DRAFT_SECTION_M_MTE_450V_PS_WORKING_DRAFT.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-I - Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

M-II – Solicitation Provisions in Full Text

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition is 100% set aside for Small Businesses and will utilize a Lowest Price

Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense

Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 04 March

2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, 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 subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. 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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the MTE 450 Volt Power Supply (VPS).

However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

2.0 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 discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the

Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

file:///C:/Users/JeffreyW.Voudren/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Temporary%20Internet%20Files/Content.Outlook/far/FAR52.215.doc%23b522521

3.0 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 subfactors. 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. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

4.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

4.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The

Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.

Factor 1: Price

Factor 2: Technical Proposal

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Technical Orders and Technical Data

Subfactor 3: Testing

Subfactor 4: Engineering Design

4.2 Price Evaluation

The offerors Price proposal will be evaluated based upon reasonableness, balance and total evaluated price (TEP). Price will be assessed from the offerors information provided in volume

IV of the offerors proposal.

4.2.1 Reasonableness

The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of price reasonableness. Proposal analysis techniques in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 will be used to determine 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 as described in FAR 15.403-3.

4.2.2 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.

4.2.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

TEP will be calculated by reducing the Total Proposed Price by the cost reimbursable travel

CLIN. The cost reimbursable travel is a variable component of each offerors proposal and will not be a consideration in the award decision.

4.3 Technical Factor

4.3.1 The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

4.3.2 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 technical subfactors:

4.3.3 Subfactor 1: Program Management

4.3.3.1 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The offeror’s proposed IMS will be evaluated based on the following: identifies proposed schedule dates for all events, reviews, accomplishments and criteria. An incomplete or an unreasonable IMS will result in a rating of

Unacceptable. (SOW Para 3.3.1.2)

4.3.3.2 Data Management: The offeror’s data management methodology will be evaluated by how comprehensive and complete their approach is relating to the implementation of a data management program with controls to address data preparation, compliance with Contractor

Data Requirements List (CDRL) specifications, timely submittal, maintenance, and tracking of all data deliverables, data products, and related correspondence. The offeror will also propose data rights for each item in the CDRL list. The offeror’s description of how the proposed data rights meet the government’s need will be evaluated. The offeror will receive a rating of

Unacceptable if the data needs of the government for this project are incomplete, inadequate or flawed. (SOW para 3.2 and 3.3, CDRLs A001-A012, A015)

4.3.4 Subfactor 2: Technical Data

The offeror’s methodology will be evaluated on their approach relevant to technical orders (TO) change pages and commercial manual development, preparation and delivery. This description will also be evaluated on how proposed data rights meet the government’s needs. A methodology that is incomplete or inadequate will result in a rating of Unacceptable. SOW 3.1, 3.2.1.1 and

CDRL A013 and A014.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

4.3.5 Subfactor 3: Testing

The overall test approach and methodology will be compared against the requirements in Section

3 of the MTE 450 VPS Performance Specification and described in the testing Section of the

SOW para 3.2.1.7. The test approach will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness and effectiveness. The testing used to certify performance will be evaluated for soundness and compared to the testing methods required in the PS and SOW. The individual test descriptions and procedures will be evaluated based on the requirements of the respective CDRL A005, A006, A007, and A008 DIDs. An approach that is incomplete, unreasonable, inconsistent or inadequate with the PS Section 3, the SOW Section 3.2.1.7 and the stated CDRLs will result in a rating of Unacceptable.

4.3.6 Subfactor 4: Engineering Design

The overall engineering design will be compared against SOW 3.2.1, the Performance

Specification and ISO 9001:2015 or equivalent. Suitability and effectiveness of the offeror’s design approach regarding obsolescence mitigation, EMI & EMC noise mitigation, compliance with specifications, 10 year supportability plan, thermal dissipation issues, and adherence to the performance specifications (PS, Section 3) will be evaluated for completeness, reasonableness, and consistency. An approach that is incomplete, unreasonable, or inconsistent with SOW 3.2.1 and ISO 9001:2015 (or equivalent) will result in a rating of Unacceptable.

4.4.1 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 solicitation requirements.

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; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee

Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

4.4.2 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 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

4.4.3 Relevancy Assessment.

After assessing the recency, the Government will conduct an evaluation to determine how similar the products provided and/or services performed under those contracts/projects relate to the technical sub-factors of this solicitation. Relevant performance includes performance of efforts involving work platforms that involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Consideration will be given to service similarity, type of effort, contract scope and type, and the performance period. Relevency ratings are defined as described in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

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.