Section M final.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

The government intends to award Basic IDIQ contract(s) to "all qualified" offerors. In Accordance with RFO FAR 15.104(b)(1), price is not an evaluation factor for the award of the Basic IDIQ contract. All offerors evaluated as "Acceptable" on non-price factors (Factor 1 and Factor 2) will receive a Basic IDIQ contract award. The minimum guarantee of $5,000 (CLIN 0001: Post-Award Conference) will be obligated on each awarded Basic IDIQ contract.

Eligibility for DO 1 Production Funding & Affordability Cap Definition: While all qualified offerors will receive the unpriced Basic IDIQ, only those technically qualified offerors whose proposed DO 1 pricing on the TEP Worksheet (Attachment 15) is evaluated as fair, reasonable, and complies with the Government's established DO 1 Affordability Cap of $9,446,336 will be eligible to participate in the split-award of DO 1 production funding. Offerors whose DO 1 price proposals exceed this Affordability Cap of $9,446,336, or are determined unreasonable or unbalanced, will be denied any split of Year 1 production funding, but will still receive the Basic IDIQ contract funded with the minimum guarantee of $5,000 for CLIN 0001. Pricing submitted for this initial evaluation is contractually binding for DO 1 evaluation and award only. Subsequent Delivery Orders will be competed dynamically, allowing all contract holders to submit new price bids subject to yearly funding availability and FOPR-specific affordability caps.

An offeror is a 'qualifying offeror' if its 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 determined to be qualified prior to contract award IAW RFO clause 52.209-1. To be determined conforming to the solicitation's requirements, the proposal must receive an 'Acceptable' rating under Factor 2 (Plan, Technical, and Risk Mitigation Approach to Manufacture MJU-76/B) in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section 2.0

Independent Responsibility Determination: In accordance with RFO Subpart 9.1, the Contracting Officer will make an independent responsibility determination of the prospective awardee(s) prior to contract award. A contract will only be awarded to an offeror who is determined responsible by the Contracting Officer.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The government intends to award to "all qualified" offerors (multiple award) for the Basic IDIQ of the MJU-76/B Program. The Government reserves the right to award contracts to all qualified offerors, only one offeror, or no contract at all, depending on the number of adequate proposals received and the availability of funding. All technically acceptable offerors will receive the Basic IDIQ contract (with the $5,000 minimum guarantee), but the production split for DO 1 will be distributed only to those proposing acceptable prices.

1.2 Affordability Cap

The Government has established an explicit Affordability Cap of $9,446,336 for the first concurrent Delivery Order (DO 1). The Affordability Cap is calculated as the sum of the proposed prices for CLIN 0002 (MSE Admin), CLIN 0003 (First Article / MSE Testing), and CLIN 0004 (USG Production) evaluated at a fixed production quantity of 5,000 units. Any proposal with a TEP calculation under this specific evaluation scenario that exceeds the $9,446,336 Affordability Cap will be determined unaffordable and unacceptable. Offerors whose proposals exceed this cap will be excluded from receiving any split-award of DO 1 production units, but will still receive the unpriced Basic IDIQ contract obligated with the $5,000 minimum guarantee (CLIN 0001). For all future Delivery Orders (DO 2+), the Government reserves the right to establish a unique, FOPR-specific Affordability Cap and evaluation scenario (e.g., evaluating strictly CLIN 0004 production bands at higher quantities like 50,000 units) based on available funding and active program needs.

1.3 Discussions

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 Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time the 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. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best price. The government does however, reserve the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

1.4 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 evaluation 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 (see Section L). The government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract/Solicitation, completed sections A through K & I, applicable RFP attachments (Small Business Subcontracting Plan), and signed amendments to the solicitation (if any).

