MAC III Section M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Power Conditioning and Continuation Interfacing Equipment (PCCIE)

1. SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is 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) Part 15, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplemental Procedures, Guidance and Information (DFARS Subpart 215-3—Source Selection) with the new DoD source selection procedures memorandum revised on 31 March 2016. These regulations are available electronically at http://acquisition.gov. All offerors will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. The government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. The Contract 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 a target of three (3) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts with effective dates as of date of award for the PCCIE program. The government also reserves the right to increase the number of contractors later during the life of the contract if determined to be in the best interest of the government; this will be implemented via the “On-Ramp” Section H contract clause and the effective date(s) will be “To Be Determined” (TBD). Contracts awarded under this solicitation will be available for task order competitions immediately after IDIQ awards; on-ramped contracts will be effective only after the government has made such a contract effective in accordance with the provisions of the Section H clause. The Contracting Officer shall also review any potential future awardee for standard contractor responsibility criteria as described by FAR part 9.104.

The government reserves the right to award fewer than three prime vendors if deemed in its best interest.

However, the government reserves the right to make no award at all. If the government determines to not award a contract, the government is not liable for costs incurred.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or aspect of the offeror’s proposal, including price. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the government's requirements and is not considered correctable, or among the most highly rated offers, the offeror may be eliminated 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 final 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 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.

2. 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 them by the non-price factors or subfactors.

• Factor 1: Price

• Factor 2: Technical

Subfactor One: Technical Equipment Requirements Subfactor Two: Design Subfactor Three: Program Management Subfactor Four: Awardable Task

3. PRICE FACTOR – VOLUME ONE

Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unbalanced may not be considered for award. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated to be used for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the lowest price/technically ACCEPTABLE decision. Applicable cells in the Pricing Workbook (RFP Attachment

2) shall be populated; zero is an acceptable response. If a cell is left blank, it may be deemed as non-responsive which may lead to disqualification.

Labor rates for the positions listed in the Pricing Workbook (RFP Attachment 2) shall be populated; zero is an acceptable response. If a cell is left blank, it may be deemed as non-responsive which may lead to disqualification.

3.1 Completeness

Any cells in the Pricing Workbook that are not completed will be considered a no bid or an omitted price resulting in an incomplete price submission and may be considered ineligible for award and may be eliminated.

3.2 Reasonableness

The determination of Price Reasonableness will consist of reviewing the Pricing Workbook and Awardable Task to calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and evaluate the TEP in accordance with the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal analysis techniques. Cost or Pricing Information Requirements – In Accordance With (IAW) FAR 15.402, FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403- 3(a), “information other than certified cost or pricing data” may be required to support price reasonableness. If after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine the reasonableness of the proposed pricing the offeror may be required to submit additional information other than certified cost or pricing data. If, during the source selection process, the CO determines that adequate competition no longer exists, then certified cost and pricing data may be required.

3.3 Balance

The government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be the sum of pricing totals as specified below. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation of proposals and will be a consideration in the award decision. The TEP will be for evaluation purposes only and will not constitute a promise by the government as work to be performed or ceiling amount for contract award. The awardee will be bound to the labor rates and pricing lists proposed in the Pricing Workbook and Awardable Task Order proposal.

The TEP calculation for this acquisition will be established by adding together three separate components contained in the Pricing Workbook:

• Uninterruptible Power Supplies (UPS) Box Pricing

• Awardable Task

• Firm-Fixed Price Fully-Loaded hourly Labor Rates

The first component of the TEP is the pricing of the UPS Box. The government will make predetermined notional selections within the pricing worksheet that will be applied equally to all offerors. Notional elements will not be disclosed to offerors. This component of the TEP will represent the majority of the contract requirements.

The second component of the TEP is the Awardable Task. Price and technical teams will perform an integrated assessment on the Awardable Task. The Awardable Task may be issued at contract award and the offeror will be held to the prices submitted in accordance with the List of Documents, Exhibits, and other Attachments and the fixed price Pricing Workbook. A multiplier will be applied to the Awardable Task pricing when evaluating the TEP.

The third component of the TEP will consist of firm-fixed price fully-loaded hourly labor rates multiplied by the government generated notional hours. Notional elements will not be disclosed to offerors.

All offerors will be evaluated on the same basis and the government will apply the offeror’s proposed amounts to the applicable government determined notional multipliers in calculating the TEP. Details of this method and government developed notional hours/quantities will not be revealed to the offeror, but the method will be applied consistently and equally to each offeror.

4. TECHNICAL FACTOR – VOLUME TWO

4.1 Evaluation Methodology

4.1.1 The government’s technical evaluation team will 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 Technical Factor Unacceptable and, therefore, un-awardable. Technical subfactors will be weighted equally. 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.

4.1.2 Evidence which clearly demonstrates and supports the offeror’s claims is essential. The absence of such evidence may result in a technically unacceptable proposal.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Each subfactor will receive a rating of ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled into an overall rating for the Technical Acceptability factor. An UNACCEPTABLE subfactor rating will render the offer un-awardable. Evaluation Notices (EN) may be issued for UNACCEPTABLE assessments rendered.

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

4.2.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Equipment Requirements IAW SRD para 2.0 and 4.0

Description: This subfactor evaluates technical equipment requirements per System Requirements Document (SRD). The technical equipment requirements are acceptable when the offeror’s proposal provides a level of detail and supporting documentation to clearly demonstrate that all technical requirements for the equipment have been defined and satisfied, and an explicit understanding and effective approach to all aspects of the PCCIE program as defined in the SRD and requirements identified below.

