20250225_ACE_Section M_ICT 1500-2500.pdf

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

Inspection Equipment ICT 1500/2500 309 Maintenance Support Group

Hill Air Force Base, UT

25 February 2025

SECTION M - EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. This is a Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation. These regulations are available electronically at the ACQUISITION.GOV site. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price from among those rated as “Acceptable” for all Technical Sub- Factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror 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 sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. The Government intends to award one (1) contract and reserves the right to award without discussions. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in section II below.

B. The evaluation factors that establish the requirements of acceptability are set forth in this section. The technical factors will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. All offerors who pass the technical factors will be treated equally except for their prices. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR 9.1 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

C. Evaluation Process: The Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process will be used.

The Government will evaluate Request for Proposal (RFP) submissions as responsive/non-response. The Government will evaluate offerors’ price proposals for award purposes by considering their Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which is the sum of all CLINs. Offerors' technical proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive and thereby excluded from further consideration.

D. Determination of Responsible Prospective Contractors: In order to be determined as responsible, an offeror must meet the following conditions:

• Offeror must meet the standards identified in FAR 9.104-1 Offerors who are determined to be non-responsible will be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a Certificate of Competency (COC).

E. Distribution. Distributed material will be identified as source selection sensitive and distribution will be strictly limited to appropriate personnel, and shall be encrypted where practicable. Should any offeror object to its proprietary information being shared between source selection evaluators and advisors via commercial email as described above, advise the Contracting Officer using the contact information in the RFP.

F. 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 determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by Volume):

A. General

1. Evaluation Factors: Proposals are evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating in every non-price factor/subfactor (Factor II). Evaluation will be based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

(a) Factor I- Price – Completed RFP and Price Proposal

(b) Factor II- Technical – Written Technical Proposal

Sub-Factor One: Authorized Vendor Sub-Factor Two: Technical Capabilities Sub-Factor Three: Period of Performance (POP) and Downtime Schedule

B. Volume I, Factor I – Price - Completed RFP and Price Proposal

1. General: As instructed in Section L, II Volume Organization, D. Volume I, Completed RFP and Price Proposal, the Government will award to the offeror who meets the requirements of completing the RFP requirements while proposing the lowest TEP, subject to the offeror’s non-price factors/subfactors are determined as acceptable.

C. Volume II, Factor II - Technical – Written Technical Proposal

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The written technical proposal shall address each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Technical Subfactor One

Description: Authorized Vendor Minimum level of acceptability: The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror provides evidence that demonstrates their team (including subcontractors if applicable) is an authorized vendor by specifically addressing the following conditions:

1. Offeror meets the standards identified in FAR 9.104-1.

2. Offeror has a completed and certified DD Form 2345.

Technical Subfactor Two

Description: Technical Capabilities The subfactor minimum is met when the Offeror's proposal provides a satisfactory response to each of the items listed below:

1. General

a. Contractor shall elaborate how they plan to use easily sourced parts for all upgraded parts within the system for the ease of future replacement and repairs. (See SOW 3.4, 3.5, 3.9)

b. The contractor shall elaborate on how the features below (Software, Motion Control, Detector

(LDA), X-Ray Source, Mechanical) must be able to communicate with one another for seamless integration of the system to meet our Translate-Rotate acquisition system requirements outlined in the SOW.

2. Software

a. Contractor shall provide an automated means of evaluating system spatial resolution and contrast sensitivity measured from a disk phantom as described in ASTM E 1695. These measures will be necessary for comparing system performance before and after the system upgrade. (See SOW 7.1.1.2, 7.3.2.1, 7.3.3 and 7.3.9.1)

b. Contractor shall elaborate on how they plan to program the Translate-Rotate feature within the software.

c. Proposed software shall have the capability of visualizing real-time data collection results (sinograms) and independently operated reconstruction of sinogram data. (See SOW 7.1.4 and 7.1.5)

d. Proposed software shall allow scan setup parameters as defined in the SOW (e.g., object type, scan height, table angle, field-of-view, resolution aperture, thickness aperture, etc.). (See SOW Sections 4, 5, 7.2, and 7.3)

e. Contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on generating complete 3D volumes allowing the user to view objects from any angle, slicing and moving through the asset and accurately measuring defects. (See SOW 7.1.1.4)

f. Contractor shall elaborate on how they plan to meet or exceed the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) resolution requirement: minimum of .3-line pairs per mm (lp/mm). (See SOW 7.3.3)

3. Motion Control

a. Contractor shall elaborate on the motion control system design. The Bosch Rexroth motion controller and servo motors are required. If a different system is proposed, contractor shall provide sufficient detail to demonstrate the advantages of the proposed motion controller. (See SOW 6.1, 6.2)

b. Contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on providing motion system encoders on the three linear stages and one rotary stage with resolutions that meet or exceed the current system (200 counts/mm on linear stages and 2000 counts/degree on rotary stage). (See SOW 6.3)

c. Motion control design shall include provisions for automated motion of two detector resolution apertures. (See SOW 6.4)

d. Contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on aligning the x-ray source and the LDA (See SOW 7.1.1.4). The contractor shall elaborate on how they propose to position all axes to user designated positions for setup and alignment. (See SOW 6.5)

e. Contractor shall elaborate on how the user shall have the capability of manipulating the tube head, LDA, and the CT table independently while also allowing input of parameters within the software prior to scanning. (See SOW 7.1)

4. Detector (LDA)

a. The contractor shall elaborate on how they plan to meet or exceed the following specifications.

