c-SectionMRFSE21Jan2015.pdf

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Reentry Field Support Equipment (RFSE) – Production

21 January 2015

AIR FORCE NUCLEAR WEAPONS CENTER (AFNWC)

INTERCONTINENTAL BALLISTIC MISSILE (ICBM) SYSTEMS DIRECTORATE

Flight Systems Division (AFNWC/NIB)

HILL AIR FORCE BASE

General

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a lowest-price, technically-acceptable source selection conducted in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1 July 2011. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for solutions that exceed required minimum thresholds. Award may be made to the offeror who (a) is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, as supplemented; (b) whose proposal conforms to this solicitation’s requirements (to include, but not limited to, all stated terms and conditions (T&Cs), representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation); (c) has the lowest price as judged by the criteria outlined in this section (Section M) and (d) is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to be technically acceptable and have acceptable past performance. 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.

2.0 Award Without Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit an initial offer that contains the offeror’s best terms. 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 and the final proposal revision will be considered in making the source selection decision. Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

An offeror may be asked to clarify certain aspects of its proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Exchanges conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions, and the Contracting Officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

3.0 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Reentry Systems Field Support Equipment (RFSE) – Production effort. The Government reserves the right, however, to award no contract at all, if the Source Selection Authority determines it is in the Government’s best interest.

4.0 Major Revisions of Proposals

If a proposal receives an unacceptable rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the solicitation’s requirements, the Government reserves the right to exclude the offeror from the competitive range. The determination as to whether any proposal would require major revisions to meet the soliciation’s requirements is within the sole discretion of the Government.

5.0 Solicitation Requirements, T&Cs

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as T&Cs, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the T&Cs of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation T&Cs and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

Evaluation Criteria

6.0 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.

6.1 Evaluation Methodology

6.1.1 Initial Price Evaluation

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) as defined in paragraph 6.2.4 below.

6.1.2 Technical Acceptability and Past Performance Evaluation Next, a technical acceptability and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offeror.

6.1.2.1 Lowest Priced Offeror is Technically Acceptable

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, if an award is going to be made.

6.1.2.2 Lowest Price Offeror is Not Technically Acceptable

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

6.1.2.2.1 Option One

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

6.1.2.2.2 Option Two

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

6.1.2.2.3 Option Three

Continue evaluating additional offerors

6.1.2.3 Higher Priced Offers May Not be Evaluated

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

6.1.2.4 Inclusion in the Competitive Range

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

6.2 Factor 1: Price

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) balance, and (4) TEP. The evaluation criteria are defined below:

6.2.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for compliance with Section L of the Request for Proposal (RFP). Failure to follow any instruction in Section L of the Request for Proposal (RFP) will result in an offeror’s proposal being deemed “incomplete.” Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated, and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

6.2.2 Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it will represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would incur in the conduct of competitive business.

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. Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

6.2.3 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 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. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

6.2.4 Total Evaluated Price

A TEP will be calculated for use in the evaluation of offeror proposals and will be a consideration in the award decision. While the TEP will not be contractually binding, the prices and elements of the TEP will be incorporated into the contract. The TEP will be computed by the Government and will consist of the sum of offeror proposed prices as follows:

6.2.4.1 All Priced Firm Fixed Price (FFP) Contract Line Item

Numbers (CLINs) FFP CLINs 0001, 0002, 0003, 0004, 0010, 0011, 0012, 0015, 0018, and 0021 will be summed.

6.2.4.2 FFP CLIN 0005

FFP CLIN 0005 will be evaluated as a summation of all unit prices for all ELINs found in Section J, Exhibit B.

6.2.4.3 Labor Rate Matrix

FFP CLIN (0008) will be calculated by application of offeror proposed rates (Section J, Attachment 4: Labor Rate Matrix) multiplied by Government-generated notional number of hours and labor mix. These notional hours and labor mix will not be disclosed outside the Government at any time. The rates proposed will be incorporated into the contract and will be used to negotiate CLIN 0008.

6.2.4.4 Not Seperately Priced CLIN

CLINs 0007, 0009, 0014, 0017, 0020 and 0023 are Not Seperately Priced and are presumed to be included in the price for other CLINs.

