B08 - Attachment 0019 - Section M.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government intends to make multiple awards as a result of the RFP. The Government will select for award the proposals that are most advantageous and represent the best value to the Government, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the five (5) evaluation Factors: Management, Technical, Price, Past Performance and Small Business Participation. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award(s) will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making this assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all of the Factors and Subfactors and their relative order of importance. For evaluation purposes, Management is more important than Technical. Technical is more important than Price. Price is significantly more important than Past Performance. Past Performance is significantly more important than Small Business Participation. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Price will be evaluated, but will not be rated with a color or adjectival rating. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for contract award.

Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

NOTE: ALL NON-PRICED FACTORS COMBINED ARE significantly more important THAN COST/PRICE.

B. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED.

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: The Management factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1: Program Management Plan

b. Subfactor 2: Supply Chain Management Plan

c. Subfactor 3: Delivery Order 0001

Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2. Subfactor 2 is more important than Subfactor 3.

A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: The Technical factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1: Technical Description

b. Subfactor 2: Configuration Management

Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2.

A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach”, Paragraph C of this section. During evaluations of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 3: Cost/Price: The resulting award(s) will be multiple Firm Fixed Price (FFP) IDIQ contract(s). Prices proposed in Section B of the solicitation will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price which will be used in the performance of a tradeoff analysis. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

Factor 3: Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine relevancy and confidence assessment.

Factor 4. Small Business Participation: The extent of Small Business Participation will be evaluated for unrestricted acquisitions.

C. EVALUATION APPROACH.

Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the RFP. A team of Government personnel will evaluate each proposal relative to the Factors and Subfactors. The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such Factors and their merit ratings in relationship to price. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional cost to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional cost for additional merit.

The Management Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Management subfactor requirements.

The color/adjectival ratings above include an assessment of management risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Management risk shall be evaluated with the aid of the following descriptions.

Risk Level Description

Low Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost 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.

1. The Management factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Program Management Plan for all ordering periods.

The Government will evaluate the following:

(a) The adequacy and comprehensiveness of the Offeror’s Management Plan to identify, inspect and prevent issues or processes that could result in loss of performance and/or test or inspection failures and non-conformances to general specifications.

(b) The extent to which the Offeror’s organizational structure can clearly define/display the roles and responsibilities of the key personnel and how the proposed team will be able to manage and execute complex supply and transportation plans; to include the level of direct access of the Offeror’s Program Manager to his/her higher-level management (i.e., senior staff, corporate senior officials) and/or the authority of the Program Manager to accomplish delegated tasks.

(c) The adequacy of the Offeror’s Quality Management System and whether or not it is certified to, compliant with, or exceeds the requirements of ISO 9001:2008.

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s planned initiatives to be used to minimize quality problems and approach to identify, improve and control internal and supplier processes.

(d) The adequacy of the evidence substantiating the Offeror’s experience and ability to effectively manage schedule, and performance of the Offeror’s subcontractors.

(e) The adequacy of the Offeor’s Risk Management Plan to identify potential program risk events, probabilities, and consequences associated with the SAWS program. The adequacy of the techniques and resources that will be employed throughout the life of the contract to mitigate the risks throughout the contract that could potentially impact program requirements and schedule.

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Supply Chain Management Plan for all ordering periods.

(a) The adequacy of the Offeror’s Supply Chain Management Plan to accomplish the following:

1. The Offeror’s Supply/Transportation Plan for its ability to procure/supply for each of the items on the Section B Attachment of the solicitation. . The Offeror’s Transportation Plan, for its level of understanding of the processes required and the ability to handle the movement and transportation of the requirements to the two locations identified, Miesau, Germany and Crane, Indiana.

i. The Offeror’s Transportation/Supply Plan for each supplier, for its completeness, comprehensiveness and executability to meet the requirements of the solicitation including item, quantity, supplier(s), source locations(s), manufacturer(s) and location(s) of manufacture (if different than supplier/ source location(s)), source of supply- new production and/ or surplus with ammunition’s range of years manufactured and service life.

ii. The adequacy of the Offeror to identify any required End Use Certificate (EUC) and supporting documents for each supplier/foreign country.