1.5 Pricing Related Data

Price/cost for the first Delivery Order (DO 1) must be submitted to determine each offeror's split award percentage for DO 1 production units. Production split-award funding beyond the $5,000 minimum guarantee (CLIN 0001) is anticipated to be allocated across CLIN 0002 (MSE admin), CLIN 0003 (First Article/MSE Testing), and CLIN 0004 (Production). Offerors must submit pricing on the TEP Worksheet Attachment (Attachment 15), fillable worksheet in Section J. Note that the price for the Post-Award Conference CLIN 0001 is pre-priced by the Government and fixed at $5,000, and therefore excluded from the TEP worksheet. The TEP calculation and split-award table described in this Section M govern the evaluation and award of Delivery Order 1 (DO 1) only.

Evaluation and split-award determinations for all subsequent Delivery Orders will be governed strictly by the procedures and formulas outlined in Attachment 14 (MJU-76 Ordering Procedures).

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Methodology

In order to be considered acceptable, the contractor’s submission requested in Section L must meet the below standards. The Government will evaluate for acceptability the factors described below:

2.1 Factor 1| Qualified Source Proposal

The contractor must be a qualified source prior to contract award in accordance with the source qualification requirements referenced in Section J of the solicitation. During the solicitation period, any potential offeror can contact the contracting officer to verify if it is on/not on the qualified vendors list. A copy of this confirmation email may be submitted with the offerors proposal but is not necessary. In the event that all qualification steps are not completed and approved, the award of the contract will not be delayed. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the Qualified Source Proposal on an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" basis, assigning one of the ratings described below:

Rating Definition

Acceptable The offeror has met MJU-76/B Qualification Requirements.

Unacceptable The offeror has not met MJU-76/B Qualification Requirements.

2.2 Factor 2| Plan, Technical, and Risk Mitigation Approach to Manufacture MJU-76/B The Plan, Technical, and Risk Mitigation Approach to Manufacture MJU-76/B will be evaluated for acceptability in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The Government will evaluate the offeror's Plan, Technical, and Risk Mitigation approach to Manufacture MJU-76/B for each of the subfactors below (2.2.1 through 2.2.6). The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the proposals on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis, assigning one of the ratings described in the table below. To receive an overall rating of "Acceptable" for Factor 2, the offeror’s proposal must be evaluated as acceptable in all six subfactors.

The plan submission shall be in PDF format and must contain no more than 25 pages (as specified in Section L).

Any pages exceeding the 25-page limitation will not be evaluated or considered. The Government may make a final determination as to the offeror's capability to perform based on the Plan, Technical, and Risk Mitigation Approach as submitted, without requesting further information from the offeror.

2.2.1 This subfactor is met when the offeror provides detailed information regarding whether processes and parts are manufactured in-house or procured from a subcontractor, including a clear list or description referencing all in-house and subcontracted parts.

2.2.2 This subfactor is met when the offeror describes the automated equipment to be utilized, its function, its necessity, and its benefit in maintaining high production rates, including specific impacts on production rates and how the equipment will mitigate or prevent potential manufacturing bottlenecks.

2.2.3 This subfactor is met when the offeror lists and describes the specific types and quantities of primary production and manufacturing machinery to be utilized, demonstrating sufficient capacity to perform the MJU-76/B manufacturing requirements.

2.2.4 This subfactor is met when the offeror details how the proposed processes will prevent defect formation and provide early identification of defects, including providing quality prevention documentation for all process steps, and referencing Manufacturing Systems Engineering (MSE) or statistical process control.

2.2.5 This subfactor is met when the offeror describes robust inventory management and control processes of critical components to ensure meeting the required production rate, including referencing specific parts with foreseen future supply issues and how those issues will be avoided.

2.2.6 This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a detailed flow diagram of the proposed assembly line(s) demonstrating a logical, realistic, and efficient manufacturing sequence.

Rating Definition

Acceptable The offeror has submitted a Plan, Technical, and Risk Mitigation Approach to Manufacture MJU-76/B that meets above stated criteria for all subfactors (2.2.1 through 2.2.6) and demonstrates a feasible risk-mitigation strategy for any identified technical or manufacturing risks.

