DRAFT Section M - LIS 2024.08.21.pdf

Solicitation/Request for Proposal (RFP) M67004-XXXXXX

ATTACHMENT X - SECTION M PROPOSAL EVALUATION CRITERIA

M-1 EVALUATION CRITERIA

THE AGENCY WILL EVALUATE PROPOSALS USING EVALUATION WORKSHEETS.

THE AGENCY MAY AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS. OFFERORS ARE REQUIRED

TO MEET ALL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS AND TO PROVIDE ALL

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY SECTION L OF THIS SOLICITATION. FAILURE TO

COMPLY WITH ALL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS WILL RENDER YOUR

PROPOSAL INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD.

M-2 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

The Government intends to award a single contract to an Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based on consideration of the evaluation factors outlined in this solicitation. The best value to the Government is that proposal that meets the requirements of this solicitation and that is determined to be the most advantageous to the Government, considering all of the evaluation factors. In selecting an awardee, the Government may be willing to pay a premium for a technically superior solution. The Government may cease evaluation of any proposals that it determines are nonresponsive, unacceptable, or otherwise ineligible for award.

In making its best value determination, the Government will consider the relative importance of the factors.

M-3 EVALUATION CRITERIA

Objectives, Proposal Requirements and Evaluation Factors.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate Offerors:

Factor 1. TECHNICAL Factor 2. PAST PERFORMANCE Factor 3. SMALL BUSINESS Factor 4. PRICE

Factor 3 will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Factors 1, 2, and 4 will use a Trade-off Approach.

Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2.

Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Factor 1.

TECHNICAL: In evaluating the technical factors and sections as described above, the Government will fully evaluate and document strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies for each proposal using the 2022 DoD Source Selection Guide. In order to be eligible for award, offerors must meet the requirements for the technical factor described in Volume I Technical including: Experience Managing the remanufacturer, overhaul and Repair (ROR), Contractor-Owned, Contractor-Operated IT Tracking System, and Repair and Handling of Controlled Cryptographic Items (CCI). AN OFFEROR WHO RECEIVED A TECHNICAL

RATING OF MARGINAL OR UNACCEPTABLE WILL BE INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD

WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

1. Section 1: Experience managing remanufacture, overhaul and repair (ROR). The Government will evaluate the extent to which the technical proposal:

a. Demonstrates a minimum of three years of experience managing the remanufacture, overhaul and repair (ROR) of repairable assemblies from the following four categories (Communications-electronics, Ordnance, Motor transport, and Engineer items).

b. Demonstrates ROR experience across multiple geographically dispersed locations and on a scale similar to that required in the PWS. A similar scale is defined as a minimum volume of 7,000 repairs per year covering a minimum of 600 items/assemblies.

c. Demonstrates the offeror’s ability to act as a pass-through integrator (Third Party Logistics (3PL) provider) responsible for establishing and maintaining a vendor base capable of executing the ROR in accordance with technical manuals or OEM specifications within specified turnaround times (TAT) and with warranties offered to the customer for repairs.

2. Section 2: Contractor-Owned, Contractor-Operated IT Tracking System. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the technical proposal:

a. Demonstrates that the contractor-owned, contractor-operated IT tracking system meets the requirements of paragraph 5.11 of the PWS (to include evaluating how each element of Section 5.11 of the PWS will be met).

3. Section 3: Repair and Handling of Controlled Cryptographic Items (CCI). The Government will evaluate the extent to which the technical proposal:

a. Demonstrates that the offeror has both the experience and ability to repair and handle CCI items in PWS paragraph 5.12.

Evaluation Criteria

COMBINED TECHNICAL

RATINGS

DESCRIPTION

OUTSTANDING

Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and/or at least one significant, risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

GOOD

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

ACCEPTABLE

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

MARGINAL

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

UNACCEPTABLE

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is ineligible for award without interchanges, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable high.

Technical Risk Descriptions

ADJECTIVAL RATING DESCRIPTION

LOW

Proposal may contain weakness(es) 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.

PRE-AWARD SURVEY OF PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTOR

1. If an offeror’s response to this solicitation is favorably considered, a survey team may contact the offeror to determine its ability to perform. Current financial statements and other pertinent data should be available for Government review at that time, if not already on file with the office having cognizance over the offeror’s facility. Examples of the areas that may be investigated and evaluated are listed below:

a. Technical Capability h. Transportation

b. Production Capability i. Packaging

c. Quality Assurance Capability

j. Security Clearance

d. Financial Capability k. Plant Safety

e. Purchasing and Subcontracting

l. Environmental/Energy Considerations

f. Accounting Systems m. Other as Appropriate

g. Government Property Control

2. Offerors are advised that accomplishment of this survey is a part of the evaluation process and is not to be construed as an indication that an offeror will receive or is in the best position to receive the resultant award.

3. In the event the offeror fails to furnish such required information within a ten-day period after receiving the request, the Government reserves the right to reject the offer.

