Attachment_5_Section_M_22Feb21.pdf

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

22 February 2021

Change Summary Amendment to Section M

February 2021

(AMEND) 3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The award will be made to the offeror proposing the lowest priced technically acceptable solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Multiple or alternate solutions will not be evaluated. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

(AMEND) 3.1.2 Subfactor 2: First Article, Production, and Test Capabilities

Detailed plan and complete design demonstrating ability to meet the specified physical size and weight of the Diplexer referenced in SOW 1.2.1, while maintaining the required electrical and functional capabilities.

(AMEND) 3.2.5 to remove Affordability in its entirety

September 2020

(AMEND) Reference for attachment updated to 00-G719769, Diplexer, dated 23 Aug 2004 on page 3.

Table of Contents

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

2.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.2 Competitive Range

3.1 Factor I: Technical

3.2 Factor II: Cost/Price

ii

SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 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 dated 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 2019 Edition. These regulations are available electronically at www.acquisition.gov. The Government intends to select one (1) offeror whose proposal represents the lowest total evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability requirements. This contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposals conform 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 are judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposals.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award to only one offeror under a single award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for this effort. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

1.3 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

By submitting its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the solicitation’s terms and conditions 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. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined unacceptable, and therefore ineligible for award.

EXCHANGES

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Discussions, if held, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306, and as supplemented, to include the establishment of the competitive range.

2.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of the proposal. 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 represents a deficiency of a magnitude not considered correctable by conduct of meaningful discussion or is not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, the offer may be eliminated from the competitive range as a result of initial evaluations.

http://www.acquisition.gov/

2.2 Competitive Range

The Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR

15.306 and solicitation provision FAR 52.215-1in order to exclude offers that are determined to be outside the competitive range, not correctable, not correctable within a reasonable timeframe, or not correctable even after meaningful discussions have failed to make the offer acceptable.

The Government reserves the right to further reduce the competitive range for purposes of efficiency. If the Procurement Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority (SSA), may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The award will be made to the offeror proposing the lowest priced technically acceptable solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Multiple or alternate solutions will not be evaluated. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

• Factor I: Technical o Subfactor 1: Program Management Capabilities o Subfactor 2: First Article, Production, and Test Capabilities

• Factor II: Cost/Price

3.1 Factor I: Technical

The Technical factor is divided into the following subfactors: Subfactor 1 - Program Management Capabilities, and Subfactor 2 – First Article, Production, and Test Capabilities.

Each offeror’s written technical proposal will be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provided a sound, compliant approach that met the requirements of the Solicitation, SOW, TDP, CDRLs, and demonstrated a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements.

Each subfactor will be evaluated and receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable as defined in Table C-1 from the DoD Source Selection Guide, dated 31 March 2016, as depicted below.

Proposals with “Acceptable” ratings for all subfactors will be considered to have satisfied the Technical factor. A proposal must satisfy all items under each subfactor of the Technical factor to be considered for award. A rating of “Unacceptable” in any subfactor renders a proposal unawardable.

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Subfactor 1: Program Management Capabilities This subfactor is considered to be acceptable when the offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates the offeror’s ability to meet the following requirements:

• Manufacturing, testing, inspection, and shipping/handling of Diplexers

• An understanding of the Diplexer requirement IAW the SOW through a complete Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

• Procure required materials and parts, including proprietary and/or long-lead items

• Identification of all significant risks and appropriate mitigation strategies associated with the First Article and Production requirements

• Identification of technical personnel, with roles and responsibilities of prime contractor and any subcontractor(s), required to plan for and manufacture Diplexers, from build concepts through delivery support

• Demonstrate offeror’s plan for collaborating with the Government to conduct a Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Critical Design Review (CDR), Functional Configuration Audit (FCA), and Physical Configuration Audit (PCA)

• Perform kit packaging, delivery and tracking processes

• Meet Diplexer production and schedule requirements IAW the SOW for items not produced in-house

Subfactor 2: First Article, Production, and Test Capabilities This subfactor is considered to be acceptable when the offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates the offeror’s compliance with the first article, production, and test capabilities, as outlined in SOW paragraphs 5.2, 6.1 and 6.2. The production and test capability will be evaluated according to the offeror’s ability to accomplish the following either in-house or by subcontract by demonstrating the following:

• Approach for producing and testing production representative Diplexers and production Diplexers over a five (5) year period while meeting the Government’s delivery schedule outlined in the solicitation, through evidence of mature production facilities

• Full compliance with Diplexer requirements specified in OO-G719769, Diplexer, dated23 Aug 2004, to include E-J and C-D band frequencies, while maintaining the operational ranges and connector types as referenced in the provided specifications

• Full compliance with Diplexer environmental test criteria for F-16 C/D aircraft as specified in the Defense Test Method Standard Environmental Engineering Considerations and Laboratory Test MIL-STD-810 Rev G, dated 31 Oct 2008

• Detailed plan and complete design demonstrating ability to meet the specified physical size and weight of the Diplexer referenced in SOW 1.2.1, while maintaining the required electrical performance and functional capabilities

• Compliance with SAE AS9100 and SAE AS9102 as they apply to Quality Assurance during the Diplexer assembly processes

• Item Unique Identifier (IUID) marking capability IAW MIL-STD-130

3.2 FACTOR II: COST/PRICE

The pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be considered in the best value award decision. For the Cost/Price Factor, the Government will use the submitted TEP Pricing Matrix Solicitation Attachment 6) to calculate the TEP.

Evaluation of ordering periods will not obligate the Government to place an order during each period.

Reasonableness The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness of the proposed prices. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional data in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

Balance Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items for the basic ordering period is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Total Evaluated Price (TEP) All elements required for the TEP shall have been included in the TEP Pricing Matrix Attachment 6 of the solicitation. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes by the Government and provided to the SSA for consideration in the best-value award decision.

The TEP is the sum of all CLIN totals as specified below. The TEP will be calculated as follows:

i. The firm fixed price (FFP) CLINs will be evaluated by applying offeror proposed fully burdened prices against Government generated notional quantities for all applicable years of the contract. The notional quantities will not be released to offerors as part of the solicitation. The notional quantities will not be contractually binding and will only be used in calculation of the TEP; however, the offeror’s proposed prices will be contractually binding and will be used to price future work performed under these CLINs. The notional quantities will represent the Government’s best estimate of the expected work under these CLINs and will be equally applied to all offerors.

ii. All Not Separately Priced (NSP) CLINs are assumed to be included in the costs for other line items and so will not be separately included in the TEP.

Cost Analysis The Government may perform cost analysis of the offeror’s proposed costs if, in the event of only one offeror, cost and pricing data is requested in order to make a fair and reasonable determination. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the performance described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The procedures of DFARS 215.371 will be followed.