Attachment_8.pdf

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD (16 APR 2019)

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Technically Acceptable source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award multiple contracts as a result of this solicitation. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offeror(s). In accordance with Class Deviation 2018-O0006, Evaluation Factors for Certain Multiple-Award Task- or Delivery- Order Contracts, the PCO has waived the cost/price evaluation as each and all qualifying offerors will receive an award. A qualifying offeror is one that is deemed to be responsible and technically acceptable. Cost/Price will be evaluated at the order level. Past Performance is not being evaluated at the basic contract level, but may be evaluated at the order level. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made by evaluating the offeror’s submitted written technical proposal. A contract will be awarded to those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the Source Selection Team’s (SST’s) evaluations of the Technical factor and Subfactors described in this provision.

Two separate pools of awardees are anticipated; allowing an offeror to propose to either Pool A- Fixed Wing, or Pool B- Rotary Wing, or both Pool A and Pool B. If an offeror proposes to both Pools A and B, the offeror may be awarded to one or both Pools. The singular proposal shall differentiate between the Pools so that the proposal includes a Section A for Pool A- Fixed Wing and a Section B for Pool B- Rotary Wing. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one (1) proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the qualifying offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section M, paragraph II below.

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

A. General:

Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated solicitation requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal: Two separate pools of awardees are anticipated; allowing an offeror to propose to either Pool A- Fixed Wing, or Pool B- Rotary Wing, or both Pools A and Pool B. If an offeror proposes to both Pools A and B, the offeror may be awarded to one or both Pools. The singular proposal shall differentiate between the Pools so that the proposal includes a Section A for Pool A- Fixed Wing and a Section B for Pool B- Rotary Wing. Offerors shall submit only one proposal for the Special Operations Forces/Personnel Recovery (SOF/PR) Multiple Award Contract for Modifications (MACM) as the Government will review only one proposal per offeror.

POOL-A Fixed Wing

C-130J Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Data Link

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 C-130J Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Data Link Sample Task (Attachment 4 from Section J of the Request for Proposal) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following Subfactors in sufficient detail. For each Subfactor, the offeror shall identify within their detailed narrative risks or absence of risk associated with the proposed approach. A top-level Basis of Estimate (BOE) including labor hour estimates and Consolidated Bill of Materials (CBOM) will be required as supporting documentation for the proposed solution and Subfactor evaluations. Labor Category breakouts and rates are not required as cost/price will not be evaluated.

2. Factor 1 - Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach 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. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the Subfactors. 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.

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution (Offeror must address all paragraphs/subparagraphs) This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an adequately detailed narrative and supporting documentation that comprehensively illustrates the offeror’s sound, thorough understanding of, visible approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Engineering Analysis to produce the Technical “Design Output” associated with the proposed technical solution that utilizes the seven (7) factors listed in “Table 1: Technical Factors”

Technical Factors Unit

MACM

SOW

Reference

Sample Task Reference

Min Threshold

Value

Max Threshold

Value

Objective Value

DESIGN

OUTPUT

1. Link Budget N/A 3.9 3.6.1 0 N/A 2

2. Structural Analysis N/A 3.9 3.6 Yes N/A Yes

3. Time to Transfer Data Package Seconds 3.9 2.0 N/A 180 60

4. BLOS Compatible w/Mil Satellites N/A 3.9 2.0 Yes N/A Yes

5. Co-Site Analysis N/A 3.9 3.1.1, 3.14 Yes N/A Yes

6. LOS Live Video Data Rate kb/s 3.9 2.1 500 N/A 4,000

7. LOS in Range for at least 3 minutes N/A 3.9 2.1 Yes N/A Yes

Table 1: Technical Factors

2. A detailed narrative of the proposed technical solution to include, but not limited to:

a. Overall Design: Assumptions, engineering approaches/methodologies used, tradeoffs considered, modeling information, and hand calculations (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.15, 3.19);

b. Detailed narrative of each “Design Output” provided by the Contractor in Table 1 as it relates to the overall technical solution;

c. Component/Material selection (C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.8);

d. Cyber Assessment (MACM SOW 3.8)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.21);

e. Technical Risk Identification (MACM SOW 3.29);

f. Installation Plan (MACM SOW 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.25)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.17);

g. Technical Data Development (MACM SOW 3.9.1)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.18);

h. Configuration Control (MACM SOW 3.18, 3.19, 3.9.2, 3.9.10.9)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample

Task 2.2);

i. Provisioning (MACM SOW 3.26.5)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.20), and;

j. Joint Interoperability Test Command (MACM SOW 3.16)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task

4.1.2)

Subfactor Two, Airworthiness (Offeror must address all paragraphs/subparagraphs) This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an adequately detailed narrative and supporting documentation that comprehensively illustrates the offeror’s sound, thorough understanding of, visible approach to,

