FA238324RB005 Draft Section M 1Aug2024.pdf

FA2383-24-R-B005

Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

Maintenance, repair and training on AN/TPS-70 and -78 radars to support the Secretaria de la Defensa Nacional (SEDENA) of Mexico

SOLICITATION FA2383-24-R-B005

13 August 2024

DRAFT

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis of Contract Award. This is a source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. In this procurement, the Government intends to award based on an objective assessment and validation of the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) whose proposal’s pricing is deemed to be Fair and Reasonable in accordance with the evaluation methodology specified in Section 3.1.

The Government will only award a contract to an Offeror who is determined responsible in accordance with FAR 9.104-1 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation).

The qualification categories chosen for the Self-Scoring Matrix maximize the objectivity of determining the Highest Technically Rated Offeror. The USAF finds that an individual Offeror with prior performance history in the qualification categories listed in the Self-Scoring Matrix presents a lower risk of unsuccessful performance. Likewise, the USAF finds that an individual Offeror with no or little prior performance history in the qualification categories listed presents a higher risk of unsuccessful performance.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all source selection evaluation criteria in this Section M (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The USAF will make one award to the offeror that represents the best value for the government. Best Value is defined as the offeror with the highest Government-validated technical score.

1.3 Proposals Substantiation. Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims, for even a single Past

Technical Experience evaluation criterion, could result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposed self-score is disingenuous and/or artificially inflated and the proposal would be disqualified and not awardable.

1.4 Discussions. The Government reserves the right to evaluate proposals and award without discussions if the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines them not to be necessary.

In the event discussions are conducted, they will be conducted in accordance with FAR

15.306 and will be limited to those Offerors determined to be the HTRO offeror(s) IAW paragraph 3.1, Evaluation Methodology.

2.0 PROPOSAL COMPLIANCE AND RESPONSIBILITY

2.1 Proposal Compliance. Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and other instructions identified within the solicitation. Offerors shall comply with content required within each of the proposal volumes and sections. Failure to comply with any requirement of the solicitation may result in the

Offeror being non-responsive and ineligible for award. The Government will review the proposal documentation to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The Government will rely on the provided documentation to facilitate the PCO’s determination of Contractor responsiveness.

2.2 Responsibility. No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the PCO determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1, as supplemented by DFARS 209.1.

2.2.1 Evaluation of Compensation Professional Employees (PECP). As part of the overall responsibility determination, the Government will evaluate the realism of the Offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees. For the plan to be realistic, it must reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement. If the Government determines a proposed compensation plan is unrealistic, the Government may rate the Offeror’s proposal as “Unrealistic” and it may be rejected on that basis.

2.3 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI). Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual or potential OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive an award of this contract.

3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Methodology. The Government will utilize a combination of gating criteria in the form of problem statements and the Highest Technically Rated Offeror (HTRO) methodology. An Offeror will need to obtain a “Pass” rating on ALL problem statements listed under paragraph 4.1 in order of the Government to proceed with the review and validation of the self-scoring matrix. The HTRO method requires the Offeror to score itself based on the objective criteria described in Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents. The Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring in the Offeror completed Section L, Appendix B, which includes weighting for each factor. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. Then the Government will take the two highest technically rated offerors and proceed with further evaluation as follows:

If the offeror with the highest Government validated technical score has a lower price, award will go to this offeror. If 2nd HTRO has a lower price AND a Government validated technical score within 10% of HTRO, award will go to the 2nd HTRO. The

Government will validate the offeror with the highest proposed self-score and any offeror within 10% of the highest proposed self-score.

If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted because of Government validation, and the Offeror is no longer among the highest rated Offerors, then the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror, until only the offerors with the highest Government-validated scores remain (see paragraph 4.0 of this Section M). The Government will evaluate for Price (see paragraph 5.0 of this Section M). Price analysis following the stated evaluation criteria is accomplished for at least two offerors and is used to determine price fair and reasonableness.

In the event there is a tie for the 2HTRO, award will be made to the lower Total Evaluated Price (TEP), contingent upon satisfactory price evaluation.

Ties and Tiebreakers: In the event that there is a tie for the highest score when determining the two highest technically rated offerors, the following tiebreakers will be used in the following order:

TIEBREAKER ONE – Criterion 3 of the Self-Scoring Matrix – “Prior Experience with TPS-70 (Training and Sustainment)”

TIEBREAKER TWO – Criterion 4 of the Self-Scoring Matrix – “Prior Experience with TPS-78 (Training and Sustainment)”

3.2 Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

Factor 2: Cost/Price

4.0 Factor 1 – Technical (Volume II).

4.1 Technical Evaluation of Problem Statements. Offerors’ responses to the problem statements contained in Para. 2.5.2 of Section L will be evaluated on the following “Pass/Not Pass” basis:

Basis of Passing: In order to receive a rating of “Pass” on the above problem statements, the Offeror’s responses shall be technically acceptable and actionable solutions based on industry knowledge to the above problem statements, demonstrating an understanding of the TPS-70 and -78 radars, and the scope of work being solicited. Responses to the above question shall not exceed five pages in total.

