EWAAC Sec M - as of 19 May - DRAFT.pdf

SECTION M – FA8656-21-R-XXXX

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M-1.0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

a. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Government FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/. The Government will select the proposal(s) with the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to those offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented. Those Offeror(s) whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal(s). While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The Government reserves the right not to award any contracts under this solicitation.

b. First, the Government will review all documents for compliance with Section L. When all requested documents are received and confirmed to be compliant, the offeror’s proposal package will then be submitted for evaluation.

c. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

d. The Government pricing evaluation team will evaluate the cost/ price proposals for reasonableness.

M-1.1 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions with offerors within the competitive range, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors are advised to give an offer suitable for an award decision in the initial proposal. The Government does not intend to use non-government advisors or evaluators in this source selection. 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 Revisions (FPRs) shall be considered in making the source selection decision. If FPRs are required, the Government will determine if written discussions are required.

If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable 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.

M-1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government anticipates making multiple awards, potentially 30 to 60 awards, of $1,000.00 to attend the virtual post-award conference.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will consider the Government's expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best-value proposals. NAICS Code 332993 (Ammunition) is used as a basis for size determination.

M-1.3 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale.

M-2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub factors shall be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or sub factors.

Factor I: Management/Technical Proficiency

Sub factor A. Digital Trinity Capabilities or Roadmap Plan

DRAFT

Sub factor B. Technical (Armament/ Weapons Development and Enterprise Analytics)

Factor II: Cost/Price

M-3.0 FACTOR I: MANAGEMENT/TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub factor. Any sub factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, shall be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

The offeror shall provide recent/relevant experience for all focus areas of Subfactor A: Digital Trinity or submit a plan detailing the offeror’ roadmap for meeting those capabilities within an allowable timeframe. The offeror shall provide recent/relevant experience in one or both Subfactor B: Technical (Armament/ Weapons Development or Enterprise Analytics) areas. This experience shall meet a recency period of within the past five years from the proposal due date. Each experience example shall relate to an entity (e.g. prime, subcontractor, etc.) that the contractor proposes to perform the particular type of effort under this contract. This information shall be reflected in the written proposal.

TABLE 1 – PROPOSAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

M-3.1 SUBFACTOR A: DIGITAL TRINITY CAPABILITIES

Offeror has met the requirements by demonstrating competence in ALL the Digital Trinity categories below; or submitting the roadmap for meeting them within an allowable time.

M-3.1.1 DIGITAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

Offeror has met the requirement for this category by demonstrating some or all of the following activities:

Development of Contractor full DE Ecosystem, all DE and web-based applications, databases, networks, and tools to facilitate program communication and data exchange.

Development of systems models incorporated into the DE Ecosystem.

Use of models as an integral part of the technical baseline that includes requirements, analysis, design, implementation, verification/validation, manufacturing, and general product life-cycle management.

Development of program DE Ecosystem that integrates the authoritative technical data, analytical models and analysis, and associated digital artifacts which define the Authoritative Source of Truth (ASoT) to be utilized throughout the system’s life cycle segregated into Digital System Models (DSMs).

Integration of Modeling, Simulation, and Analysis (MS&A) (i.e. analytical) models into the DE Ecosystem.

Development of DE strategies that will enable the DE Ecosystem and integration of technological innovations to mature into the system’s

Digital Thread (DTh) and Digital Twin (DTw) in a future effort.

Utilization and implementation of Government Reference Architectures (GRAs) in the DE Plan. The GRA is a general-purpose architecture design consisting of data models that capture the physical, logical, and functional description of a common open systems architecture.

Development of Contractor Reference Architecture (CRA) that is derived from and is consistent with the GRA.

Utilization of a standard system modeling language for development of the CRA.

Employment of a Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE) approach across the spectrum of SEIT activities (e.g., requirements flowdown, specifications development, SEMP development, risk management).

Creation of framework to develop and incorporate into the DE Ecosystem depictions of the system to include at a minimum, but not limited to, the following: requirements analysis; system architecture; design evaluations; definition and integration of system and subsystems, testing, cost estimations; and manufacturing.

Establishment of processes, infrastructure and environment that utilize technical data and digital artifacts to support integration, sharing and reuse, and collaborative analysis/decision-making throughout the life cycle.