1. Identification of Modification Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) Sections affected (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.15)

MACC Section Affected (Yes/No) Rationale

(Reference Element 2 Below)

Section 4: Systems Engineering Section 5: Structures Section 6: Flight technology Section 7: Propulsion & Propulsion Inst'l Section 8: Air Vehicle Subsystems Section 9: Crew Systems Section 10: Diagnostic Systems Section 11: Avionics Section 12: Electrical Systems Section 13: Electromagnetic Environ Effects Section 14: System Safety Section 15: Computer Systems & Software Section 16: Maintenance Section 17: Armament /Stores Integration Section 18: Passenger Safety Section 19: Materials Section 20: Air Transportability, etc.

Table 2: Airworthiness

2. The detailed narrative shall include rationale for Airworthiness selections and the criteria used in assessing each individual MACC Section’s affectability rating (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.15).

Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Experience (Offeror shall address all paragraphs/subparagraphs as required by the instructions below) This Subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed narrative, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Within your technical experience as a contractor (either prime or subcontractor who performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work), illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the SOW within the past 10 years that demonstrates military aircraft modifications that in summation included at least three (3) of the four (4) following elements:

a. Design – Developing the technical approach, drawings, and data utilizing set requirements to produce an operationally effective capability. (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.15, 3.19);

b. Integration – Implementing a design within the existing framework of the overall system and existing sub-systems. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.9, 3.15, 3.20.1);

c. Installation – The act of implementing a technical design on a designated system in the form of a modification trial kit, kit proof, and production manufactured kits. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.9.6- 3.9.8, 3.10, 3.11)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.9, 3.15, 3.20.1), or;

d. Test – Measure the overall ability of a modification, in a lead or supporting role, utilizing ground procedures, operational checkout, and/or aircraft flights via a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) or similar plans. (MACM SOW 3.9.6, 3.9.9)(C-130J BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.1-4.3)

2. To support the stated experience related to Subfactor three – number one, supporting documentation shall include, but is not limited to:

a. Contract numbers;

b. Test procedures/reports;

c. Period of performance;

d. Agency/organization supported;

e. Individual point of contact (Contracting Officer or Program Manager);

f. Brief description of the work performed (e.g., performance based work statements, statement of work, statement of objectives, contractual engineering task; SEP; TEMP);

g. Weapon system;

h. Government Customer or requirements holder;

i. Applicable Government testing agencies interaction (where applicable);

j. Program name, and;

k. Describe your company’s capabilities and experience in generating technical data (i.e., CAD/hand-sketched drawings, installation plan etc.) and engineering drawings/product level TDPs. Identify what software programs are utilized to generate these data products and what formats are available for delivered items.

Note: The purpose of Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Experience, is not to evaluate the quality of the stated experience but will be used by the Government to verify the information provided accurately reflects the Contractor's understanding of and capabilities to perform the requirements of the orders that will be issued under this contract.

POOL-B Rotary Wing HH-60G Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Data Link

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 HH-60G Beyond Line of Sight (BLOS) Data Link Sample Task (Attachment 2 from Section J of the Request for Proposal) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following Subfactors in sufficient detail. For each Subfactor, the offeror shall identify within their detailed narrative risks or absence of risk associated with the proposed approach. A top-level Basis of Estimate (BOE) including labor hour estimates and Consolidated Bill of Materials (CBOM) will be required as supporting documentation for the proposed solution and Subfactor evaluations. Labor Category breakouts and rates are not required as cost/price will not be evaluated.

2. Factor 1 - Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach 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. Risk will not receive a separate rating; rather, it will be inherent within the Subfactors. 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.

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution (Offeror must address all paragraphs/subparagraphs) This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an adequately detailed narrative and supporting documentation that comprehensively illustrates the offeror’s sound, thorough understanding of, visible approach to,

1. Engineering Analysis to produce the Technical “Design Output” associated with the proposed technical solution that utilizes the seven (7) factors listed in “Table 1: Technical Factors”

Technical Factors Unit

MACM

SOW

Reference

Sample Task

Reference

Min Threshold

Value

Max Threshold

Value

Objective Value

DESIGN

OUTPUT

1 Link Budget N/A 3.9 3.9 6 dB margin N/A 10 dB margin

2 Structural Analysis N/A 3.9 3.6 Addresses the four elements N/A Same as

Threshold

Time to receive 20 MB data package over

BLOS

seconds 3.9 2.0 120 N/A 20 seconds

4 BLOS Compatible w/Mil Satellites N/A 3.9 2.0

Compatibility with all waveforms N/A Same as

Threshold

5 Co-Site Analysis N/A 3.9 3.1.1, 3.15 Identifies all potential issues N/A Same as

Threshold

6 LOS Live Video Data Rate kb/s 3.9 2.1 500 N/A 16,000

7 LOS in Range for at least 3 minutes minutes 3.9 2.1 3 N/A 5

Table 1: Technical Factors

2. A detailed narrative of the proposed technical solution to include, but is not limited to:

a. Overall Design: Assumptions, engineering approaches/methodologies used, tradeoffs considered, modeling information, and hand calculations (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13) (HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.17, 3.20);