The capability of the offeror to provide supporting evidence which includes letters of commitment from each supplier/source and for any additional parties identified within the supply chain. The completeness of each letter of commitment from supplier/ source.

(2) The adequacy of the information provided for the Transportation Plan portion of the Supply Chain Management sub-factor for items identified below:

a) The adequacy of the detailed Transportation Plan for all items listed below for delivery to Miesau, Germany AND Crane, Indiana

0005 7.62x39mm Ball 2,500,000 EA 0024 12.7x108mm Ball 2,500,000 EA 0289 40mm HE Frag 10,000 EA 0110 73mm HEAT 15,000 EA 0115 122mm HE Frag Partial Charge 30,000 EA

The Miesau, Germany AND Crane, Indiana Transportation Plan will be evaluated for the completeness of information including at a minimum the following:

• Mode(s) of transportation from origin to final delivery point (to include inland transportation)

• Identification of port(s) to be utilized

• Identification of freight forwarder companies

• Rough Order Magnitude (ROM) price for transportation costs

b) The adequacy of the Transportation Plan’s milestones of each shipment, to include the milestones to obtain any local, state, or federal permits, approvals, and/or clearances required to handle the movement of the ammunition into customer country.

The terms of local and state permits, approvals, and clearances includes all foreign states and localities necessary for the movement.

Subfactor 3: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Delivery Order 0001.

(a) The adequacy of the Offerors’ Supply Plan for its ability to procure/supply the requirements of Delivery Order from delivery order award, to delivery location and delivery order close out.

(b) The adequacy of the Offeror’s Transportation Plan, for its level of understanding of the processes required and the ability to handle the movement and transportation of the requirements in Delivery Order 0001.

CLIN Item Quantity Destination

7.62x39mm Ball (AK-47) 30,000 Blue Grass Army Depot, KY

7.62x39mm Ball (AK-47) 2,500,000 Afghanistan

7.62x54mm R Ball (PKM) 126,000 Blue Grass Army Depot, KY

7.62x54mm R Ball (PKM) 2,500,000 Afghanistan

12.7x108mm Ball (DsHK) 10,000 Blue Grass Army Depot, KY

12.7x108mm Ball (DsHK) 2,500,000 Afghanistan

40mm HE Frag 10,000 Afghanistan

73mm HE HEAT 15,000 Afghanistan

122mm HE Frag Partial Charge 30,000 Afghanistan

122mm HE Frag Partial Charge 1,000 Blue Grass Army Depot, KY

(c) The adequacy of the Offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for Delivery

Order 0001 and supporting narratives to accomplish the following:

i. Describe a thorough analysis to indicate that the IMS is complete, supportable and achievable.

ii. Incorporate and ensure completeness of all the tasks and milestones identified in the Government Statement of Work (SOW) and general specifications are adequately addressed, including deliverables and applicable data items.

(d) The adequacy of the Offeror’s Program Management Plan for Delivery Order

0001 to accomplish the following:

i. The planned tasks, associated milestones, entrance/exit criteria, interrelationships, major subcontractor and suppliers’ schedules and their traceability to the SOW requirements over the critical path.

ii. Assurance that the Offeror’s suppliers receive and understand pertinent information and also how well the Offeror ensures implementation of this information and/or requirements in a timely manner.

The Technical Factor Ratings, excerpted below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The color/adjectival ratings above include an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Management risk shall be evaluated with the aid of the following descriptions.

Risk Level Description

Low Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost 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, increased cost 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, increased cost 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.

1. The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Technical Description.

The Government will evaluate the following:

(a) The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal on completeness of documented examples of technical data as defined in the Applicable Specifications

(listed in paragraph 2 below) for the following items:

1) CLIN 0259: 120mm Mortar Weapon System

2) CLIN 0216: 81mm Mortar Illum (Complete)

3) CLIN 0119: 122mm M-21 OF Rocket (GRAD)

4) CLIN 0299: 40mm HEAT (90mm Warhead Dia.)