M-3.1.2 AGILE PROCESSES

Offeror has met the requirement for this category by demonstrating some or all of the following activities:

Agile Compliance Processes: Coordination and interface with Government compliance organizations as needed, including but not limited to: SAF/IA, Platform System Program Offices (SPOs), Safety Organizations (e.g. Non-Nuclear Munitions Safety Board (NNMSB)), Frequency Coordinators, Test Ranges, Air Force SEEK EAGLE Office (AFSEO), Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), and System Security Authorizations Offices.

Agile Validation and Verification Processes: Coordination with the test ranges to establish an Environmental Assessment (EA)/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with (IAW) the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process.

Agile Validation and Verification Processes: Use of Modeling and Simulations of system/ subsystem digital models for risk reduction or to satisfy Validation and Verification requirements.

Agile Software Development: Established agile development processes that allow the defining/refining of requirements and developing solutions through the collaborative effort with the customer/end user

M-3.1.3 OPEN ARCHITECTURE

Offeror has met the requirement for this category by demonstrating some or all of the following activities:

Creation of open systems architecture and designs that adopt consensus based standards supporting a modular, loosely coupled, and highly cohesive system structure that includes the publishing of key interfaces within the system and relevant design disclosure.

Use of Weapon Open System Architecture (WOSA) to support the rapid and affordable insertion/integration and refreshment of technology through modular open design and to procure necessary documentation, through WOSA.

Development of WOSA implementation plans.

Use of commercially available software tools and formats in the DE Ecosystem.

M-3.2 SUBFACTOR B: TECHNICAL

a. This sub factor evaluates the offeror’s Management approach to meet the Technical Requirements of the Statement of Work. Offeror responses shall be evaluated relative to the offeror’s knowledge and ability to address all facets of the technical requirements listed in Section M 3.2 as related to Weapons.

b. The proposals shall be evaluated against Subfactor B. Offerors shall describe their direct (organic or in-house) capability to perform technical functions associated with technical areas listed in section M 3.2. The remainder of the technical areas shall be satisfied through strategies the offeror deems suitable, for example, subcontracts or partnering. The offeror shall provide information on how the remaining requirements shall be satisfied.

M-3.2.1 TECHNICAL: ARMAMENT/WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this category by demonstrating competence in three (3) of the five (5) categories below.

M-3.2.1.1 TRADE SPACE AND CAPABILITIES STUDIES

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this area by demonstrating some or all of the following:

Problem Definition Development of an analysis plan Data gathering and review Model development and population Hypothesis testing Running Models Data Analysis Documentation/presentation of results

M-3.2.1.2 DESIGN AND ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this area by demonstrating some or all of the following:

Design approaches Validation of analytical models Quantification of contract technical performance and manufacturing quality Measurement of progress in a system engineering design and development Minimization of technical risks Compatibility, interoperability, and integration of all interfaces between the system and its operating environment, including electrical/electronic and mechanical hardware design and software development.

Prediction of integrated system operational performance (effectiveness and suitability) in the intended environment

Identification of system problems (or deficiencies) to allow for early and timely resolution Essential information to decision-makers, assess attainment of technical performance parameters, and determine whether or not systems are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for intended use.

Employment of agile test methods (test platforms, facilities, modeling and simulation)

M-3.2.1.3 PROTOTYPING AND EXPERIMENTATION

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this area by demonstrating some or all of the following:

Hardware and software design approaches Digital Modeling/simulation Laboratory testing Agile prototype development and test methodologies Small scale production of prototypes to support demonstration/test Quantification of contract technical performance Ability to measure progress in prototype design and development Ability to characterize technical risks Compatibility, interoperability, and integration of all interfaces between the system and its operating environment, including electrical/electronic and mechanical hardware design and software development.

Prediction of integrated system operational performance (effectiveness and suitability)in the intended environment Identification of system problems (or deficiencies) to allow for early and timely resolution The ability to: a) provide essential information to decision-makers, b) assess achievement of technical performance, and c) determine whether systems are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for intended use.

