, QA, and SCRM Element 1 -- Configuration Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s CM proposal to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.3.i of the RFP, PWS 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17 and CDRL A004 (Configuration Management Plan DI-SESS-80858D) with an emphasis on how the proposed approach and processes are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.2.4.3.ii CM, QA, and SCRM Element 2 -- Quality Assurance:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s QA proposal to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.3.ii of the RFP, PWS 4.9, all sub-paragraphs of 4.9 and CDRL A006 (Quality Assurance Program Plan, DI-QCIC-81794A) with an emphasis on how the proposed approach and processes are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.2.4.3.iii CM, QA, and SCRM Element Sub-Factor 3 -- Supply Chain Risk Management:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s SCRM Plan to determine the extent to which the proposal meets the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.3.iii of the RFP, PWS 1.10 and CDRL A008 (Supply Chain Risk Management Plan DI-MGMT-82256) with an emphasis on how effectively the proposed SCRM Plan identifies and mitigates supply chain risks to the Government and how the Plan is comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefits the Government.

M.2.2.4.4 Technical Sub-Factor 4 – Program and Data Management

M.2.2.4.4.i Program and Data Management Element 1 -- Program Management:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Program Management and overall management strategy to determine the extent to which they meet the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.4.i of the RFP and PWS paragraphs 4.1, 4.2, 4.5, and 4.6, with an emphasis on how the proposed approach and processes are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.2.4.4.ii Program and Data Management Element 2 -- IDE & Integrated, Web-based system:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Integrated Data Environment (IDE) and a web-based system to determine the extent to which they meets all of the requirements set forth in Section L.2.2.3.4.ii of the RFP, PWS 4.7 through 4.7.4, and attachment 0003, Appendix B (Data Item Tables) with an emphasis on how the proposed approach and processes are comprehensive, efficient, effective, cost effective, and benefit the Government.

M.2.3 VOLUME III – COST/PRICE

M.2.3.1 The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for completeness and fair and reasonableness, and the Offeror’s cost will be evaluated for realism, as defined below. The Offeror’s Firm Fixed Prices will NOT be evaluated for realism.

M.2.3.1.1 Completeness: The Government will evaluate each cost/price proposal for completeness by determining the adequacy and traceability of cost/pricing data provided for all proposal requirements.

M.2.3.1.2 Reasonableness: The Government will evaluate how well each Offeror’s proposal supports elements of cost, work hours, loading factors and rates over the life of the proposed contract. Proposed rates and factors may also be verified with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) via rate checks or formal audits, as appropriate.

M.2.3.1.3 Realism: In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), the Government will perform a cost realism analysis by independently reviewing and estimating the specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated costs are realistic for the work to be performed, reflect a clear understanding of proposal requirements, and are consistent with the methods of performance described in the Offeror’s technical proposals.

M.2.3.2 Total Evaluated Contract Price: The total evaluated contract price that will be used in the tradeoff and subsequent award determination will be the total evaluated fixed price identified on the “Total Evaluated Price” Tab in the Offeror’s Attachment 0008 (including Warranties, Bonded Storage, Evaluation for Repair, and the Offeror-proposed Material Items), plus the total evaluated cost identified on the in the Offeror’s Attachment 0008 , subject to a most probable adjustment by the Government IAW 15.404-1. See “Total Evaluated Price” tab on Attachment 0008.

M.2.3.3 Total Evaluated Cost: The Total Evaluated Cost will be the “Total CPFF” on the “Proposed CPFF” Tab, subject to a most probable cost adjustment IAW FAR 15.404-1.

M.2.3.3.1 Cost Realism: As stated above, the Government will evaluate the “Proposed CPFF” tab IAW FAR 15.404-1 to ensure that all proposed costs are realistic. Accordingly, the analytical techniques and procedures prescribed in FAR 15.404-1 for evaluating Offeror’s proposal may be used singly or in combination with others to ensure that the costs are realistic. The Government probable cost may be determined by adjusting (for purposes of evaluation only) each Offeror’s proposed cost and/or Fee, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the Government’s cost realism analysis. If an Offeror’s proposed cost does not equal the Government’s probable cost due to adjustments made as a result of the cost realism analysis, then the Government’s probable cost will be used as the amount for determining the Total Evaluated Contract Price for the tradeoff analysis.

