Section_M_-_17_Jan_2018.docx

6 November 201717 January 2018

SECTION M

HYBRID - TRADEOFF AND ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016, and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A hybrid approach will be utilized by evaluating some factors using trade-offs, while other factors (as identified) will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. 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 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the C-HOBS program. However, the Government reserves the right to award more, or no contract(s) at all if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the Government's best interest. The SSA will consider the Government's expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best value proposals.

1.3 Discussions.

The Government will conduct discussions. Offerors responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be 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 and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Capabilities Sub-factor one: Technical Requirements Sub-factor two: Manufacturing and Quality Sub-factor three: Management Approach Sub-factor four: Small Business Approach

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and sub-factors: The relative importance of each factor and sub-factor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Capability factor that allow for trade-offs, sub-factor 1 is more important than sub-factor 3. Sub-factor 2 and 4 will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

2.1.2 IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

2.2 FACTOR ONE TECHNICAL CAPABILITY (Volume I)

2.2.1 The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. The Technical Risk Rating will not apply to the technical sub-factors that will be rated as acceptable/unacceptable and will only apply to the technical sub-factors that allow for a tradeoffs. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical sub-factor. The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical sub-factor that will be evaluated via a trade-off will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements. Sub-factor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor, however if any rating of a sub-factor is rated as unacceptable it will render the proposal as un-awardable. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration with the color rating, i.e., assign a strength, for proposed Contract Statement of Work (CSOW) in excess of threshold requirements up to the objective requirements, unless noted in the technical sub-factors below. No consideration will be given for exceeding the objective requirement. Factors that will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis will be stated as such per Table 3 below. If any technical sub-factor that is rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis is rated as unacceptable, it will render the proposal as un-awardable.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS – TRADE OFF

of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

the requirements and contains at least one strength.

the requirements.

understanding of the requirements.

thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

TABLE 3 - TECHNICAL RATINGS – ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE

TABLE 4 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.2.2 Proposals will be evaluated to determine offeror’s capability to meet or exceed all threshold requirements outlined in the Systems Requirements Document (SRD), unless specified below, and all requirements in the Statement of Objectives (SOO) and Attachment 2 “Rights in Data.”

2.2.3 Measures of Merit: Technical sub-factor criteria will be met based on the offeror’s demonstration of understanding, ability, and approach to perform the requirements.

2.2.4 Sub-factor One: Technical Requirements

(a) HOB Performance

(i) HOB Tolerance HOB Tolerance is satisfactory when the offeror’s approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.2.1.8.2 and sub paragraphs of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that the threshold requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

The HOB Tolerance requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s approach exceeds the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.2.1.8.2.1 through 3.2.1.8.2.2 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that the threshold requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be exceeded; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

(ii) Terrain Discrimination Terrain Discrimination is satisfactory when the offeror’s approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.2.1.8.4 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

The Terrain Discrimination requirement is exceeded when the offeror’s approach exceeds the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.2.1.8.4 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD will be exceeded (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

(iii) HOB Selection (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) HOB Selection is acceptable when the offeror’s approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.2.1.8.1 and sub paragraphs of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above have been satisfied or how they will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

The HOB selection must meet the requirements defined in the SRD, proposals exceeding the HOB selection requirements are unacceptable.

(b) Interfaces (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

(i) Common Munition BIT Reprogramming Equipment (CMBRE) interface is acceptable when the offeror’s approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.1.2 and 3.2.1.4 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

(ii) Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) interface is acceptable when the offerors approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.1.2 and 3.2.1.4 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

(iii) DSU-33 Form Factor/Fire pulse signal interface is acceptable when the offerors approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.2.1.6 and 3.3.1 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

(c) Maintenance and Reliability

(i) Captive Carriage - is satisfactory when the offerors approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.8.6.2 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that the threshold requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

The Captive Carry Hours requirement is exceeded when the offerors approach exceeds the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.8.6.2 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that the requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be exceeded; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

(ii) Shelf/Service life - is satisfactory when the offerors approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.9.1 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) how the threshold requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above will be satisfied (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

The Shelf/Service life requirement is exceeded when the offerors approach exceeds the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.9.1 of the SRD and provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that the threshold requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD and SOO will be exceeded; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

(iii) Reliability (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) - is acceptable when the offerors approach meets the threshold requirements defined in paragraph 3.9.2 of the SRD provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate: (A) that all requirements set forth in the associated paragraphs of the SRD listed above have been satisfied or how they will be satisfied; (B) an explicit understanding and effective approach and (C) is realistically achievable.

