Tab_12_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION FA8224-19-R-A002

1. Awards

1.1. Basis for Contract Awards

This acquisition will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2, as supplemented. Technical tradeoffs will not be made and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability. Award will be made to the acceptable offeror with the lowest evaluated price, that has acceptable past performance, is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for the F-22 Horizontal Stabilizer Fixture contract. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest.

1.3. Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unbalanced in cost/price when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program, indicating technical unacceptability. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

1.4. Discussions

It is the Government’s intent to 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 Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

1.5. Solicitation Requirements

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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

2. Evaluation

2.1. The Government will evaluate the factors and subfactors below:

Factor One – Technical Proposal

Subfactor One: System Description Subfactor Two: Technical Data Requirements Subfactor Three: Management

Factor Two – Price Proposal Factor Three – Past Performance

2.2. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are approximately equal to Cost/Price.

2.3. Evaluation Methodology

2.3.1. A price evaluation will be performed for all offerors in accordance with this section and proposal will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price

(TEP).

2.3.2. Next, a technical and past performance evaluation will be performed beginning with the lowest priced offerors. Evaluations will cease when the government has a sufficient number of technically acceptable proposal(s) with an acceptable past performance rating.

Award will be made to the lowest evaluated priced proposal meeting the acceptability standards for the non-price factors.

2.4. PART I - FACTOR ONE: Technical Proposal

2.4.1. The technical evaluation for acceptability will be in accordance with the criteria set forth in this section. The offeror’s proposal must convey to the Government that the offeror is capable, experienced, possesses sufficient resources, and is able to plan, organize, and use those resources in a coordinated and timely manner that satisfies this requirement in accordance with the Statement of Work (SOW). The offeror shall specifically state how that capability will be used for this effort. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure that each technical subfactor listed below sufficiently explains how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements. In accordance with the definitions on the following page; the contractor must be deemed acceptable for all sub-factors in order to be deemed technically acceptable. The offeror’s proposal shall not simply copy and paste, rephrase or restate the SOW language for the technical proposal.

2.4.2. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the following ratings:

2.4.3. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. The technical factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single subfactor is rated “Unacceptable”. The offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the government may hold discussions if necessary. Proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

2.4.4. Subfactor One: System Description

Offeror shall provide a complete system description of the proposed fixture. Offerors proposed system description will be evaluated on whether it meets the orientation capability requirements outlined in SOW Appendix B. Performance Specification paragraphs 2.1.5 and subparagraphs.

2.4.5. Subfactor Two: Technical Data Requirements

Offeror shall provide evidence of prior experience in preparing technical data packages including designing, analyzing and documenting products comparable in scope and complexity to the fixtures required for this effort. Evidence shall include at least one brief example of either drawings/models, acceptance test reports or Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) manuals. Offeror will be evaluated on ability to prepare data packages on products comparable to the required Technical Data, as outlined in SOW (sections 5.3.1, 5.7 and 5.8) and Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) A001, CDRL A002 and CDRL A003.

2.4.6. Subfactor Three: Management

Offeror shall provide a complete preliminary project schedule in a Gantt-like chart that includes milestones identified in the SOW sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5. The schedule shall identify the resources (personnel and facilities) that are planned to execute the project.

Offeror will be evaluated on whether its proposed preliminary project schedule timeline is achievable utilizing the proposed resources to complete the project and if the timeline meets the required milestones outlined in SOW Sections 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5.

2.5. PART II - FACTOR TWO: Price Proposal

2.5.1. The pricing criteria used for evaluation are (1) completeness, (2) price reasonableness, (3) balance and (4) Total Evaluated Price.

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

2.5.2. Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the RFP. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

2.5.3. Price Reasonableness – The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 (Proposal Analysis Techniques). Based on the level of interest for this requirement, it is anticipated that adequate price competition will satisfy the criteria for price reasonableness.

2.5.4. Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to separately priced line items. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.5.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The TEP will be the Firm Fixed Price (FFP) proposed for the F-22 Horizontal Stabilizer Fixtures, including delivery and data required via CDRLs, and is contractually binding.

2.6. PART III - FACTOR THREE: Past Performance

2.6.1. Past performance information will be gathered from offeror submissions, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and questionnaires.

Only recent and relevant past performance information will be considered.

2.6.1.1. Recent is defined as performance less than three years old. The Government will not consider performance on contracts/task order where performance was concluded more than three years prior to this solicitation’s issue date.

2.6.1.2. Relevancy is defined as work that involves approximately the same types of services described in this RFP.

2.6.1.3. Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Rating Description 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 available 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.”