TPPM_Program_Section_M_Final_Draft_-_4_Dec_14.docx

Attachment 2

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

TRAINER POWER PANEL MODIFICATION (TPPM) PROGRAM

SOURCE SELECTION

basis for 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 solutions exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, who is deemed technically capable in accordance with (IAW) the FAR and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation. While the Government 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. Number of Contracts to be Awarded - The government intends to select one contractor for the Trainer Power Panel Modification (TPPM) program. However, the government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the government’s best interest. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for any costs incurred. The Government intends and reserves the right to award without discussions.

1.3 Major Proposal Revisions:

If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

2. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The government will evaluate the factors and subfactors described below. The government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor One – Price Factor Two – Technical Proposal

Factor Three – Past Performance

2.1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

An initial price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with this section and proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

2.1.1.1. If the lowest priced offeror is technically acceptable, has acceptable past performance and meets all the other requirements of this solicitation, an award will be made to that offeror.

2.1.1.2. If the lowest price offeror is not technically acceptable or does not have acceptable past performance, then evaluations may continue and the SSA may:

2.1.1.2.1. Award to the first technically acceptable offeror with acceptable past performance; or

2.1.1.2.2. Set a competitive range that may include all of the offerors up to and including the first acceptable offeror; or

2.1.1.2.3. Continue evaluating additional offerors

2.1.1.3. Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for technical and past performance acceptability.

2.1.1.4. Technical and past performance evaluation of an offeror does not ensure inclusion in a competitive range, if one is set.

2.2. FACTOR ONE - PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness (3) Balance and (4) Total Evaluated Price.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

Completeness: The government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

Price Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. The proposed prices and all labor rates will be evaluated for reasonableness. For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market. Normally, price reasonableness is established through adequate price competition, but may also be determined through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1, Proposal Analysis Techniques. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP is the sum of all CLIN totals for the basic and all options. The TEP will be calculated utilizing the TEP CLIN Pricing Matrix (Section J, Attachment 5) for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision.

2.3. FACTOR TWO – TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Technical proposals will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The technical proposal must convey to the government that the offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the government. The Government may make a final determination as to the offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the offeror The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate Performance Work Statement (PWS) or Technical Order language for the technical volume. The PWS is the government’s minimum requirements for the TPPM program. The successful offeror’s technical proposal shall be incorporated into the contract by reference.

The government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor.

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single element or sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable.” The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the government may hold discussions if necessary. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2.3.1. Subfactor One: Power Distribution

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an established, feasible, and effective plan to balance power distribution (between buses), IAW PWS 5.1, to meet the TPPM performance requirements as outlined in Section 5 of the PWS for the following items:

· Actual and simulated 120v and 208v/60Hz 400 Hz single and 3-phase

· Actual and simulated 400 Hz single and 3-phase

· Simulate conversion 400 Hz power to 28vdc

2.3.2. Subfactor Two: Computer Faulted Circuit Breakers (CFCB)

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an established, feasible, and effective selection method or plan for CFCB to meet the TPPM performance requirements as outlined in Section 5 of the PWS.

2.3.3. Subfactor Three: Plan To Meet Performance Requirements

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail an established, feasible, and effective approach to meet the performance requirements detailed in the Performance Requirements Summary Objective (PRSSO) #1 of the PWS.

Subfactor Four: Power Panel Appearance

The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an established, feasible, and effective approach to the Trainer panel unique replication as outlined in Section 5 and PRSSO #2 of the PWS.

Subfactor Five: Engineering Data

The plan is acceptable when the offer demonstrates in detail, an established feasible and effective approach to quality and delivery of technical data as outlined in Section 5 and PRSSO #5 of the PWS.

Subfactor Six: TPPM Technical Areas

Provide a project schedule with Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), showing all activities required to successfully complete the work covered by this solicitation. Schedule shall show critical path. The plan is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates in detail, an established, feasible, and effective approach that the contractor will use in meeting the following TPPM technical requirements for, kitting, installation and testing of:

Malmstrom kit list with panel part numbers P&ECS kit – CSD30248LGEMC-LF1, PBE-100, and PBE-200 LFT (T-41) kit – PBE-200 MPT kit – PBE-300 MPT kit – PBE-300

Minot kit list with panel part numbers P&ECS kit – CSD30248LGEMC-LF, PBE-400, and PBE-500 LFT (T-10) kit – PBE-500 MPT kit – PBE-700 MPT kit – PBE-700

FE Warren kit list with panel part numbers P&ECS kit – CSD30248LGEMC-LF, PBE-400, and PBE-500 LFT (T-13) kit – PBE-900 MPT kit – PBE-1100 MPT kit – PBE-1100 Wing I MPT kit – PBE-300 Wing III MPT kit – PBE-700

Vandenberg kit list with panel part numbers Wing III P&ECS (Schoolhouse) kit – CSD30248LGEMC-LF, PBE-400, and PBE-500 Wing III LFT (T-12) kit – PBE-500 Wing III LFT (T-12) kit – PBE-400 5 total Wing I MPT kits – PBE-300 5 total Wing III MPT kits – PBE-700 5 total Wing V MPT kits – PBE-1100

Software Development and Modification Equipment (SDME) of the Test Software Systems Center (TSSC) Changes only to labels IAW section 1.4 of the PWS.

2.4. FACTOR THREE – PAST PERFORMANCE

2.4.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and through System for Award Management (SAM). Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered. No Past Performance Questionnaires will be used for this source selection.

2.4.1.1. Recency is defined as performance less than three years old. The government will not consider performance on contracts / task orders where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.4.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same type(s) of services described in this RFP. The offeror shall not submit more than 3contracts for the prime and subcontractor (8 page limitation). The offeror shall address any performance problems / issues as instructed in 5.1 of Section L and explain the corrective action taken and the current status.

2.4.2. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below)

government has no 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” past performance. In the context of acceptability / unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

2.5. CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

This volume will be reviewed for completeness. Incomplete documentation may be considered non-responsive. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the model contract, Sections A through K, signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by part 6.2 of Section L.

2.5.1.1. The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources. Acceptable evidence normally consists of a commitment or explicit arrangement that will be in existence at the time of contract award, to acquire the needed materials, equipment, personnel and other resources necessary to sustain operations.

2.5.1.2. The proposal shall contain evidence that the offeror will be able to comply with the Utilization of Small Business Concerns in accordance with FAR 52.219-8.

2.5.1.3. The Property Management Plan shall comply with applicable clauses, regulations and PWS requirements.

3. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all the solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offeror being deemed ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

Failure to complete and certify section K clause 252.227-7017 will render the offeror ineligible for award.

Failure to include a summary response as required by clause 252.227-7028 will render the offeror ineligible for award.

4. 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.