2.2.5 Sub-factor 2: Manufacturing and Quality (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

(a) Diminishing Manufacturing and Material Shortages (DMSMS) The DMSMS approach is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that all requirements set forth in SOO paragraph 2.11.2 have been defined and satisfied.

(b) Production Transition Plan (PTP) The PTP approach is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that all requirements set forth in SOO paragraph 2.11.9 have been defined and satisfied and that the plan is realistically achievable.

2.2.6 Sub-factor 3: Management Approach

(a) Rights in Technical Data, Computer Software, and Computer Software Documentation The Government’s intention is for the contractor to deliver complete level 3 drawings sufficient to manufacture and sustain C-HOBS product through full and open competition in the future. Offerors are not precluded from competing for award based on their refusal to provide at least Government Purpose License Rights to all data (other than the data listed as Unlimited in Table 1 of Attachment 2) and software delivered under the contract. However, an award decision will be based in part on how well the proposal meets the Government’s software and data right’s needs. In accordance with Table 5 TECHNICAL RATINGS – TRADE OFF – Applicable to Data Only, an Offeror will receive a Marginal Rating under sub-factor 3(a) if it’s “proposal includes Unlimited Rights to just the data items as identified in Attachment 2 and proposes in accordance with Section L, M and Attachment 2.” Some offerors may be willing to price their proposal so as to deliver to the Government all data/software with at least Government Purpose Rights regardless of the source of funding used to develop the data/software. Other offerors may determine to develop non-proprietary designs at Government expense in order to meet the Government’s data rights needs as part of the best value trade off determinations.

Note also that certain other data/software identified in Table 3 of Attachment 2 must be provided with unlimited license rights to the Government. These categories which require unlimited rights data/software are indicted by stating “unlimited” in column 3 of the table. (Note, the Government is entitled to unlimited rights in this certain data, including operations, maintenance, installation and training data, form fit and function data and other types of data required by DFARS, to provide with unlimited rights, without regard to the source of funds used to develop those classes of data.

The Government intends to evaluate how well each offer meets its Data Rights as part of sub-factor 3. With respect to noncommercial technical data and computer software, evaluation will be based on the offeror providing to the Government no less than Unlimited Rights to all technical data labeled as such in column 3 of Table 1 in Attachment 2. The Government needs Government Purpose Rights or greater to all remaining noncommercial technical data and computer software delivered under this contract as indicated in the Offeror’s Attachment 2 where the phrase “Offeror to Complete” was stated in column 3 of the row associated with that item of technical data or computer software. It is the Government’s intent to receive all data rights necessary to ensure that this requirement, to include both the acquisition and sustainment shall remain competitive in the future. As a result, the offeror may choose to willingly provide Government Purpose Rights or Unlimited Rights for any data developed exclusively at its own expense. If an offeror is not willing to provide Government Purpose Rights or Unlimited Rights to any data or software that was exclusively developed at its own expense, then the offeror shall recreate the data utilizing Government Funding that would allow for at least Government Purpose Rights. If the Offeror proposes to deliver to the Government any commercial item technical data or commercial computer software, the Government will also evaluate the extent to which the Offeror is willing to provide to the Government consistent with Federal procurement law (a) not less than a perpetual Government Purpose license to that technical data and software for (b) a sufficient number of licenses for C-HOBS program purposes as described in the Offeror’s completed Table 2 of Attachment 2, (c) unrestricted rights to items described in DFARS 252.227-7015(b)(1), and (d) a license that permits the Government to use, release or disclose that commercial item technical data and computer software outside the Government consistent with the license specified in Attachment 2. In addition, the Government will evaluate the adequacy of the analysis conducted by the Offeror (including all assumptions made) to determine that the quantity of licenses for such commercial item technical data and computer software the Offeror proposes to deliver to the Government in its completed Attachment 2 will be sufficient for C-HOBS program purposes including full and open competition in the future for acquisition and sustainment. Unlimited Rights or Government Purpose Rights (will be evaluated having equal value to the Government) to all remaining noncommercial technical data and computer software listed in Table 1 of Attachment 2 where the phrase “Offeror to Complete” is stated in column 3 of the row associated with that item of the technical data or computer software.