The required detector upgrade will utilize the existing aperture hardware and CdWO4 (cadmium tungstate) crystals (or equivalent). Specific upgrades must include improved light pipes, photodiodes, and supporting electronics. (See SOW 3.10, 3.11, 3.11.1, 3.13)

b. If the contractor chooses a new drop-in detector design, contractor shall elaborate on how the proposed design will address scatter rejection equivalent to or better than the current design. Their proposed replacement plan must also address minimizing down time. (See SOW 3.10)

c. The contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on providing detector electronics, such as A-to-D converters, so they will be interchangeable from channel position to position within the LDA. (See

SOW 3.14)

d. The contractor shall provide detector electronics of modern design and capabilities as stated within the SOW (i.e., 20-bit, gain corrections by channel, synchronization with the linear accelerator x-ray source for precision object positioning information, etc.). (See SOW 3.14)

e. Contractor shall elaborate on how they intend on providing a reference detector design using a design like the existing design of the main detector channels. (See SOW 3.13)

f. Contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on providing detector channel diagnostic utilities to aid in troubleshooting and replacement of failed electronics in the detector channel chain. (See

SOW 3.15)

g. Contractor shall provide prior experience installing LDA detectors.

h. Contractor shall elaborate on the design and assembly of the scintillator assembly; i.e. Photodiode, light pipe and (CdWO4) cadmium tungstate or equivalent. (See SOW 3.11, 3.12)

i. Contractor shall elaborate on their prior experience in repairs of PCBs within an LDA on a

15MeV (K15) system.

5. X-Ray Source

a. Contractor shall provide prior experience installing or upgrading 9 MeV (M9) and 15 MeV (K15) systems. (See SOW Section 7.5.1, 7.5.2)

i. The contractor shall provide examples of past project experience that proves contractor competencies in high energy CT systems. The past projects must include upgrades or installations of 9MEV AND 15MEV systems.

ii. The contractor shall elaborate on how they intend to integrate while maintaining or exceeding the current timing, i.e. firing, measuring, pulsing, positioning, rotations, and accuracy, of all integrated components within the system (detector, x-ray source, motion system, and mechanical communications). (See SOW Section 6.7)

6. Mechanical

a. Contractor shall provide experience with stepper motors, servo motors, servo resolvers, and controls driving large gantries to ensure smooth motion to allow for clear image acquisition. (See SOW Section 4, 5, 6)

i. Contractor shall elaborate on past project experience that proves contractor competencies in manipulating the CT table with weight capacities of 120k pounds and an inspection envelope of 8ft diameter and 29ft in height for the ICT-2500; and 10k pounds and an inspection envelope of 4.5ft in diameter and 8ft in height for the ICT-1500.

b. Contractor shall elaborate on past projects involving large mechanical positioning components i.e.

ball screws, ways, bearings, multiple axes, drive motors, towers and cables that demonstrates how the mechanical design for the ICT-2500/ICT1500 will meet specifications of the SOW. (See SOW Section 4, 5, 6).

i. The contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on safely upgrading the critical mechanical components to meet the following Hill AFB’s needs:

1. The contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on ensuring positional accuracies and timing of all axes, encoders, CT table, drive motors, and ensure hard and soft limits are accurate and in place to protect explosive Air Force assets. (See SOW Section 1, 6, 10.2.3)

c. Contractor shall elaborate on how they plan on integrating with existing facility interlocks, area alarm and other safety system features. (See SOW 7.6 through 7.6.5)

7. Integration of the components within the ICT-1500/2500 systems

a. Contractor shall elaborate how they plan to integrate the Translate Rotate Software, Motion

Control, Detector, X-Ray Source, and Mechanical components within the system. (See SOW Section 4, 5, 6, 7)

i. The contractor shall provide examples of past project experience that proves contractor competencies in high energy CT systems. The past projects must include upgrades or installations of 9MEV AND 15MEV systems. (See SOW Section 4, 5)

Technical Subfactor Three

Description: Program Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed POP and Downtime Schedule response that satisfactorily meets the following requirements below:

1. The contractor shall elaborate on how they plan to meet or beat the POP of 80 weeks from award. (See

SOW 3.6)

2. The contractor shall elaborate on how they plan to meet or beat the allowed downtime for each phase of each ICT system. (See SOW 10.5)

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s written technical proposal for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. Every item listed as a numbered and sub-numbered alpha element within a subfactor will be evaluated. All numbered and sub alpha elements must be determined as acceptable for a subfactor to be determined “acceptable.”

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.