4.2 Technical Evaluation of Self-Scoring Matrix. The Offerors’ proposals will be ranked based on initial self-scoring rating provided in Appendix A. The government will validate the Offerors self-score following the process outlined below:

1. The Government will sort all proposals from the highest self-rated Offeror to the lowest self-rated Offeror. The Government will then validate that the Offeror with the highest proposed self-scores and the second Offeror, who is within 10% of the highest, are in compliance with the terms and conditions of the solicitation. Any proposal not in compliance may not be further evaluated, and the Government may evaluate the next highest self-scores for compliance.

2. The Government will validate the above 2HTRO self-scores by validating the qualifications of the supporting documentation submitted IAW with Section L, Paragraph

2.5. Any supporting documentation that does not adhere to the required qualifications may not be further validated. Additionally, if the substantiating information cannot be found within the referenced page, paragraph, table, etc. the Government will not search for the substantiating information.

3. If the Offeror’s self-rated score cannot be validated based on the supporting documentation provided in Volume II of the proposal, the Government will unilaterally downward adjust the score, potentially down to zero (0) points.

a. The Government will ONLY adjust the Offeror’s self-score downward, not upward. Adjustments are within the sole discretion of the Government.

b. If an Offeror’s self-score is downward adjusted, and the Offeror is no longer among the highest rated Offerors, the Government will validate the next highest self-rated Offeror until two (2) Offerors with the highest Government-validated scores, with the second Offeror being within 10% of the highest, remain.

4.3 Supporting Documentation. The Government will evaluate the supporting documentation in accordance with the requirements set forth in paragraph 2.5.3 in Section L, to include formatting and content.

4.4 Burden of Proof. The burden of proof for substantiating points in the Self-Scoring Matrix rests with the Offeror. The Technical volume shall contain sufficient data to substantiate the points claimed in the Offeror’s proposal.

4.5 Teaming Any supporting documentation submitted, in which the work was performed by any other contractor (not the Offeror themselves), without a signed teaming agreement included with the submission, will not be considered a valid substantiation for the purpose of the Government validated score.

5.0 Factor 2 – Cost/Price (Volume III)

5.1 The Government will evaluate Price for reasonableness, completeness, and balance.

5.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will evaluate the proposed TEP for reasonableness and completeness. For the purposes of the evaluation, the TEP shall be calculated based on the total price proposed for all CLINs contained in Schedule B, Schedule of Supplies and Services of the subject solicitation. Option CLIN 0004 will be evaluated at the Government established value of $1,500,000.00 and the price shall not be adjusted or altered by the Offeror. Price analysis as detailed below will be conducted based on data as submitted by the offeror. The data shall conform to the instructions as outlined in Section L.

5.3 Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the proposed Total Evaluated Price for reasonableness using the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. Generally, the Government may rely upon adequate price competition to establish a fair and reasonable price and may use adequate price competition as the basis for the fair and reasonable price determination;

provided adequate price competition exists. IAW FAR 31.201-3, a price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Additionally, IAW FAR 15.402(a), the Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore, unawardable, if prices are determined to be NOT fair and reasonable. The Government will assess the reasonbleness of the fully burdened hourly rates proposed IAW Section L, 2.6.2.

5.4 Completeness. The Government will evaluate the price proposals for compliance with

Section L. The Offeror shall ensure they have provided all pricing information required by the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the completeness of Appendix E. All CLINS must be completed with a dollar amount, even if it is $0.00. Apart from CLIN amounts, a $0.00 rate in a labor category, an omitted rate/fringe/taxes, or other missing price information may result in the Government determining the price proposal to be incomplete. If the Government determines a price proposal to be incomplete, the Government will not be able to further evaluate the proposal for reasonableness and balance. In the event a proposal is considered incomplete, the Government will determine whether to enter discussions with the Offeror IAW Paragraph 1.4 of this Section M or proceed to the Offeror with the next highest Government-validated self-rated score under Factor 1, Technical.

5.5 Balance. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to Price. Per FAR 52.215-1(f)(8), the Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed prices from year to year, including option years, such that they are above or below what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Additionally, despite an acceptable TEP, unbalanced pricing can exist when fully burdended labor rates for any one category is overstated or understated. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

6.0 Award. Award will be made to the responsible HTRO that is either the HTRO or the Offeror whose Government-validated score is within 10% of the HTRO. If the offeror with the highest Government validated technical score has a lower price, award will go to this offeror.

If the 2nd HTRO has a lower price AND a Government validated technical score within 10% of the HTRO, award will go to the 2nd HTRO, provided that the proposed pricing is also Reasonable, Complete, and Balanced, which represents the best value for the Government.