M.2.3.3.2 The Government may use external sources of information in performing its cost evaluation to include, but not limited to, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor, Department of State, DCAA, or Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA). This DOES NOT remove the requirement for the Offeror to submit supporting documentation for its rates proposed.

M.2.3.4 Total Evaluated Firm Fixed Price: There are two different sets of material costs that will be used to calculate the total evaluated fixed price. One set of material costs (the materials on the “Evaluation Factors” Tab of Attachment 0008) was provided by the Government as plug numbers, and the Government will use them to calculate the evaluated uplift and warranty prices based on the percentages that the Offeror proposed on the “Proposed Percentages” Tab. The second set of material costs (the 14 materials on the “Proposed Material Prices” Tab) is material costs that the Offeror will propose IAW the specifications set forth in Attachment 0009, will be evaluated as part of the Total Evaluated Fixed Price, and will be the material prices placed on contract at award. The Total Evaluated Firm Fixed Price will include the evaluation of uplift, OEM pass-through, 3 year warranty, 5 year warranty, 8 year warranty, bonded storage, evaluation for repair, and the 14 initial items as shown on the “Total Evaluated Price” tab in Attachment 0008.

M.2.3.4.1 The Government will only evaluate pricing for the base years of the contract (years one (1) through four (4)) for the 14 materials on the “Proposed Material Prices” Tab of Attachment 0008.

M.2.3.4.2 The Government will evaluate the proposal for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.2.3.4.3 The proposed percentages for Uplifts, OEM Pass Through, 3 Year Warranty, 5 Year Warranty, and 8 Year Warranty will become the ceiling for each product category and ranges.

M.2.4 VOLUME IV – PAST PERFORMANCE

M.2.4.1 The Past Performance Evaluation Team (PPET) will conduct a structured past performance evaluation that examines each Offeror’s demonstrated record of recent and relevant past performance to provide an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The three aspects of the past performance evaluation are: recency, relevancy and quality. In this Volume, “Offeror” refers to the proposed prime contractor and proposed Major subcontractors together. Each example of past performance provided (whether by the prime contractor or Major Subcontractor) will be evaluated individually for recency and relevancy. The results will then be combined to establish the Offeror’s (prime contractor and major subcontractors combined) Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

M.2.4.1.1 Recency: Recency is a measure of the time that elapsed since a provided past performance reference occurred. For purposes of this RFP, contracts (prime contracts, TO/DO, and/or subcontracts) performed, in whole or in part, during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this RFP will be considered recent. The contract need not be completed to be considered recent.

M.2.4.1.2 Relevancy: Relevancy is defined by aspects of the Offeror’s history of contract (prime contract, TO/DO, or subcontracts) performance that provide context and give the ability for evaluators to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the requirements set forth in the RFP and PWS. For this acquisition, factors in addition to recency that will be considered to determine relevancy include:

M.2.4.1.2.i Complexity of support: Complexity of support refers to past performance that includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: processing multiple delivery orders (up to 10 per week) at the same time to different locations; processing multiple repair actions worldwide; and executing actions similar to BPO, TI, DO, TO, and Design and Engineering Services and lines of equipment for V1, V1+, V2, V3, and OTC type items at the same time; and

M.2.4.1.2.ii Dollar value; and

M.2.4.1.2.iii Similarity of support: Similarity of support refers to past performance that includes, but is not limited to, any of the following: Meeting schedules for delivering Commercial IT or Modified Commercial IT; Ruggedizing commercial equipment; End-of-Life Management; Basic Purchase Orders; Technology Insertion; Design and Engineering Services; Warranty Management (world-wide repair and return); Turnaround times on repairs; Providing an Integrated Data Environment; Performing Environmental Testing; and Supporting Contingency Operations.