Employment of agile test methods (test platforms, facilities, modeling/simulation)

M-3.2.1.4 PRODUCTION AND DEPLOYMENT

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this area by demonstrating some or all of the following:

Ability to fabricate complex systems and ensure proper manufacturing planning Ability to assess system designs to ensure they are producible Ability to track program status and ensure that quality standards are being met during production

M-3.2.1.5 OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this area by demonstrating some or all of the following:

Ability to plan for and execute operations and logistics support throughout the lifecycle of the system to include system design, test, production, deployment, operations, sustainment, and disposal/demilitarization.

Integration of logistics-related readiness, combat capability, systems commonality, and supportability design parameters into system and equipment design Ability to integrate and install a system into its operational environment and train user communities as required.

Ability to provide integrated logistics support for the installed system as required.

M-3.2.2 ENTERPRISE ANALYTICS

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this category by demonstrating competence in two (2) of the three (3) categories below.

M-3.2.2.1 BUSINESS INTELLIGENCE (BI) TOOLS

Offeror has met the requirement for this category by demonstrating the ability to leverage DoD High Performance Computing Centers.

M-3.2.2.2 DATA MINING AND TRANSFORMATION FOR BI TOOLS

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this area by demonstrating some or all of the following:

Capitalization of data fusion, analytics, artificial intelligence, and decision tools Enterprise interdependencies Supply chain risk assessment Industry execution ability Investigating procurement for experimental purposes

M-3.2.2.3 DEVELOPMENT OF CONCISE REPORTING AND ANALYSIS PRODUCTS

Offeror has met the minimum requirements for this area by demonstrating some or all of the following:

Contract analyses Enterprise risk analyses Integrated enterprise capabilities analyses Workforce volatility analyses Industrial health/capacity analyses Enterprise Diminishing Material Sources (DMS) analyses Future threat/capabilities trade analyses Portfolio Cost-Benefit analyses Business Case analyses Cost per effectiveness analyses Inventory/production capacity vs capability analyses

M-4.0 FACTOR II – COST/PRICE

M-4.1 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

To be eligible for award for the first task order, offerors shall provide the following reports:

a. A staffing proposal for attendance to the virtual post-award conference:

The Government intends to pay up to $1,000 for the post award conference, however, based on funding and the number of qualified offerors, actual award may be less. Available funds will be allocated equally to each compliant awardee.

b. A capability statement that demonstrates how the offerer will comply with Section L, para 4.1.1.b.

The Offerors’ staffing proposal for the post-award conference will not be rated or scored. The Government will review the submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror.

M-5.0 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN (SBSP)

a. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror proposes acceptable use of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUB Zone) Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns in the performance of the proposed contract. The extent of the commitment to such firms, including the proposed percentages of the acquisition, the probability that the offeror shall satisfy the requirements of FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and achieve the levels of Small Business Participation identified in the proposal shall be considered. All offerors shall be evaluated on the level of small business commitment that they demonstrate for the proposed acquisition and the probability of the offeror credibly achieving the minimum goals established by DOD.

b. The large business offerors’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be evaluated as acceptable or unacceptable in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, Alternate II, FAR 19.704, FAR 19.705, DFARS 219.704 and AFFARS Subpart 5319.7. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirement is mandatory for award and the plan shall be incorporated into any resultant contract.

c. This sub factor shall be evaluated as acceptable when:

The offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan meets the requirements of FAR 52.219-9.

The offeror proposes to meet or exceed goals shown in Table L-3.16.3 or provides substantiated rationale for proposed goals which are lower than those in the table.

The offeror provides methodology (e.g., use of SB industry days, databases, tools, etc.) for meeting the offeror’s proposed goals.

d. For the purposes of this evaluation, where the prime offeror (or joint venture partner/teaming arrangement) is a small business, a small business subcontracting plan is not required. Small businesses shall be deemed acceptable under Subfactor C.

M-6.0 INITIAL DELIVERY ORDER SUBMISSION

The Government intends to award a minimum Task Order up to $1,000 for the virtual post-award conference, however, based on funding and the number of qualified offerors, actual award may be less. Available funds will be allocated equally to each compliant awardee. The awardees shall deliver meeting minutes no later than thirty (30) days after the post-award conference.

M-7.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or sub factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Upon Government’s request, offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and shall provide complete supporting rationale.