FACTOR 2.

PAST PERFORMANCE: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s demonstrated success in meeting project objectives of similar scope, magnitude and/or complexity. The Government may solicit information from an Offeror’s customers and business associates; federal, state, and local government agencies and databases; and from other persons and organizations. The contractor’s past performance will also be evaluated based on past performance retrieved through Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) using the Commercial and Government Entity/Data Universal Numbering System (CAGE/DUNS) identified in the Offeror’s proposal, information provided by Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and any other reasonable sources. The Government reserves the right to limit the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. Past performance will be scored for relevance, and performance in the following areas: technical (quality of product or service), schedule/timeliness, management/business relations and small business utilization.

For all offerors, the Government will consider historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-8 (Utilization of Small Business Concerns). In addition, for large businesses, the Government will consider historical compliance with the requirements of FAR Part 52.219-9

(Small Business Subcontracting Plan) and DFARS 252.219-7003 (Small Business Subcontracting Plan, DOD Requirements).

Per FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv), for an offeror without a record of relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is not available, or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and shall be considered “neutral confidence”. AN OFFEROR WHOSE PAST

PERFORMANCE RECEIVES A RATING OF LIMITED OR NO CONFIDENCE WILL BE

INELIGIBLE FOR AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS.

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

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.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

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.

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.

UNKNOWN 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.

• 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 that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during Task Order performance.

• Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful Task Order performance.

• Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful Task Order 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 Task Order performance to an unacceptable level.

• Risk as it pertains to source selection, 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 sub factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

• Low Risk: Proposal may contain weakness(es) 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 Risk: 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 Risk: 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 Risk: Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

• Performance Confidence Assessment is an evaluation of the likelihood (or Government’s confidence) that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements; the evaluation is based upon Past Performance information.

• Recency, as it pertains to Past Performance information, is a measure of the time that has elapsed since the Past Performance reference occurred. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which Past Performance references are considered relevant.

• Relevancy, as it pertains to Past Performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the service/support effort, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and subcontract/teaming or other comparable attributes of Past Performance examples and the source solicitation requirements; and a measure of the likelihood that the Past Performance is an indicator of future performance.

Factor 3.

SMALL BUSINESS

Section 1 – Small Business Participation Plan (small and large business offerors)

Small Businesses include Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, Historically Underutilized Zone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, and Women-Owned Small Business.

The Small Business Participation Plan will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable using the 2016 DoD Source Selection Procedures. The Plan will be evaluated in accordance with the following:

a. The level of participation of small businesses (as a small business prime and/or small business subcontractors) in the performance of this contract relative to the small business Minimum Quantitative Requirement set forth in Section L.

b. The total combined percentage of work to be performed by both large and small businesses (include the percentage of work to be performed by both Prime and Subcontractors)

c. The total percentage of participation to be performed by each type of subcategory small business.

d. The list of all principle small business firms by name and/or socioeconomic category and the supplies/services to be performed.

e. The extent of commitment to use each of the identified small business.

Section 2 – Small Business Subcontracting Plan (large business offerors)

Large Business offerors’ proposals will be evaluated to ensure that a Small Business Subcontracting Plan is included, meets the requirements in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 (Sep 2023) (Class Deviation 2019-O0005) (Jan 2019) and DFARS 252.219-7003 (Class Deviation 2019-O0005) (Dec 2019), and will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable.

AN OFFEROR WHOSE SMALL BUSINESS IS UNACCEPTABLE WILL BE INELIGIBLE

FOR AWARD.

SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN/SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

RATINGS

RATING DESCRIPTION

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

UNACCEPTABLE Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

Factor 4.

PRICE: Price analysis techniques will be used to determine price reasonableness.

1. The total evaluated price will be conducted using the information provided by each offeror in Attachment 7, Pricing Workbook.

2. Based on the high probability of adequate competition for this acquisition, the Government’s price analysis and evaluation will compare the offeror’s total proposed prices received in response to the solicitation. The Independent Government Cost Estimate (IGCE) will be utilized for reference purposes as required during the evaluation. The Government’s price analysis will be based on adequate price competition; however, award will only be made upon a determination by the contracting officer that the award price is fair and reasonable.

3. Options. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. The Government may determine that an offer is unreasonable if the option prices are unbalanced. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

4. A written notice of award or acceptance of an offer mailed or otherwise furnished to the successful offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party. Before the offer’s specified expiration time, the Government may accept an offer (or part of an offer), whether or not there are negotiations after its receipt, unless a written notice of withdrawal is received before award.

5. Materially unbalanced offers will not be considered for award. The total evaluated price will be the sum of the proposed unit ROR and TD&E prices multiplied by the Government’s estimated quantities for each NSN for the base and all option years. The historical quantities are for evaluation purposes only. The Government cannot guarantee that actuals in this contract will align with historical quantities.