Attachment 4 Section M - Evaluation Factors.pdf

ATTACHMENT 5 – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M (Attachment 4)

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0. Source Selection (SS)

1.1. Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Priced Technically Acceptable (LPTA) Source Selection procedures, with technical proposals. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the offeror who is rated

“acceptable” in Factor 1 Technical and Factor 3 Past Performance, has the lowest evaluated cost or price, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by this solicitation). The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.1.1. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation

(described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) 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.

1.1.2. This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Department of the Air Force Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures 20 Aug

2022, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3. Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any technical proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable”. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. The correction potential is based on the amount and/or complexity of the correction(s) needed to meet Government requirements.

1.4. Competitive Range Determination

If discussions are conducted, the Government shall establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals, in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition IAW FAR 15.306(d)(5). The competitive range determination can be based on

Factor 1 Technical, Factor 2 Price, Factor 3 Past Performance, or a combination of the three file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/LF8798DU/MP5315.3.doc%23s153 https://www.acquisition.gov/ factors. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final

Proposal Revision (FPR) request, or for efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.5. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit their best terms initially. However, if during the evaluation period it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to hold discussions, the Government will determine if responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs) received during discussions will be considered formal proposal revisions, or if offerors will be required to include EN responses in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The

Request for FPR letter will include specific instructions on how offerors will submit FPRs. The

Government also reserves the right to request Draft FPRs during discussions. Offeror responses to ENs for Volume II (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR. Offeror responses to

Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.6. Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0. Evaluation Factors

2.1.1. Evaluation factors used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Special Standards of Responsibility

Subfactor 2: Manufacture and Production Strategy

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

2.1.2. Evaluation Methodology:

The Government will evaluate all factors concurrently for all proposals. Initial ratings and evaluated price will be established for each offeror. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions will be considered for award.

Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for Factor 1 Technical, who has been determined responsible IAW para 2.4 below, and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical

The Technical evaluation will be based on each’s offeror’s approach for meeting the technical requirements listed below. The evaluation focuses on the technical approach as described in each offeror’s technical volume. The technical evaluation does not consider price. Each subfactor within the technical factor will receive one of the ratings described below based on the criteria listed below. Individual subfactor ratings will be used to determine the overall technical acceptability of each offeror. To be determined technically acceptable at the factor level, the

Offeror must be rated acceptable in each subfactor. A single deficiency within a subfactor will result in an unacceptable rating for that subfactor. A final unacceptable subfactor rating will determine an overall technically unacceptable rating, and therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically Acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical ratings are defined as follows:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.1. Subfactor 1: Special Standards of Responsibility

The government will assess the offeror’s proposed Increased Capacity Latrine. Offerors are required to present all the information as stated in the Section L, Instruction To Offerors

(ITO). The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all of the following essential components:

a. The proposed approach must ensure the first articles are successfully delivered and the proposed approach shall meet the specifications listed in. SOW 1.0

2.2.2. Subfactor 2: Manufacture and Production Strategy

The subfactor minimum is met when the offeror’s proposal indicates an adequate understanding of the requirements, and provides convincing rationale how their approach will meet the requirements for all the following essential components:

a) The Integrated Master Schedule shall ensure the offeror’s approach meets the requirements of CDRL A029.

1 The approach shall ensure the schedule for minimum production quantity meets the requirements of SOW 3.9 The two first article kits must ensure fit and function before going into full rate production. (SOW 3.8.2)

2.3. Factor 2 – Price

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) price reasonableness (including completeness), (2) balanced pricing, (3) price realism, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unrealistic will not be considered for award.

Additionally, an Offeror’s price may be rejected, if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

The Government shall evaluate the TEP of all Offerors, including option periods. The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated based upon the TEP. The TEP price rollup is based on the specific CLIN calculation methodology provided in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2). These calculations will include all evaluation periods: 2-year basic period, and two 2-year option periods. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: Evaluation of options or extensions does not obligate the Government to exercise such options or extensions.

2.3.1. Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness to include completeness.

Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques defined in

FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) in order to determine price reasonableness. Reasonableness must represent a price to the Government a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2). The

Government may also use other techniques as needed. To evaluate completeness, the

Government will confirm all unit prices in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2) have a dollar amount proposed as applicable. Offeror’s shall provide rationale if any proposed unit price or rate is entered as zero in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2).