6.2.4.5 All Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs

All CR CLINs (0006, 0013, 0016, 0019, 0022) will not be evaluated as part of the TEP. The Government shall verify that all associated costs are reasonable and billed in accordance with FAR 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures at the time they are incurred. The offeror must still propose prices for these CLINs in Section J, Attachment 6: Pricing Matrix.

6.2.5 Accounting System

The Government will evaluate whether the offeror has a Government approved accounting system. Failure to possess or obtain Government approval of the accounting system may result in elimination from the competition. If the offeror does not currently have Government approval of its accounting system, it may be subject to a Pre-Award Survey as defined in Paragraph 7.1

6.3 Factor 2: Technical Acceptability

The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described in Table 1 below for each subfactor.

Table 1 Technical Acceptability Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall rating for the technical acceptability factor. Any subfactor or element of a subfactor that is 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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

6.3.1 Subfactor 1: Program Management

Description: Under this subfactor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to achieve comprehensive management of RFSE - Production effort as required by paragraph 5.1 of Section J, Attachment 1:

Statement of Objectives. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal

(a) conveys a sound, feasible, and effective approach and (b) demonstrates how that approach will be applied to the RFSE - Production effort.

6.3.1.1 Management Plan

The offeror’s Management Plan will be reviewed for accuracy and completeness relating to the traceability from the system level requirements as specified in the Statement of Objectives (SOO).

The offeror’s Management Plan shall also contain narratives that provide additional insight into the offeror's total work effort and how the offeror will develop, implement, and commit to the total contracted effort.

6.3.1.2 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

The offeror’s proposed IMS for the RFSE - Production effort will be evaluated based on the following: identifies proposed schedule dates for all Management Plan events, reviews, accomplishments and criteria. Contractors IMS must show completion and delivery of the first deliverable no later than 20 months after contract award and completion and delivery of the last deliverable no later than 44 months after contract award to be considered technically acceptable. The IMS must provide enough detail to show that (a) all tasks are being completed, (b) that they are being done in a logical order, and (c) enough time is being allowed for completion of the task without compromising quality within the deadlines provided.

6.3.1.3 Contractor Statement of Work (CSOW)

The SOO provided as Attachment 1: Statement of Objectives in Section J of this solicitation represents the Government's minimum objectives for the RFSE - Production effort. The proposed CSOW shall define the tasks required for the RFSE - Production effort ensuring all minimum requirements of the Government provided SOO have been addressed. The proposed CSOW shall consist of tasking statements. Each tasking statement shall reference the CDRL items which will be delivered by that task. The proposed CSOW shall not contain informational notes (statements other than tasking statements), as the Technical Acceptability Volume provides ample opportunity for discussion and description of the offeror's approach, and the Management Plan and IMS provide the mechanisms for describing specific details of the offeror's approach. The tasking statements in the CSOW, the Management Plan, and IMS sections shall use a common numbering system.

The CSOW will be reviewed for completeness and traceability to the SOO.

The proposed CSOW will be put on contract at award. Enough detail must be provided to demonstrate that the offeror understands the tasks that must be completed in order to achieve the objectives listed in the SOO.

6.3.1.4 Small Business Participation Plan

The offeror’s proposed small business participation plan is considered to be acceptable when it clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the small business subcontracting goals as defined in the H-133, Small Business Subcontracting Requirements Clause. The small business participation plan is not to be confused with small business subcontracting plan. The evaluation of the small business participation plan will also include the following:

6.3.1.4.1 The extent to which such firms are specifically

identified in proposals

6.3.1.4.2 The extent of commitment to use such firms

6.3.2 Subfactor 2: Production Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach for manufacturing and quality management. This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal (a) conveys a technically-sound, feasible, and effective approach; (b) demonstrates how that approach will be applied to the RFSE - Production effort; and (c) provides evidence of how these capabilities, processes, and methodologies were successfully used on a previous program of similar technical complexity.

