ATS_Section_M_Evaluation_Factors_18_Oct_2018.pdf

1 | P a g e 1 8 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

AIR TURBINE STARTER

SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 DESCRIPTION

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal

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

Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the

Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of

Technical/Technical Risk and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical and/or overall business approach of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA 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 Air Turbine Starter (ATS) Test

Stand program; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and/or funds available. If the

Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by the offerors.

1.3 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 documentation and rationale.

2 | P a g e 1 8 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

1.4 REJECTION OF UNREALISTIC OFFERS

The Government may reject any proposal that, as a result of its evaluation, is determined to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.5 DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to evaluate the proposals and make award without discussions;

therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. 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.

2.0 EVALUATION CRITERIA

2.1 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS

The following factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factors and subfactors described below:

1) Factor 1: Trade-Off Technical Approach/Technical Risk

a. Subfactor 1: Critical System Design Elements

b. Subfactor 2: Life Cycle Sustainment

c. Subfactor 3: Software

d. Subfactor 4: Workload Capability

2) Factor 2: Cost/Price

2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical

Approach/Technical Risk and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1

(Technical Approach/Technical Risk) being most important. Within the Technical Factor, the four subfactors are in descending order of importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factor 1 is significantly more important than price.

2.3 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government will conduct the technical evaluation where subjective criteria is used to evaluate elements of offerors’ proposals. The subjective technical evaluation is comprised of

Factor 1 and the corresponding subfactors.

3 | P a g e 1 8 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate Factor 1 Technical Subfactors in accordance with paragraph 3.1.2.1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, “Methodology 1:

Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process.” This provides for two (2) distinct, but related, assessments: the technical approach rating and the technical risk rating.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e. assignment of a strength for performance in excess of the requirements.

Each Technical Subfactor associated with Factor 1 will receive one of the technical approach color ratings described in Table 2.3A below. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the subfactors’ requirements. The Technical Subfactors will receive one of the

Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2.3B below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement; assessment of Technical

Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased

Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strengths, Weaknesses, and Deficiencies

The evaluation of the Factor 1 Technical Subfactors strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies are defined as:

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Table 2.3A – Technical Rating Method for Factor 1

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the Factor 1 requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the Factor 1 requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the Factor 1 requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the Factor 1 requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the Factor 1 requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

4 | P a g e 1 8 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Table 2.3B – Technical Risk Ratings for Factor 1

Adjectival

Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.4 FACTOR 1: TRADE-OFF TECHNICAL APPROACH/TECHNICAL RISK SUBFACTORS

Subfactor 1: System Design

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach for design of a test system that meets the requirements in all applicable documents (SOW and PDs 001through 003), and with emphasis on the elements listed below.

Simulated Inertia (PD #001 paragraph 3.3)

Overspeed testing (PD #001 paragraph 3.4)

Pawl Lift-off and Return Testing (PD #001 paragraph 3.5)

Adaptability (PD #001 paragraph 3.11)

5 | P a g e 1 8 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8

Subfactor 2: Life Cycle Sustainment

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to meeting the requirements listed in SOW paragraph 3.8, PD #001 paragraph 3.38, PD #002 paragraph 3.10, PD #003 paragraph 3.9, and with emphasis on the elements listed below.

Warranty (SOW paragraph 10)

Energy Efficiency (PD #001 paragraph 3.12, PD #002 paragraph 3.8, PD #003 paragraph 3.7)

Test Stand Engineering Data (SOW paragraph 4.2)

Data Rights (SOW paragraph 9)

Subfactor 3: Software

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach for the test system software with emphasis on the elements listed below.

• Data Acquisition and Controls (PD #001 paragraphs section 3.8.1 and 3.8.12)

• Software Requirements (PD #001 paragraphs 3.10.2, 3.10.3, 3.10.6, 3.10.7, and 3.10.8)

Subfactor 4: Workload Capability

This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s technical approach to meeting daily testing demands, to include calculations, with emphasis on the elements listed below.

Air Supply System (PD #002 paragraphs 3.1 and 3.2)

Air Testing Requirements and Hypothetical Day (PD #002, Appendix C)

Removal/Installation Plan (SOW paragraph 3.3.9)

2.5 FACTOR 2: COST/PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3)

Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Reasonableness

The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed

Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). All other CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1. The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness.

Cost/Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be

6 | P a g e 1 8 O c t o b e r 2 0 1 8 determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information IAW FAR Subpart 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN 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, Proposal Analysis

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

TEP

The TEP is the sum of all CLINs identified in Section B of the solicitation.