17-R-10KG_Section_M_170406.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M FA2487-17-R-0131

PAGE L- 1 of 9

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-1. SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

M-1.0. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

a. This is a competitive, subjective tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 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, Appendix B, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 27 January 2017. These regulations are available electronically on the aforementioned electronic FARSite.

b. Award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the RFP's requirements and is judged to represent the best value to the Government. The best value is represented by the most advantageous offer, price, and other factors considered. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

c. To arrive at a best value decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will integrate the source selection evaluation team's (SSET) evaluation of the specific criteria and general considerations contained in this section.

d. While the Government evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.1 AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

a. 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. 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 Revision (FPR) shall be considered in making the source selection decision. If FPRs are required, the Government will determine if oral presentations or written proposals are required.

b. 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.

PAGE L- 2 of 9

M-1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to make one (1) award resultant to this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government.

NAICS Code 541712 is used as a basis for size determination.

M-2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

a. The following evaluation factors, subfactors, and elements shall be used to evaluate proposals. The Government will evaluate proposals for best value. Proposals will be evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively.

b. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. Furthermore, the relative importance of each factors and subfactors are approximately equal excluding Factor IV: Small Business Participation and Subcontracting Plans which is the least important.

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor A. SOW Capabilities (Design) Subfactor B. SOW Capabilities (Fabrication) Subfactor C. SOW Capabilities (Testing, Delivery, Installation, Training, and Manuals)

Subfactor D. Company Experience and Program Management

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Cost/Price

Factor IV: Small Business Participation and Subcontracting Plans

M-3.0 FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

a. First, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the proposals based on technical capability, assigning one of the ratings described below for each technical subfactor. The technical evaluation will be completed at the lowest tier/level (i.e., subfactor) possible to allow for effective tradeoff and decision making by the SSA. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” per the below ratings shall render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals not rated “Unacceptable” either initially or as a result of discussions, shall be considered for award.

Again, as a reminder, the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

b. The technical evaluation will utilize a separate technical/risk rating process in which the offeror’s technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement while the risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the

PAGE L- 3 of 9 requirement. The following Tables 3.0A and 3.0B (from the DoD Source Selection Procedures document) will be utilized for rating purposes:

TABLE 3.0B-TECHNICAL RISK RATING

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.

c. See paragraph M-3.1-M-3.4 for details on the evaluation of the proposal. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

M-3.1 SUBFACTOR A: STATEMENT OF WORK CAPABILITIES (DESIGN)

TABLE 3.0A-TECHNICAL RATING

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

PAGE L- 4 of 9

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to meet the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements defined in paragraph 2 through 3.4. This subfactor will receive its separate technical and risk rating.

The Government will evaluate the proposed approach to determine offerors capability to:

-Implement a thorough systems engineering approach to manage the design process, solve technical problems, communicate and resolve design decisions with the government (as needed), and mitigate the risk of not meeting requirements during the fabrication and testing phases of the project -Design a chamber to provide personnel and equipment protection that is consistent with the DDESB requirements described in SOW Section 3.3 -Select suitable chamber wall, optical port, door, and fragment shield material(s) to satisfy the blast and fragment impact loading requirements identified in the SOW (section 3.2 and 3.3) while also minimizing fabrication time, reducing overall program cost, and staying below the chamber’s maximum weight requirement described in SOW section 3.2 -Predict structural response to blast loading -Predict fragment mass and velocity of detonating cased explosive charges -Model fragment impact damage and design shielding to defeat fragments -Predict fatigue failure limits and design a chamber to satisfy the lifetime usage requirement given in SOW Section 3.2 -Design optical ports to withstand blast loading, defeat fragments, and satisfy the requirements of SOW Section 3.2 -Design instrumentation ports to satisfy SOW Section 3.2 -Design a reliable chamber door and door mechanism to satisfy the requirements in SOW Section 3.2 -Satisfy the vacuum requirement specified in SOW Section 3.2.1 -Design inlet/exhaust ports and identify suitable inlet and exhaust valves to satisfy the ventilation requirements in SOW Section 3.2 -Thoroughly document engineering design and material specifications for all chamber components and provide that information to the government for inclusion in the DDESB approval package as described in SOW Section 3.3 -Work effectively with architects, facility designers, building contractors, and government users to ensure successful installation of the 10kg chamber in the BIRSST facility

M-3.2 SUBFACTOR B: STATEMENT OF WORK CAPABILITIES (FABRICATION)

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to meet the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements defined in paragraph 2 through 3.4. This subfactor will receive its separate technical and

-Develop detailed design drawings and communicate critical material and manufacturing specifications to in-house/external providers -Manage and oversee in-house and external manufacturing processes

PAGE L- 5 of 9

-Utilize a well-established supply chain to specify and source custom steel components within the required project timeline while minimizing overall project cost -Assemble and weld thick-walled blast chambers and/or pressure vessels -Fabricate a blast chamber door that satisfies the requirements of SOW Section 3.2 -Utilize appropriate non-destructive testing methods to verify the quality of critical components -Implement a well-established and proven quality assurance program -Maintain detailed records documenting each phase of the fabrication process

M-3.3 SUBFACTOR C: STATEMENT OF WORK CAPABILITIES (TESTING, DELIVERY,

INSTALLATION, TRAINING, AND MANUALS)