(1) All data produced under CLIN 1000, 1000AA and 1001 is associated with design, development, qualification and is a cost-reimbursable CLIN. The Government will be reimbursing the contractor its allocable, allowable, and reasonable costs of performing the work to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. As a result, the Government is to receive unlimited rights to all data produced under CLIN 1000, 1000AA and 1001.

(iv) Rights to data will be evaluated as follows:

TABLE 5 - TECHNICAL RATINGS – TRADE OFF – Applicable to Data Only

(b) Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) The IMS is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that all requirements set forth in SOO paragraphs 2.6, 2.11, 2.11.1 have been defined and satisfied; and that the plan is realistically achievable.

(c) Integrated Master Plan (IMP) (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) The IMP is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that all requirements set forth in SOO paragraph 2.6 and 2.11 have been defined and satisfied; and that the plan is realistically achievable.

(d) System Engineering Management Plan (SEMP) (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) The SEMP is acceptable when the offeror provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that all requirements set forth in SOO paragraph 2.2 have been defined and satisfied; and that the plan is realistically achievable.

(e) Quality Management System (QMS) (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE) The contractors QMS is acceptable if it complies with AS9100C or higher requirements IAW SOO 2.11.5.

2.2.7 Sub-factor 4 -Small Business Approach ((ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

(a) All proposals will be evaluated as to the extent of participation of small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns. The targets submitted in accordance with the below minimum goals shall be incorporated into the CSOW and become part of the contract. The minimum percentage goal that must be met and included in the CSOW (as referenced in SOO paragraph ) are as follows:

(b) Offeror will be evaluated to the extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals and;

(c) Will be evaluated to the extent that the offeror demonstrates its commitment to use such firms.

(i) Small Business approach is acceptable if the CSOW minimum goals meets or exceeds the above stated minimum goals, the identification of specific firms, and the offeror’s demonstration of its commitment to use such firms.

2.2.8 Technical Sub-factor Ratings

The Technical sub-factors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 – Technical Risk Ratings. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement, considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

2.3. Factor 2 Past Performance Factor (Volume II)

2.3.1 The Past Performance evaluation results in Government’s assessment of the offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation requirements.

2.3.2 Ratings: The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below:

TABLE 6- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

NO

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.3.3 Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence 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 Technical sub-factors and Cost/Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in 2.1.1. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.3.4 Recency Assessment:

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.5 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 Technical sub-factors and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference paragraph 2.1). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical sub-factors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to past experience with radar targeting systems used in munitions programs. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). 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. Information obtained from other sources may be used to determine relevancy. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4):

2.3.6 Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical sub-factors and Cost/Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the assessment will consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for small disadvantaged business (SDB) concerns. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and/or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. 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. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

2.3.7 Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical sub-factors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. The SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

2.3.8 More recent performance will not have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent effort performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. All performance determined to be recent will have an equal impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.3.9 Offerors who intend to enter into a joint venture must include evidence of a formal/informal joint venture to include setting up a System for Award Management (SAM) account (http://www.sam.gov) that includes a CAGE code, and a DUNS Number.

