7.0_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

Attachment 7.0 Evaluation Factors for Award FA811719R0014 OASIS

7.0 Evaluation Factors and Basis for Award

7.1 Source Selection (SS)

7.1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable Source Selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. No tradeoffs are permitted. Award will be made to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9, as supplemented, and whose proposal conforms to ALL of the solicitation’s requirements and is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. Proposals are evaluated for acceptability but not ranked using the non-cost/price factors (reference paragraph 7.1.6). Failure to meet the evaluation factors for acceptability will eliminate your proposal for award. The award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors.

Therefore, the offeror’s proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. The Government may reject any or all offers if such action is in the public interest; accept other than the lowest offer; and waive informalities and minor irregularities in offers received

7.1.1.1 The 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 Team (SSET) 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.

7.1.1.2 This source selection is conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)Part 16.505(b)(1), Fair Opportunity with no exceptions or set-asides, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and Air Force Mandatory Procedures. The regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

7.1.2 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.

7.1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as a deficiency, weakness, significant weakness, or is unacceptable. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable, or if the amount and/or complexity of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

7.1.4 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach

7.1.5 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/vffara.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

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.

7.1.6 Evaluation Factors for Award

Factor One: Technical Factor Two: Price

7.1.7 Factor One: Technical - Proposal Acceptability

The offeror's proposal shall clearly describe experience with, and demonstrate how the following (12) requirements will be met for each of the following:

(1) Ability to perform qualification testing, integration/aircraft testing including EMI/EMC, and design approval through AF review boards (Flight Test/Safety, Technical, Configuration Control, Airworthiness, etc.), including specifically addressing the following:

(2) Possess AS9100 (or equivalent) quality system certification.

(3) Ability to access or obtain the required Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) technical data and specification, or perform reverse engineering as applicable

(4) Ability to access or obtain the required A-10 aircraft technical data and specification

(5) Ability of personnel to acquire the necessary level of A-10 security clearance

(6) Ability to qualify electronic components/subassemblies/assemblies to meet A-10 environmental requirements

(7) Possess and demonstrate the technical capability to develop a form, fit, and functionally identical DPTA

(8) Possess or have access to laboratory facilities that can perform complete qualification testing of the redesigned DPTA

(9) Ability to conduct design reviews

(10) Ability to coordinate and support A-10 aircraft testing

(11) Ability to support USAF review boards (Flight Test/Safety, Technical, Configuration Control, Airworthiness, etc.) to ensure approval of the redesigned

DPTA

(12) Ability to develop and provide the following documents during the redesign: Redesigned

DPTA Specification, Engineering Drawings and Technical Order Source Data, Qualification Test Plan, Logistics Supportability and Reliability Report, Failure Modes and Effects Criticality Analysis, System Safety Hazard Analysis Impact Report, Qualification Test Report, EMI/EMC Test Report, Flight Test Report;T-2 Modification Directive, Airworthiness Criteria Impact Assessment, Airworthiness Criteria Compliance Report

7.1.8 Factor Two: Price

7.1.8.1 As mentioned in Attachment 5.0 under FAR 52.212-2, the price is of equal importance to the technical proposal. Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonable-ness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) price. Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. An offeror’s price may be rejected if it contains unbalanced pricing to the extent it poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

7.1.8.1 Completeness

Proposals will be reviewed for completeness and compliance with solicitation instructions. Incomplete and/or non-compliant proposals may be considered un-awardable.

7.1.8.2 Price Reasonableness

The proposed prices will be evaluated for reasonableness. Analysis of price proposals will be performed using one or more of the techniques found in FAR 15.404 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.

7.1.8.3 Unbalanced pricing

Offerors’ proposals will be reviewed for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total price, the price of a line item is significantly over or understated as demonstrated by application of price analysis techniques, such that:

There is reasonable doubt the offer would result in the lowest overall cost to the Government, even though it is the lowest priced Offeror.

The Government will evaluate any 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.

7.1.8.4 Accounting System

The status of the Offerors’ accounting system will be reviewed by the government and DCMA approval will be noted. Any deviation from approved accounting system methodology will also be reviewed.

7.1.8.5 Data Other than Certified Pricing Data

Data other than certified pricing data shall be evaluated to support a determination of reasonable and balanced pricing.

7.1.8.6 Price:

The price is the sum of the firm fixed price for engineering services and travel.