2.3.2. Balanced Pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for balanced pricing to include any price increases greater than 5 percent per performance period, as well as any price decreases from one performance period to the next. The Government will evaluate all supporting information provided by the

Offeror explaining variances that appear unbalanced. Evaluated offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be deemed ineligible for award by the Contracting Officer if a determination is made that lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

a) There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the

Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror; or

b) The offer is so grossly unbalanced that its acceptance would be tantamount to allowing an advanced payment.

2.3.3. Price Realism

Proposed prices will be evaluated for price realism. To be realistic, the proposed price must demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirement and must ensure the price does not pose unacceptable risk to performance. All documentation submitted to support price realism will be considered in making a determination of price realism. To evaluate price realism, the

Government may use one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

The Government may also use other evaluation techniques, as needed.

2.3.4. Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

If requested by the CO, data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable, balanced, and realistic pricing. This information will only be requested if all other sources have been insufficient to support a determination of reasonable and/or balanced pricing and/or price realism. Offerors may provide any additional data other than certified cost or price data as believed necessary to support or justify proposed pricing.

2.3.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP):

Pricing proposals will be reviewed for compliance with Addendum to FAR 52-212-1 pricing instructions. The TEP calculation methodology is included in the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 2) as a separate tab titled “Calculation Methodology.” Proposed pricing of the TEP will be evaluated in accordance with the following: The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the basic period (2-years), and two 2-year options.

The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the

Government to exercise such options.

2.3.6. Rounding

All proposed dollar amounts shall be rounded to the nearest cent. If any pricing proposal deviates from this format, the Government will apply the specified format to determine the extended pricing and TEP. Compliance with instructions regarding rounding will be verified during evaluation.

2.3.7. Explanation of Specific Estimating Techniques and Methods

The Government will review the basis of estimate on which proposed pricing was based. These methods should be consistent with the Offeror’s Disclosure Statement. Any deviations shall be noted and reviewed. The summaries of the estimating, purchasing, and accounting systems will also be reviewed. The Government reserves the right to obtain information from the Contract

Business Analysis Repository as considered necessary.

2.3.8. Past Experience Basis of Estimate

The relevance and application of the Offeror’s price estimates based on past experience will be reviewed by the Government.

2.3.9. Proposed Price Reduction per Corporate/Management Decision

The Government will review the Price Volume for all Offerors’ explanation of any reduction in proposed pricing as a corporate or management decision. This includes review of the areas of price reduction, such as profit, volume or location discounts, indirect rate reductions, and so forth. Also, the Offeror’s explanation of how such reduction will not affect contractor responsibility or put the Government at performance risk will be evaluated.

2.3.10. Subcontractor Pricing

The Government will review the Price Volume regarding information pertaining to subcontractor pricing. The Offerors’ determination of fair and reasonable pricing as it relates to subcontractors will be reviewed. Evaluation of subcontractor teaming arrangements will be reviewed, as well as the methodology of determining subcontractor pricing fair and reasonable.

However, subcontractor pricing per se will not be evaluated. The Government will review

Offerors’ application of their (prime’s) indirect costs, including G&A, Cost of Money, and profit to subcontractor costs/pricing.

Proposed FFP pricing has associated risk to the Offeror – not the Government - with regard to adequately and sufficiently covering costs in contract out-years; this risk also applies to Offerors’ subcontractor pricing. Proposals shall be adequately and sufficiently priced to take into account future unknowns, such as fluctuations in contract out-year subcontractor pricing as well as potential changes in subcontractors.

2.3.11. Price Assumptions Used in Development of Proposed Pricing

The Government will review information provided in the Price Volume regarding all price assumptions, limitations, and/or qualifications utilized in the development of proposed pricing.

Such information will be used to understand the Offerors’ proposed pricing basis of estimate.

Additionally, these assumptions help provide support for the Government’s determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.3.12. Accounting System

The status of the offerors’ accounting system will be reviewed and verified by the Government.

Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)/DCMA approval will be noted. Explanation of any deviations from the Offeror’s accounting system or deficiencies will also be reviewed. If an

Offeror does not currently have an adequate accounting system, the Government will confirm the

Offeror provided a completed “Contractor Self Assertion - Pre-Award Survey of Prospective

Contractor Accounting System Checklist.” An Offeror must have an adequate accounting system in order to be awardable.