This subfactor is considered Acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria:

4.2.1.1 UPS configuration descriptions for commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment.

Equipment shall be on-line, double conversion, with sizes ranging from 3 to 1100 kW and above. UPS shall be single or three-phase. Equipment shall be in accordance with SRD 4.0. A brief narrative summary of UPS compliance with the SRD shall also be provided for evaluation.

4.2.1.2 Input/output voltage option for 60 HZ models shall be 480/480 and 208/208.

Input/output voltage option for 50 HZ models shall be 380/380, 400/400, and/or 415/415. Equipment shall be in accordance with SRD 4.3.2.2 and 4.3.2.3.

4.2.1.3 Equipment shall address the following power problems at a minimum: power failure, sag, surge, under-voltage/brownout, over-voltage, line noise, frequency variation, switching transients, harmonic distortion in accordance with SRD 3.1 and IEEE 488 and 519.

4.2.1.4 Equipment shall have built-in self-protection against permanent damage as a result of power problems, including fault current in accordance with SRD 4.3.2.4.

4.2.1.5 The UPS shall be capable of maintaining output current during a fault condition for a period of one cycle. If the fault is not cleared in one cycle and a bypass source is available, the UPS shall transfer to bypass without interruption to clear the fault in accordance with SRD 4.3.3.9.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.2.1.6 UPS units shall be able to perform in parallel configurations in accordance with SRD 2.2. UPS units shall be able to be connected to generators and/ or flywheels as well as battery backup.

4.2.1.7 Battery types shall be both vented (flooded, wet cell) and AGM valve-regulated lead acid. Batteries shall be in accordance with SRD 4.4 and 6.2.2.

4.2.1.8 Ancillary equipment: The proposal shall be evaluated for the availability, connectivity, and compatibility with UPS equipment in various system configurations in accordance with SRD 2.4.

4.2.2 Subfactor 2: Design IAW SRD para 6.0 and SOO 1.2 &1.6

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s capability to provide a design approach in accordance with SRD 6.2 and SOO 1.2 & 1.6.

This subfactor is considered Acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria:

4.2.2.1 Design Survey Report & Installation Plan - The proposal will be evaluated for the offeror’s capability to meet the elements in accordance with SRD 6.2, CDRL A004, SOO 1.2 &1.6, and is included in the Contractors Statement of Work (CSOW).

4.2.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s program management ability to understand and meet the requirements, effectively manage, and adequately staff the requirements. The processes must be clear and concise and specifically address the items below.

4.2.3.1 Subcontracts - The proposal will be evaluated for the offeror’s capability to award and manage subcontracts. If applicable, the commercial small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated against applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements.

4.2.3.2 Emergency/problem resolution - The offeror’s approach will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis for the offeror’s capability to provide emergency/problem resolution in the event of imminent mission failure or safety conditions in various locations worldwide in accordance with SRD 5.0.

4.2.3.3 Worldwide capability - The offeror’s approach will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis for the offeror’s ability to support worldwide, simultaneous installations.

4.2.3.4 Proposals - The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis for the offeror’s capability to provide complete competitive task order proposals in accordance with SRD 6.2.

4.2.3.5 Power Distribution Audits – Each proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/ unacceptable basis for the offeror’s capability to provide a report from a study of the electrical power system supporting power reliability, power quality, and power safety of the electrical infrastructure of a building IAW SRD, Appendix A, Exhibit B003.

4.2.4 Subfactor 4: Awardable Task

Description: Under this subfactor, three separate requirements determined on a site visit (prior to RFP) are described and solicited in three separate Requirements Documents. The offerors’ complete proposal responses, with a narrative Design Survey Report and Installation plan, Performance Schedule, Cost Proposal with hours, and bid rates consistent with those entered into the Pricing Workbook (RFP Attachment 2) for the Requirements Document, will be evaluated for each location. The government’s technical evaluation of the awardable task will focus on the completeness of the offeror’s narrative solution, pertaining to whether or not it satisfies the SRD, SOO, and site Requirements Document. The proposed solution must present a sound, feasible, effective yet efficient process, and must clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the capability and experience the offeror team possesses for meeting the requirements of the awardable task Requirements Documents.

4.2.4.1 The proposals will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and solution demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively complete the requirements of the SRD, SOO, and Requirements Document within the program-estimated cost and schedule.

4.2.4.2 The proposals will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to efficiently manage resources, feasibly and effectively apply processes and capabilities proposed to subfactor 1, 2, and 3 elements, i.e., effective systems engineering and design, development, integration, configuration management and sustainment, technical data development, and program status reporting within a reasonable schedule for performance.

4.2.4.3 The awardable task bids will be evaluated on effective but efficient application of labor (skill levels) and the effective calculation of total price. This will become part of the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). (See Price Evaluation Factor).

5. CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION – VOLUME THREE

5.1 Along with technical requirements, and in addition to the previously identified factors and subfactors, 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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) as part of a determination of responsibility. The volume 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 Instructions to Offerors (ITOs) Section L 6.0.

5.2 If applicable, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated against applicable Federal

Acquisition Regulation requirements IAW DFARS 219.702.