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to meet the Statement of Work (SOW) requirements defined in paragraph 2 through 3.4. This subfactor will receive its separate technical and

-Develop and execute detailed test plans to satisfy the DDESB testing requirements described in SOW Section 3.3 -Conduct highly-instrumented, large scale, explosive tests that satisfy the DDESB testing requirements in SOW Section 3.3 -Execute well-controlled experiments to validate simulations and material models used in the design phase as described in SOW Section 3.3 -Apply industry standard instrumentation to measure and record dynamic structural response to blast and fragment impact loading -Document all test procedures and test results in reports that satisfy the DDESB requirements in SOW Section 3.3 -Develop a detailed plan for the delivery and installation of the chamber in coordination with architects, building designers, construction contractors, and government users -Deliver, install, and integrate the blast chamber in the BIRSST research facility as described in SOW Section 3.4 -Develop detailed operational manuals for the blast chamber that satisfy the requirements of SOW Section 3.3 -Provide training to scientists, engineers, and technicians to safely operate the blast chamber as described in Section 3.4

M-3.4 SUBFACTOR D: COMPANY EXPERIENCE AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

Note: This subfactor will be evaluated based on the written proposal submission provided by the offeror.

This subfactor evaluates the ability to satisfy the requirements defined in paragraph 2 through 3.4 based on the offeror’s company experience and program management.

PAGE L- 6 of 9

-Availability of staff with sufficient, relevant, and recent experience designing, fabricating, testing, transporting, and installing large contained detonation chambers -Thorough knowledge of the experience and abilities of any subcontractors proposed to work on this project -An appropriate program and technical management approach to oversee a multi-year, multi-phase project of the scope defined in the SOW -Use of standard and relevant guidance, documents, and products that shall include: planning, estimating, budgeting, cost and schedule management, resources allocation, making trade-offs, implementing subcontract management and a quality management system, and conducting risk management; these areas shall evidence processes for accomplishing Program Management -Availability of staff with detailed knowledge of the DoD explosive safety standards -Availability of skilled scientists and engineers with expertise modeling the response of structures to blast loading and fragment impact loading -Ability to handle and communicate unclassified Distribution D technical data -Access to the DDESB technical papers referenced in the requirements of SOW Section 3.3 -Availability of explosively qualified personnel to instrument and conduct large scale explosive tests

M-4.0 FACTOR II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Note: This subfactor will be evaluated based on the written past performance data provided by the offeror, individual surveys received, and Government data bases.

a. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure that the following criteria is demonstrated:

Offeror’s past performance data contains information in accordance with the format required in Section L, Attachment 1-5 (as appropriate/applicable). This information is required on the offeror and all subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners who are proposed to perform 10 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price or performance if the partner is considered critical to overall successful performance. Offerors are cautioned that the Government will use data provided by each offeror in this volume and data obtained from other sources in the evaluation of past performance.

b. The first aspect will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine recency. The offeror has to have met the 30 year recency requirement as stated in Section L, paragraph L-7.3.

c. The second aspect will evaluate the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to 10 kg Detonation Experimentation Chamber. Consideration of relevancy shall include: similarity of support (such as chamber net explosive weight rating), complexity (such as design/actual chamber lifetime with respect to number of detonation events), dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

d. Past Performance will be rated for Relevancy using the Table below:

Table 2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

PAGE L- 7 of 9

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.

e. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed (quality) on the contracts. The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts.

f. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings in the Table below:

Table 3 – Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition 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 (Neutral)

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.

M-5.0 FACTOR III-COST/PRICE

PAGE L- 8 of 9

a. The Government will review the cost/price proposal for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored. Rather, it will be evaluated for reasonableness and unbalanced pricing. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

b. Reasonableness: The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal shall be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable as pursuant to FAR 15.404.

c. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze each proposal to include separately priced line items or subline items (as applicable) to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or undertstaed as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. As pursuant to FAR 15.404-1(g)(3), an offeror may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of blanace poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-6.0 FACTOR IV-SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION AND SUBCONTRACTING PLANS

a. All large business offerors shall submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All offerors (small or large) shall submit a Small Business Participation Plan.

b. 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 (HUBZone) 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 aforementioned 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.

c. All offerors (large and small businesses) are required to submit their proposed Small Business Participation Plan as a written narrative. Offerors that are large businesses are also required to submit a copy of their proposed Subcontracting Plan. Under Section J of the solicitation, Attachment 3, Subcontracting Plan Checklist, will be utilized to assist in the evaluation of the proposed Subcontracting Plans.

d. The submitted offeror Small Business Participation Plan is evaluated for compliance with DFARS 215.304(c)(i) to assure small businesses will be utilized in contract performance and are sufficiently addressed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

e. The submitted offeror Subcontracting Plan is evaluated for compliance with FAR Clause 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (Deviation 2016-O0009) Alt II and DFARS 252.219-7003 to assure aspects required by FAR 19.704, DFARS 219.705-4, and AFFARS 5319.704(a)(1) are sufficiently addressed on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

PAGE L- 9 of 9

f. This Factor is Acceptable when the Small Business Participation Plan and Subcontracting Plan, if applicable, addresses all criteria required and if unable to meet any DoD FY2016 subcontracting goals found at http://www.acq.osd.mil/osbp/statistics/sbProgramGoals.shtml, provide substantial explanation/rationale.

M-7.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has met all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award.