Unacceptable The offeror has submitted a Plan, Technical, and Risk Mitigation Approach to Manufacture MJU-76/B that does not meet above stated criteria for one or more subfactors (2.2.1 through 2.2.6), and/or does not demonstrate a feasible risk-mitigation strategy for any identified technical or manufacturing risks.

2.3 Factor 3| Price Proposal

The Government will evaluate the proposed pricing submitted on the TEP Worksheet (Attachment 15) for the first concurrent Delivery Order (DO 1). Price proposals will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and compliance with the Affordability Cap of $9,446,336 (calculated as CLIN 0002 + CLIN 0003 + CLIN 0004 at 5,000 units of production) in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. No adjectival ratings will be assigned to the Price Proposal factor. While the Basic IDIQ is unpriced and will be awarded to all technically acceptable offerors, the price proposal for DO 1 determines eligibility to receive production split-funding (including CLINs: 0002, 0003, & 0004).

Proposals with pricing evaluated as unreasonable, unbalanced, or exceeding the Government's Affordability Cap will not receive a split of DO 1 production units, but will still receive a Basic IDIQ contract with minimum guarantee of $5,000 for CLIN 0001.

The TEP calculation will be computed as follows: 1) the Government will multiply the listed quantity by the proposed unit price from each contractor’s proposed prices in selected quantity bands; 2) the Government will then multiply the pre-determined notional quantities by the offeror’s proposed quantity band unit price; 3) the Government will then sum the extended prices of each notional quantity with other priced CLINs (0002 & 0003) this summation constitutes the TEP.

The TEP calculation for future Delivery Orders (DO 2+) will sum the extended prices of the pre-determined notional quantities across CLINs 0004, 0005, and 0006 as applicable to the specific FOPR.

The Government will split award amounts based on the percent difference between each Offeror’s TEP. The percent difference in calculated TEP is determined as follows: (highest-price minus lowest-price), divided by the lowest-price, and then multiplied by 100%. The difference in TEP will utilize the below table to determine each offeror’s split award percentage with the lowest-price offer receiving the higher split percent award; with the exception of <5% difference in TEP equating to an equal split.

Difference in TEP Expected Split <5% 50% 50%

≥5% &<10% 53% 47% ≥10% &<25% 55% 45% ≥25% & <35% 57% 43% ≥35% & <45% 60% 40%

≥45% 100% 0%

The percentage difference in the calculated TEP will be rounded to the nearest whole number. When calculating the total quantity of flares based off the order amount, the government will round to the nearest whole flare.

The TEP calculation and split-award table described in this Section M govern the evaluation and award of Delivery Order 1 (DO 1) only. Evaluation and split-award determinations for all subsequent Delivery Orders will be governed strictly by the procedures and formulas outlined in Attachment 14 (MJU-76 Ordering Procedures).

3.0 Pre-Award Survey

In accordance with DFARS PGI 223.370-4(iv) the PCO will request DCMA to conduct a pre-award survey within the Pre-Award Survey System (PASS), to include a review of the contractor’s/subcontractor’s facility, and to obtain a pre-award ammunition and explosives safety survey as a part of this source selection. Additionally, the requirements of DFARS PGI 223.370-4(iv) require that a pre-award survey be conducted before awarding any contracts involving ammunition and explosives, as defined in RFO DFARS 252.223-7002 – Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives. This requirement extends to any subcontractors a prospective contractor intends to use; therefore, to facilitate any potential PASS, the offeror shall provide a list of all locations where **ammunition and explosives (A&E) work (such as manufacturing, assembly, testing, handling, or storage of the MJU-76/B pyrotechnic components or completed flares) is to be performed (to include all locations/contractors outside of the United States) and indicate whether such a facility is a division, affiliate, associate contractor, or subcontractor. Results of the PASS will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and shall be a condition of award.