2.4 Factor 3 Cost/Price (Volume III)

2.4.1 A TEP (Appendix III of Section L – attached separately) will be calculated to be used for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision. The TEP is the sum of all CLINs associated with Design and Development, priced data, Rights to Data, Deferred Delivery, Qualification Testing, Trainers, Cable Kits and Life Cycle Surveillance Test Set. The TEP will also sum the price that is calculated utilizing the notional quantities used for each production delivery ordering period through delivery order six. It will include fee for the CPFF CLINs. The distribution of the notional quantity will be based upon the Government’s best estimate. The notional quantity for sensors and weighted bands WILL NOT be disclosed to offerors. The prices associated with the TEP will be contractually binding.

2.4.2 2.4.2 Basis of Estimate (BOE): The Priced BOE (appendix IV of Section L – attached separately) will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance. If any element of the offeror’s BOE is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable, or not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be rated as unacceptable. This will be applicable to all priced cost-type CLINs.

2.4.3 The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated based on the offerors populated TEP worksheet. The price for CLINs 1000, 1001, 2001, 2003, 2004 3001AC, 3001AD, 3002, 3003, 3004, 3006, 3008, 3011, 3012, 4001, 4002, 4003, 4005, 4007, 4010, 4011, 5001, 5002, 5003, 5005, 5007, 5010, 5011, 6001, 6002, 6003, 6005, 6007, 6010, 6011, 7001, 7002, 7003, 7005, 7006, 7008, 7011, 7012 will be summed. CLINs 3001, 3005, 4000, 4004, 5000, 5004, 6000, 6004, and 7000 and 7004 will be calculated based on the notional quantity and each of the quantity ranges will have a weighting. All CLINs will then be summed up to come to a total evaluated price.

2.4.4 The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Balance (4) Realism, and (5) Total Evaluated Price.

2.4.4.1 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.4.4.2 Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness (general and administrative expense and cost of money when applicable). If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

2.4.4.3 Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more CLINS is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

2.4.4.4 Realism – Cost realism will be conducted on the CPFF portion of this contract. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

2.5 Contract Documentation (Volume IV)

2.5.1 This volume will be reviewed for completeness. 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 Section L , Paragraph 7 “Contract Documentation.” An incomplete package may be excluded from the competitive range and/or award.

2.5.1.1 The proposal shall contain evidence of adequate financial resources.

IAW FAR 16.301-3(a)(3), a contractor’s accounting system shall be adequate for determining costs applicable to the contract or order for Cost Reimbursable contract types in order to be awarded a contract. Submit evidence that your company has an adequate accounting system (i.e. DCAA approved accounting system for Cost Type contracts). If offeror does not have evidence of an adequate accounting system, then a Pre-Award Survey may be conducted to determine whether or not offeror has an adequate accounting system. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines the contractor’s accounting system to be inadequate.

2.5.2 If the offeror is other than a small business, the offeror's Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall be submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, or Comprehensive Subcontracting Plan submitted in accordance with DFARS 219.702, and shall also be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror identifies and commits to the participation of Small Businesses to include service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and woman-owned small business concerns whither as a joint venture member, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. Failure to submit such a plan will render the offeror ineligible for award. Goals will be expressed in terms of percentages of total planned subcontracting dollars.

2.5.3 The contractor shall enter into an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) with the Boeing Company under Contract FA8681-14-D-0028 to be able to interface the sensor with the JDAM within 90 days of contract award. The contractor is responsible for negotiating the terms and conditions and negotiating a price with Boeing for entering into an ACA. Boeing will be providing a Proposal to the Air Force during evaluations. The amount proposed by Boeing will be a “plug in number” in the TEP which will be the same for all offerors. When a successful offeror is selected, they will be responsible for negotiating the terms and conditions and price with Boeing and entering into an ACA 90 days after award. The offeror shall be in compliance with paragraph 1.2 of the SOO. The contractor shall enter into an Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) with the Boeing Company under Contract FA8681-14-D-0028 to be able to interface the sensor with the JDAM within 90 days of contract award. The contractor is responsible for negotiating the terms and conditions and negotiating a price with Boeing for entering into an ACA. The offeror shall be in compliance with paragraph 1.2 of the SOO.

3. Pre-award Survey

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4. 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 factors or sub-factors. 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.