(b) The Government will evaluate the comprehensiveness of the Technical Data

Package (TDP), depth of detail, and demonstrated compliance to technical, testing and inspection requirements and verification procedures as defined in the SAWS specifications listed below:

1) General Specification for Special Ammunition and Weapon Systems, dated 01 Jan 2019

2) General Specification for Small Caliber Ammunition, dated 01 Jan 2019

3) General Specification for Mortar Ammunition, dated 01 Jan 2019

4) General Specification for Rocket Propelled & Spin Stabilized Grenade Ammunition, dated 01 Jan 2019

5) General Specification for PdD-SAWS Mortar Weapon Systems, dated 01 Jan

Subfactor 2: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Configuration Management.

The Government will evaluate the following:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Configuration Management Process for its completeness and adequacy in the following areas:

a) The Offeror’s configuration management organizational structure that will be utilized for the technical management of the supplier’s technical data packages and how well the roles and responsibilities of the key technical personnel are identified; the capability of the technical personnel to manage and execute changes to subcontractors technical data packages

b) The extent to which the Offeror’s implemented configuration management procedures, processes, methods and resources adequately manage their internal and external processes and subcontractors and how the Offeror intends to maintain control of sub-contractors and suppliers technical data packages.

c) The Offeror’s configuration management analytical tools and processes that are utilized to initiate, assess, validate, verify and support all changes made to the technical data and to ensure that control of documentation within the configuration management process is present.

3. Cost/Price Factor.

a) The Government will evaluate offers based on the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) proposed for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). For each proposal, the

Government will calculate a TEP by multiplying the proposed firm-fixed unit prices of each CLIN by its respective maximum quantities for a Total Evaluated for each Ordering Period. Each of the five ordering periods will be summed to obtain the Total Evaluated for Ordering Periods One (1) through Five (5) (Total Evaluated OP1

– OP5) for all five ordering periods; all five ordering periods will be summed to obtain the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) used for evaluation. If an offeror fails to submit unit prices for all CLINs and all ordering periods, the Government may find its proposal incomplete or unacceptable and reserves the right to reject a proposal for award consideration.

b) In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis will be used to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the PCO. The Government reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data to determine the fair and reasonableness of an offeror’s proposal.

c) In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), as part of the evaluations, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between CLINs and/or ordering periods. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4. Past Performance Factor. The Offeror and its major/key subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance.

A single confidence rating will be established.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance and management of subcontractors. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal.

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 an “unknown confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 332993 or the NAICS code 332994, Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing. Originally the USG considered the NAICS code 332994, Small Arms, Ordnance, and Ordnance Accessories Manufacturing the most appropriate code; however, the NAICS code 332993, Ammunition (except Small Arms) Manufacturing (W52P1J-19-SAWS) was used as the quantity of items anticipated (not precise) to be ordered were more abundant on NAICS 332993.

Data used in conducting performance risk assessments shall not extend past three years prior to the issue date of the RFP, but may include performance data generated during the past three years without regard to the contract award date.

c. Offerors shall submit all Government and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years, from the issue date of this RFP, which are relevant to the efforts required by this RFP. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

(i) RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection.

Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(ii) QUALITY ASSESSMENT: Assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

(iii) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is for the team to arrive at a single consensus performance confidence assessment for the offeror, selecting the most appropriate rating from the chart below. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5. Small Business Participation Factor.Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses. The Government will consider both the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds.

The Government will consider two areas:

(a) Proposed Small Business Participation

(b) Commitment to Small Business

The Government has established the following goals for this procurement, based on total contract value (including options):

Small Business (SB) - 8%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) - 2%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) - 1%

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) - 0.50%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) - 1%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) - 1%

The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business Participation Plan Attachment ____ will be evaluated against the Government’s Goal for each socio-economic category. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation for each category to the Government’s goal. The proposed plan will also be evaluated on the extent of participation for multiple socio-economic categories. In addition, the proposed plan will be evaluated with regard to the percentage of total dollars going to Small Businesses.

Note: Small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through their own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written statement of its established procedures for timely payments to small business subcontractors in accordance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns for those recent contracts for which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

For Other than Small Businesses, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance with reporting requirements on Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) or Summary Subcontract Reports (SSRs) and achievement on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan as reported on each ISR or the goals stated in the associated commercial subcontracting plan and reported on each SSR, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan for those recent contracts under which it was required (contracts performed within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

Small Business Participation Rating

The USG will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above and assign an adjectival Small Business Participation Rating from the table below.

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

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

understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.