b. Detailed narrative of each “Design Output” provided by the Contractor in Table 1 as it relates to the overall technical solution;

c. Component/Material selection (HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.4, 3.1, 3.8);

d. Cyber Assessment (MACM SOW 3.8) (HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.22);

e. Technical Risk Identification (MACM SOW 3.29);

f. Installation Plan (MACM SOW 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.25)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.18);

g. Technical Data Development (MACM SOW 3.9.1)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.19);

h. Configuration Control (MACM SOW 3.18, 3.19, 3.9.2, 3.9.10.9)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link

Sample Task 2.2), and;

i. Provisioning (MACM SOW 3.26.5)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.21)

j. Joint Interoperability Test Command (MACM SOW 3.16)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task

4.1.2)

Subfactor Two, Airworthiness (Offeror must address all paragraphs/subparagraphs) This Subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides an adequately detailed narrative and supporting documentation that comprehensively illustrates the offeror’s sound, thorough understanding of, visible approach to,

1. Identification of Modification Airworthiness Certification Criteria (MACC) Sections affected (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.16)

MACC Section Affected (Yes/No) Rationale

(Reference Element 2 Below)

Section 4: Systems Engineering Section 5: Structures Section 6: Flight technology Section 7: Propulsion & Propulsion Inst'l Section 8: Air Vehicle Subsystems Section 9: Crew Systems Section 10: Diagnostic Systems Section 11: Avionics Section 12: Electrical Systems Section 13: Electromagnetic Environ Effects Section 14: System Safety Section 15: Computer Systems & Software Section 16: Maintenance Section 17: Armament /Stores Integration Section 18: Passenger Safety Section 19: Materials Section 20: Air Transportability, etc.

Table 2: Airworthiness

2. The detailed narrative shall include rationale for Airworthiness selections and the criteria used in assessing each individual MACC Section’s affectability rating (MACM SOW 3.9.4)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 3.16)

Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Experience (Offeror shall address all paragraphs/subparagraphs as required by the instructions below) This Subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed narrative, along with supporting documentation that illustrates the offeror’s understanding of the following:, approach to, and current and planned capability for the following:

1. Within your technical experience as a contractor (either prime or subcontractor who performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work), illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the SOW within the past 10 years that demonstrates aircraft modifications that in summation included at least three (3) of the four (4) following elements:

a. Design – Developing the technical approach, drawings, and data utilizing set requirements to produce an operationally effective capability. (MACM SOW 3.9.1, 3.10, 3.12, 3.13)( HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.16, 3.20);

b. Integration – Implementing a design within the existing framework of the overall system and existing sub-systems. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.10, 3.11)( HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.22.1);

c. Installation – The act of implementing a technical design on a designated system in the form of a modification trial kit, kit proof, and production manufactured kits. (MACM SOW 3.9.2, 3.9.6- 3.9.8, 3.10, 3.11) ( HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 2.0, 3.1.1, 3.10, 3.16, 3.22.1), or;

d. Test – Measure the overall ability of a modification, in a lead or supporting role, utilizing ground procedures, operational checkout, and/or aircraft flights via a Test and Evaluation Master Plan (TEMP) or similar plans. (MACM SOW 3.9.6, 3.9.9)(HH-60G BLOS Data Link Sample Task 4.1.1-4.3)

2. To support the stated experience related to Subfactor three – number one, supporting documentation shall include, but is not limited to:

a. Contract numbers;

b. Test procedures/reports;

c. Period of performance;

d. Agency/organization supported;

e. Individual point of contact (Contracting Officer or Program Manager);

f. Brief description of the work performed (e.g., performance based work statements, statement of work, statement of objectives, contractual engineering task; SEP; TEMP);

g. Weapon system;

h. Government Customer or requirements holder;

i. Applicable Government testing agencies interaction (where applicable);

j. Program name, and;

k. Describe your company’s capabilities and experience in generating technical data (i.e., CAD/hand-sketched drawings, installation plan etc.) and engineering drawings/product level TDPs. Identify what software programs are utilized to generate these data products and what formats are available for delivered items.

Note: The purpose of Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Experience, is not to evaluate the quality of the stated experience but will be used by the Government to verify the information provided accurately reflects the Contractor's understanding of and capabilities to perform the requirements of the orders that will be issued under this contract.