SECTION_M_MTE_450_VPS_AMENDMENT_01.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award onecontract 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. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government is not liable for contractor proposal costs incurred.

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 offer from the competitive range.

1.4 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. 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 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.

1.5 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. The

Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 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.

Volume I: Price / Contract Documentation

Volume II: Technical Proposal

Subfactor 1: Program Management

Subfactor 2: Technical Orders and Technical Data

Subfactor 3: Testing

Subfactor 4: Engineering Design

3.0 VOLUME I – PRICE / CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

3.1 Price Evaluation

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

B of the offeror’s proposal.

3.1.1 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. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-

3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 apply, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

3.1.2 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.

3.1.3 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP calculation will include the summation of the total Amounts for CLINs 0001 through

0006 [excluding Travel and Contractor Data Requirements List (CDRL)] submitted by the offeror in Section B. The cost reimbursable travel is a variable component of each offeror’s proposal and will not be a consideration in the award decision.

3.1.4 Contract Documentation

Along with technical requirements, and in addition to the previously identified factors and sub-factors, Offerors are required to meet all other solicitation requirements, such as terms, conditions and representations and certifications. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Although not considered a factor, the contract documentation volume will be reviewed for completeness by the PCO as part of a determination of responsibility. The volume shall include a signed copy of the Model

Contract/Solicitation, Sections A through K (as outlined in Section L 3.2), signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by Instructions to Offerors (ITOs)

Section L paragraph 2.0.1.

4.0 VOLUME II – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

4.1 General

4.1.1 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.

4.1.2 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.

4.2 The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

4.3 Subfactor 1: Program Management

4.3.1 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. (Statement of Work (SOW) Para 3.3.1 and 4.2)

4.3.2 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 CDRLs 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. (SOW para 3.1.1 and 3.2.1.2, CDRLs A001-A012, A015)

4.4 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. (SOW 1.1,

3.1.1 and CDRL A013 and A014)

4.5 Subfactor 3: Testing

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

3 of the MTE 450 VPS System Requirements Document (SRD) 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 SRD 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. (SOW Section 1.1, 3.2.1.7 and the stated CDRLs)

4.6 Subfactor 4: Engineering Design

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.

The overall engineering design will be compared against SOW 3.2, the SRD and ISO 9001:2015 or equivalent. Suitability and effectiveness of the offeror’s design approach regarding obsolescence mitigation, compliance with specifications, 10 year supportability plan, thermal dissipation issues, and adherence to the SRD will be evaluated for thoroughness and consistency.

(SOW 3.2 and ISO 9001:2015 [or equivalent Quality Assurance Program Plan])