2.3.13. Government Field Support Agencies

The Government will review and confirm submission of the cognizant Defense Contract Audit

Agency (DCAA) and DCMA offices responsible for administration of the Offeror’s Government contracts.

2.3.14. Other Documentation

In reviewing proposed prices, all additional information from the Price Volume will also be considered. Offerors may provide any additional data, other than certified cost or pricing data, as believed necessary to support, justify, or clarify their proposed pricing. All pricing information provided in response to the solicitation will be reviewed and will contribute to the determination of price reasonableness, balanced pricing, and price realism.

2.3.15. Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material (GFP/GFE/GFM)

The government will review all information provided in the price volume regarding the offeror’s compliance and understanding of Government Furnished Property/Equipment/Material.

2.3.15. Contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Tooling/Material

(CFP/CFE/CFT/CFM)

The government will review all information provided in the price volume regarding compliance and understanding of contractor Furnished Property/Equipment/Material.

2.3.16. Submission of Attachment 2 – Pricing Matrix

The Government will confirm receipt of a complete, electronically-encoded Pricing Matrix in the required format, with all required unit prices/rates provided.

2.4. Factor 3 – Past Performance:

The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule, based on a demonstrated record of performance.

2.4.1. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the following performance ratings IAW the

Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures:

Table 2. Past Performance Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of 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 (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

2.4.2. Evaluation Process

The Past Performance evaluation considers the offeror’s demonstrated record of performance in providing products and services that meet users’ needs. Performance expectation is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Factor 1 Technical criteria and

Factor 2 Price assessment. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the offeror, and information obtained from other sources, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) and commercial sources.

2.4.3. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have been performed during the past three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Note: If any part of the performance falls within the above timeframe, the contract in its entirety may be evaluated for past performance. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.4. Relevancy Assessment

The government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Factor 1 Technical criteria and Factor 2 Price assessment. Relevancy will be rated at the total contract level. Consideration will be given to things such as similar service, similar complexity of the effort, breadth and depth of skills, similar contract scope and type, contract magnitude and schedule. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s (including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s)) past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The government will consider the portion of the effort accomplished on previous/current contracts compared to the portion to be performed on the proposed effort. The government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Table 4. Relevancy Ratings

Degree Description

RELEVANT

(R)

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

NOT RELEVANT

(NR)

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Scope, magnitude, and complexity will be assessed based on the prime or subcontractor/teaming partners proposed role or effort as it relates to the past performance effort. The government may or may not utilize all or some of the following to determine the elements examined within scope, magnitude, complexity, and price:

Scope: Relevancy regarding scope may be assessed based on, but not limited to, experience in manufacturing latrines for military or civilian large or heavy aircraft. Large aircraft is defined as aircraft more than 41,000 pounds and/or maximum certified takeoff weight up to 300,000 pounds. Heavy aircraft is defined as aircraft capable of takeoff weights of 300,000 pounds or greater.

Magnitude: Relevancy regarding magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the proposed requirement. Consideration may be given to the following elements when determining relevancy regarding magnitude:

a) Quantity of kits produced per month.

b) Contract value as it relates to the portion of effort proposed to perform.

Complexity: Relevancy regarding complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the technical subfactors.

Price Assessment Past Performance Relevancy: Relevancy about cost/price will be assessed primarily based on similarity between contract type (i.e., Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) and Cost) of previous effort as compared to the KC-135 Increased Capacity Latrine production requirement.

2.4.5. Performance Quality Assessment

The government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance questionnaire responses, PPIRS information, Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARS) (including ratings and supporting narratives), interviews with government customers and fee determining officials and, if applicable, commercial clients. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the government. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information which the government determines to be less than satisfactory performance quality. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements when determining the quality assessment. Taking mitigating corrective actions may or may not result in a higher quality rating. The government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 4. Performance Quality Ratings

Quality Assessment Description

SATISFACTORY (S)

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY (U)

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fails) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

UNKNOWN (UK)

Unknown Performance rating due to lack of sufficient information to assign a rating.

2.4.6. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance assessment rating based on the definitions provided in paragraph 2.4.1. above. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.