Eval_Criteria_For_Award_AAS_25_Aug_2025.pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR AWARD

25 August 2025

SOLICITATION: FA8203-25-R-0023

The purpose of this document is to provide a tailored streamlined set of “Instructions to Offerors” in accordance with (IAW) FAR 12.301(b)(1) and clause 52.212-1 – Instructions to Offerors – Commercial Products and Commercial Services.

1. NAICS Code

IAW solicitation (SF 1449)

2. Submission of Offers

IAW solicitation (SF 1449) and this document (evaluation criteria for award)

3. Period of Acceptance of Offers

IAW solicitation (SF 1449)

4. Multiple Offers

Multiple offers will not be accepted.

5. Multiple Awards

The Government intends to award one (1) contract based on “All or None”. The Government will not consider any offers for less than the quantity offered.

6. Contract Award

The Government intends to evaluate offers and award a contract without discussions with offerors.

Therefore, the offeror’s 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 later determined by the Contracting Officer to be necessary. In the event discussions are held, offeror responses to those notices will be considered in the evaluation.

7. Evaluation Criteria for Award

For purposes of award, offers will be evaluated utilizing Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures based on the following factors and sub-factors. The Government intends to evaluate the lowest priced offer first for technical acceptability. If the lowest priced offer is considered technically acceptable, then the Government will award the contract to that offer and not proceed with technical evaluations of the remaining proposals. However, if the initial lowest priced offer is determined to not be technically acceptable, then the Government will continue evaluating the next lowest priced offeror until such time an offer is determined to be technically acceptable.

Offeror’s proposal shall include specific defined volumes for each factor and associated subfactor.

Factor 1 - Price Price will be evaluated by adding the extended prices for basic award and option quantities (i.e. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)). An example of the extended prices evaluation is provided below for reference. The CDRL and Travel/Material CLINs will not be included/considered in the TEP. The CDRLs (data) CLINs will be not separately priced (NSP) and the Travel & Material CLINs will be Cost Reimbursable – No Fee (CRNF). The CRNF Travel/Material CLINs will include a Not To Exceed CRNF amount based on a Government estimate.

Offerors shall propose their extended unit/total prices directly into the CLIN of the SF 1449.

CLIN DESCRIPTION PROPOSED CLIN AMOUNT

0001 Basic Award – A&AS Engineering Analysis $ 0002 Basic Award – Travel & Material $ Not Evaluated 0003 Basic Award – Data $ NSP – Not Evaluated 0004 Option 1 – A&AS Engineering Analysis $ 0005 Option 1 – Travel & Material $ Not Evaluated 0006 Option 1 – Data $ NSP – Not Evaluated 0007 Option 2 – A&AS Engineering Analysis $ 0008 Option 2 – Travel & Material $ Not Evaluated 0009 Option 2 – Data $ NSP – Not Evaluated

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE $

Factor 2 – Technical Acceptability The Technical Proposal should be clear, specific and complete. Legibility, clarity and coherence are very important. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory. By your proposal submission, you are representing that your firm will perform all the requirements specified in the RFP (including the PWS). It is not necessary or desirable for you to tell us so in your proposal. Do not merely reiterate (copy and paste, rephrase or restate) the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation. Provide as specifically as possible the actual methodology you would use for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors.

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Any subfactor evaluated as “unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal clearly does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

The Technical Proposal shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

Description:

The offeror’s proposal shall demonstrate/describe their technical approach and capability to satisfy PWS requirements 3.0 – Scope / Contractor Tasking / Requirements thru 4.5 – Contractor Personnel Qualification. This shall include, at a minimum, an executive summary (general technical approach) and labor categories and labor hours (by basic, option year 1, and option year 2). This shall not exceed ten

(10) pages. This page limitation is only applicable to this subfactor.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS requirements 3.0 – Scope / Contractor Tasking / Requirements thru 4.5 – Contractor Personnel Qualification.

Subfactor 2 - Compensation Plan (Professional Employees)

The offeror’s proposal demonstrate/describe their Compensation Plan for Professional Employees to satisfy FAR 22.10003-1, 22.1101 and 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, requirements. This shall include, at a minimum, an overview of employment classifications, compensation, and employee benefits. There is no page limitation to this subfactor.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting FAR 22.10003-1, 22.1101 and 52.222-46 – Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, requirements by meeting the following minimum adequacy requirements:

(1) Plan demonstrates/describes a sound management approach, understanding of work to be performed and understanding of the contract requirements.

(2) Plan demonstrates/describes the quality of professional services needed for adequate contract performance.

(3) Plan demonstrates/describes their ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality service/support.

(4) Plan demonstrates/describes a compensation structure capable of obtaining and keeping (i.e. properly and fairly compensated) suitably qualified personnel to fulfill the PWS requirements. This includes proposed salaries and fringe benefits.

Subfactor 3 – Property Management Plan (PMP)

The offeror’s proposal shall include their PMP (PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal & CDRL A/B/C0007). This PMP shall demonstrate/describe the voluntary consensus standards (VCSs) or industry-leading practices (ILPs) that they intend to follow regarding Government Furnished Property (GFP) FAR 45.201(c)(4). There is no page limitation to this subfactor.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s PMP clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal & CDRL A/B/C0007 and adequacy of FAR 45.201(c)(4) requirements. The PMP will be incorporated into the resulting contract upon award.

Subfactor 4 - System Safety Program Plan (SSPP)

The offeror’s proposal shall include their SSPP (PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal, PWS Appendix C, and CDRL A/B/C0002). This SSPP shall demonstrate/describe their SSPP IAW PWS Appendix C requirements. There is no page limitation to this subfactor.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s SSPP clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal, PWS Appendix C, and

CDRL A/B/C0002.

Subfactor 5 - Quality Control Plan (QCP)

The offeror’s proposal shall include their QCP (PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal and CDRL A/B/C0003). This QCP shall demonstrate/describe the inspection system to ensure services are provided IAW the PWS. Procedures to identify, prevent, and ensure non-recurrence of defective services. Key performance parameters shall be used to monitor work performance, measure results, ensure delivery of contracted product deliverables and solutions, support management and decision-making and facilitate communications. Identify risks, resolve problems and verify effectiveness of corrective actions. Institute and maintain a process that ensures problems and action items are tracked through resolution and shall provide timely status reporting. Results of actions taken to improve performance shall be tracked and lessons learned incorporated into applicable processes. Establish and maintain a documented set of disciplined, mature and continuously improving processes for administering all contract efforts with an emphasis on schedule, performance, responsiveness and consistently high-quality delivery. There is no page limitation to this subfactor.

Measure of Merit:

This requirement is met when the offeror’s QCP clearly demonstrates evidence of meeting the minimum requirements of PWS section/requirement 3.2.4.1 – Deliverables with Proposal, and CDRL A/B/C0003.