6.3.2.1 Quality Assurance Program Plan

The offeror’s Quality Assurance Program Plan must describe implementation of established quality assurance processes and what measures will be in place to provide early visibility of and confidence in the produced RFSE components. Acceptable offers will have proof of ISO 9001-2008 certification or AS9100 certification included in the offer. Additionally, acceptable offers will demonstrate an ability to identify process improvements and the ability to manage vendors and subcontractors. The offeror shall discuss what metrics are kept and how those metrics are used.

Quality includes continual recertification of supply chain and subcontractors. A discussion of history of quality over the last three years must be included.

6.3.2.2 Manufacturing Plan

The Government will evaluate how the proposed plan includes the SOO requirements as they relate to manufacturing, assembly and checkout of the RFSE suite and its supporting components. The plan will include facilities that are rated for processing classified equipment at the SECRET level or higher. Offerors shall ensure that proposals do not contain any classified information. The plan will discuss measures taken to reduce human induced defects in the build. Offerors must demonstrate an ability to handle heavy equipment and manage Nuclear Weapons Related Material.

Offerors must describe the shelf life maintenance procedures and how they have been used.

6.4 Factor 3: Past Performance

Past performance of an offeror, significant subcontractor(s), teaming partner(s), and joint venture partner(s) will be rated acceptable or unacceptable using the ratings in Table 2. Significant subcontractors are those that will perform (a) 15 percent or more of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price (including options) or (b) aspects of the effort the offeror considers critical to overall successful performance. An overall rating of unacceptable will be given if any of the offeror’s or offeror’s significant subcontractor(s), teaming partner(s), or joint venture partner(s) are assessed as unacceptable.

Table 2 Past Performance Evaluation Ratings Rating Definition

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 below).

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the 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 availaacceble 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”.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation are as follows:

• Past performance information provided by the offeror, as solicited.

• Past performance information obtained from questionnaires.

• Past performance information shall be obtained from any other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

commercial sources, interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

6.4.1 Evaluation Process

The past performance evaluation performed in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation. The first is to evaluate whether the offeror’s present or past performance is recent. The second aspect will evaluate whether the offerors recent performance is relevant to the RFSE – Production effort. The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the contractor performed on the identified contracts. The combination of what is recent, relevant and how well the contractor performed will either provide confidence that the contractor can or cannot perform the effort and will be rated in accordance with Table 2.

6.4.1.1 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 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

6.4.1.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided and/or services performed under those contracts relate to the technical acceptability subfactors and price factor as listed in the questionnaire. Relevancy ratings are defined in Table 3 Below:

Table 3 Past Performance Relevancy Rating Definitions Rating Definition

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the technical acceptability subfactors and price factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). 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. The past performance information sheets and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. In the event that third party performance information is obtained (e.g., from PPIRS) the Government will utilize the same relevancy definitions.

If relevancy is not clear, the Government may clarify with the applicable offeror to determine the contract’s relevancy. The Government has the final determination of relevancy.

6.4.1.3 Quality

Once the offerors’ contracts are determined to be recent and relevant, the Government will consider performance quality, i.e.

how well the contractor performed primarily from the questionnaires received or interviews conducted. Performance quality will be assessed based on the technical acceptability subfactors, however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered in questionnaires and other source of past performance information. The quality assessment may result in adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on questionnaires or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation may consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Adverse comments to which the offeror has not had the opportunity to respond will be addressed via clarifications, communications, or in discussions (if applicable). The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Quality Assessment/Color Description SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED

During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

NOT

AVAILABLE(N)/WHITE

Quality and/or performance information is not available.

6.4.1.4 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2).

6.5 Completed and Executed Request for Proposal

6.5.1 T&Cs

Volume V will be evaluated for compliance with the T&Cs of the RFP. Any noncompliance with the T&Cs of the RFP may cause the proposal to be determined unacceptable. Incomplete or incorrect proposals may be rejected. Page limitations will be strictly adhered to.

6.5.2 Model Contract

The Contracting Officer will evaluate the model contract sections A through K for completeness, compliance and correctness.

7.0 Surveys, Reviews, and Visits

7.1 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.

7.2 Reviews and Visits

The Source Selection Evaluation Board may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies and the quality of development or manufacturing practices and/or processes. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal.