MACM_IDIQ_M.900_-_Section_M_Draft.doc

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

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:

1. 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. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. 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 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 risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

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. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. 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:

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution

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”

3 minutes

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. Engineering analysis required to produce each proposed “Design Output” for Table 1;

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

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 Expertise This Subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed narrative approach, 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 either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work, illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the Draft 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, 3.10, 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 expertise 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: Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise is for verification purposes only.

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 and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following Subfactors in sufficient detail.

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. The technical evaluation will also consider risk in determining overall acceptability. Risk pertains to the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. 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:

Subfactor One, Technical Approach/Solution.

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”

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. Engineering analysis required to produce each proposed “Design Output” for Table 1;

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 Assessment (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.

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

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 Expertise.

This Subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed narrative approach, 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 either performed the work or managed subcontractors that performed the work, illustrate expertise, capabilities, and capacities relative to any requirements/engineering services specified in the DRAFT 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 3.9.6-3.9.8, 3.11, 3.30)( 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 expertise 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: Subfactor Three, Aircraft Modification Expertise is for verification purposes only.