SECTION_M.pdf

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS A

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS SECTION

M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1) GENERAL INFORMATION

a.) Basis for Contract Award:

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated cost or price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of 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.

b.) Number of Contracts to be Awarded:

The Government intends to select one contractor for the A-10 On Board Oxygen Generating System (OBOGS) Group A kit and associated equipment requirement. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

c.) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers:

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost/price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

d.) Correction Potential of Proposals:

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any proposal uncertainty. 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, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

2) EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Technical acceptability will be evaluated on all offers. Only those offerors determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, if required, will be considered for award. Then, price will be evaluated and the proposals will be listed from lowest to highest price based on the total evaluated price.

Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-cost factors.

a.) FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors and sub-factors described below:

FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Acceptable – The proposal meets specified minimum requirements necessary for acceptable contract performance.

Unacceptable – The proposal fails to meet specified minimum requirements necessary for contract performance. Proposals with an unacceptable rating are not awardable.

SUB-FACTORS

i.) Delivery schedule—Proposals will be evaluated to determine that contractor can reasonably deliver OBOGS Group A kits no later than 12 months after award / order. The first production of 64 Group A kits will be ordered under task order #1 as part of the minimum order guarantee. The remaining quantity (max 228) may be ordered throughout the basic ordering period as stated within this RFP.

ii.) Proposals will be evaluated to determine whether or not the contractor has sufficient expertise and capability based on historical information provided. Provide two (2) examples of the previous work your company has completed that is similar to the effort requested.

iii.) Quality Management Process—Proposals will be evaluated to determine if contractor has a Quality Management System/Process and demonstrates how their quality management processes will be implemented on this effort to meet AS9100C standards.

iv.) Resources – Proposals will be evaluated to determine if suitable facilities and qualified and trained employees are available for manufacturing OBOGS Group A kits as outlined in the SOW.

v.) Proposed approach—Proposals will be evaluated to determine if contractor’s proposed approach meets all requirements as outlined in the SOW.

FACTOR 2 – PRICE PROPOSAL

Cost/Price Evaluation: The offeror’s cost/price proposal, Section B, will be evaluated for award purposes by adding the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) of all CLINs as shown below.

CLIN QTY (kits) 0001 64 0002 41 0003 41 0004 41 0005 41

As stated in Section L, these are not to be considered “Best Estimated Quantities (BEQs), the Government may order any number of units, up to the maximum of 228 units, in any given year. These quantities are for evaluation purposes only to establish a TEP for each offeror and ultimately the pricing matrix for the awardee.

Total Evaluated Price: Price analysis will be performed to determine the reasonableness of the offeror’s price proposal. Reasonableness will be based on the total evaluated price. The total evaluated price will be calculated as the sum of the CLINsunit/extended prices plus other associated factors.

Unrealistically Low Costs or Prices: Unrealistically Low Costs or Prices: Unrealistically low proposed costs or prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition either on the basis that the offeror does not understand the requirement or the offeror has made an unrealistic proposal. If the evaluation team has reason to believe proposed costs or prices are unrealistically low, the Contracting Officer may request additional data (as stated in the following paragraph) for review prior to making any “unrealistically low” determination.

IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), information other than cost or pricing data may be required to support price reasonableness and balance. Information shall be provided IAW FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit cost or pricing data.

FACTOR 3 - PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE

A responsibility Determination IAW FAR 9.1 may constitute past performance in the LPTA process such as:

Past performance information may be gathered from both Government (such as CPARS, FAPIIS, etc.)

and commercial sources. Offerors will not be penalized if no past performance information is available.

Past performance will be rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. Any unacceptable rating given to a small business will be referred to the Small Business Administration pursuant to FAR 15.101-2(b) and

19.6 for resolution.

i.) PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

The contracting officer shall seek relevant performance information on all technically acceptable offers based on (1) the past and present efforts provided by the offeror and (2) data independently obtained from other government and commercial sources. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving the following:

ii.) REVELANT PAST AND PRESENT PERFORMANCE

Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving relevant contracts including: manufacturing of DoD components or aircraft component manufacturing, that are similar or greater in scope, magnitude and complexity than the effort described in this solicitation.

The purpose of the past performance evaluation is to allow the government to assess the offeror’s ability to perform the effort described in this RFP, based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past performance. The assessment process will result in an overall rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable IAW DoD Source Selection MP, Table C-2.

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.”

Table C-2. Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival 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. (see note above)

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.

b.) Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions, 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, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

3) SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub- factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.