M.2.4.2 First, the Government will evaluate the recency of each proposed past performance example. Second, the Government will evaluate the relevancy of each of the recent proposed past performance examples, and assign each example a relevancy rating IAW Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings. Past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

M.2.4.3 Third, the Government will evaluate the quality of the Offeror’s (prime contractor and Major subcontractors combined) overall past performance based on the performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information. There is no separate quality assessment rating. Rather, the Government will assign the Offeror a past performance confidence assessment rating, IAW Table 3 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment, based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

Table 3 – Past Performance Confidence Assessment

M.2.4.4 The Government reserves the right, but is not required, to consider information other than the references provided by the Offerors to evaluate Past Performance. Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) may be used to assess the contractor’s past performance and ability to perform successfully in recent and relevant work on contracts similar in size, scope and complexity to the work described in the PWS. Other potential sources of performance data are the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), questionnaires tailored to the requirements of the acquisition, DCMA records, and agency historical experience with the Offeror including any of its subcontractors, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials, or other sources. The Government may consider data from previous source selections or contractor capability assessments if it is recent and relevant.

M2.5 VOLUME V – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

M.2.5.1 In accordance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i), the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s (both small businesses and other than small businesses) proposed Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) meets the below small business objectives and includes documentation to support how the Offeror will meet their proposed Small Business participation commitment. The Offeror’s Small Business Participation will be rated using Table 4 below. A rating of “Acceptable” must be achieved to be considered for award.

M.2.5.2 The Government will evaluate the following:

M.2.5.2.1 Whether or not, in accordance with, FAR Part 19, Small Business Concerns (SBC) are specifically identified by name in each category in the Offeror’s SBPCD proposal and the Offeror’s commitment to SBCs.

M.2.5.2.2 The type, variety, and complexity of work SBCs are proposed to perform IAW the work supporting PWS Section 3 and Section 4.

M.2.5.2.3 Whether or not the Offeror demonstrates a substantive commitment to SBCs, such as letters of commitment, Joint Ventures, mentor/protégé agreements, or other demonstrations of commitment. Binding commitments will become enforceable/contractual requirements.

M.2.5.2.4 Whether or not the Offeror’s proposed SBC participation meets the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) (small business objective) of 15% of the work based on the total contract ceiling value of $7.9B. Failure to meet the MQR shall result in the Offeror being unacceptable for this factor and therefore ineligible for award.

M.2.5.2.4.i The Government will also evaluate the Offeror’s detailed explanations/documentation supporting their proposed quantitative participation.

M.2.5.2.5 Whether or not the Offeror complied with and provided past performance information to demonstrate the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

M.2.5.2.6 The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when it is required. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required (FAR 52.219-9) for Other Than Small Businesses (OTSB) offerors ONLY (i.e., Large Businesses). OTSB Firms must submit acceptable subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award. Any Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted shall be relevant to the SBPCD and Volume V -- Small Business Participation.

M.2.5.2.6.i NOTE: Subcontracting plans will only be reviewed for acceptability for the Offeror deemed to be apparent awardee.

M.2.5.2.7 Small Business Participation Rating Definitions are listed in Table 4 below.

Table 4 – Small Business Rating Definitions

M2.6 VOLUME VI – SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD DOCUMENTS, AND CERTIFICATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS

M.2.6.1 The Government will evaluate Volume VI for compliance with the instructions set forth in Section L of the RFP. Failure to follow instructions may result in the Offeror being found not eligible for award and removed from the competition.

M.2.6.2 The Contracting Officer will review the OCI statements and any mitigation plans submitted. The Contracting Officer will determine if resolution is necessary and promptly respond to resolve any potential conflicts, which may include notifying an Offeror of their exclusion from the competition. If an Offeror fails to submit either a disclosure of potential OCI situations or an affirmative statement that the Offeror is not aware of any OCI, the Offeror may not be considered for award.

UNCLASSIFIED//CUI//SP-PROCURE