Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

SSP Attachment 4 Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award to a single contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the lowest total evaluated price. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. 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 paragraph 3 below.

II. Award of Mission Essential Quantity (MEQ)

A. The government has determined that a break in the supply of this item (that is, failure to deliver due to timeliness and/or conformance) would jeopardize support to operational units’ mission capability. Additionally, the item is of such complexity and/or so critical that first article testing measures are required for all unproven sources to ensure that the unproven source is capable of producing a conforming part.

Therefore, the government reserves the right to award the Mission Essential Quantity (MEQ) and, if necessary, the remainder of the requirement to a proven source. In order to be awarded quantities beyond the MEQ, the proven source must be a responsive, responsible offeror and also be the lowest in price of all proven offerors, price and price-related factors considered. Therefore, two contract line items are provided to correspond with each of the two alternatives.

B. The government shall first determine the apparent successful offeror for the complete quantity under Alternative 1. If offers are received from both proven and unproven sources and it is determined that an unproven source is the apparent low offeror (and is also responsive and responsible), then the prices under Alternative 2 shall be evaluated. Once a decision has been made to progress to Alternative 2, offers under Alternative 1 shall no longer be considered (e.g. the contracting officer shall not compare the proven source’s offer under Alternative 1 and the unproven source’s offer under Alternative 2). If only unproven sources submit offers, Alternative 1 will be used to determine the low offeror and award will be made for that quantity.

C. A proven source is an offeror who has previously satisfactorily provided the identical item to the government or who proposes to provide an item manufactured by the prime manufacturer or the prime manufacturer’s vendor (when there is no value added by the prime manufacturer).

D. An unproven source is an offeror who has not previously satisfactorily provided the identical item to the government and who proposes to provide an item manufactured by other than the prime manufacturer or the prime manufacturer’s vendor (when there is no value added by the prime manufacturer).

E. Competitive negotiated acquisition procedures may be used to determine low offeror status if,

(1) a proven source is not the low offeror, based on either initial proposals or on the final proposal revision if discussions are conducted, and

(2) if the proven source’s price is not determined to be based on adequate price competition pursuant to FAR 15.403-1, Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data.

The contracting officer may proceed with an award to the low unproven source and may request cost or pricing data from the proven source. When received and evaluated, negotiations shall follow as necessary to determine fair and reasonable prices. Under these circumstances, any contract with the proven source would contain the clause at FAR 52.215-10, Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing

Data.

F. The government is under no obligation to exercise any options provided for under these procedures. Acceptable delivery of the basic award quantity by an unproven source shall not bind the government to exercise all or part of the option quantities, or to exercise options in any contract with the unproven source in lieu of options in any separate award to a proven source. In addition, the government reserves the right to reject, as nonresponsive, any offer in which the prices proposed in either Alternative

1 or 2 are determined, by the Contracting Officer, to be materially unbalanced.

III. Proposal Evaluation

A. General: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by

Volume):

i. 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 Officerdetermines 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.

ii. Volume I, Completed RFP

a. General: 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.

ii. Volume II, Technical Factor

a. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the sub-factors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of Statement of Work (SOW) dated 6 MAR 2018 and any revisions, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following sub-factors in sufficient detail.

(a) Sub-factor One: Technical Solution/Approach The subfactor is met when the offeror’s detailed narrative with supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and supporting illustrations, demonstrates that the offeror’s technical solution/approach meets the requirements as outlined in the SOW paragraphs 1.1, 1.1.2, and 1.1.3. At a minimum, the proposal shall provide the following:

1. A detailed plan to manufacture this complex assembly from start to completion.

The plan should include (but not limited to):

□ Knowledge of any additional processes required to maintain tight tolerances in production and assembling of parts

□ Ability to perform fluorescent dye penetrant inspection, ASTM-E-1417 type

1, using MIL-STD-1907, Grade B acceptance inspection

□ Ability and knowledge of passivate IAW AMS 2700, method 1

□ Ability and knowledge of Priming IAW MIL-PRF-23377, type 1 class 3

□ Ability and knowledge of Painting IAW MIL-PRF-85285, type 1, class H color no. 36375 (gray), IAW FED-STD 595 for part and assembly coatings as required and conversion coat IAW MIL-DTL-5541, class 3

□ Ability and knowledge of Shot peening all machined parts IAW SAE AMS

2430 using cut wire shot stainless steel (AMS2431/4)

□ Ability and knowledge of work and manufacture of composite parts

□ Ability and knowledge of installing helicoils

□ Ability and knowledge of tapping and threading as necessary

□ Ability and knowledge of assembling complex parts

□ Ability and knowledge of packaging and shipping large assemblies without damage

2. Include any tooling that would be required to manufacture and assemble the parts. Describe any systems or methods for which repeatability was required for parts that were similar to this requirement and how the tolerances were maintained throughout this process.

3. The Offeror is required to demonstrate a wide range of technical improvements and involvement as related to military-unique equipment demonstrating each element by providing information involving both unique situations as well as detailed technical examples.

(b) Sub-factor Two: Production Plan The sub-factor is met when the offeror adequately describes how it intends to organize, manage, and perform production of the 105mm Ammunition Rack

Assembly in order to meet the requirements as detailed in SOW paragraphs 1.1,

1.1.2 and 1.1.3. At a minimum, the proposal shall provide the following:

1. The organizational structure of the company, supported by an organizational chart as follows:

a. The organizational chart shall include subcontractor(s) and delineation of efforts among the subcontractors

b. The lines of responsibility and decision making that will exist among all the team members

c. The description of work that will be subcontracted, if any

d. Detailed discussions on how the offeror intends to organize its personnel

2. Describe in detail how offeror intends to manufacture five (5) 105mm

Ammunition Racks per year.

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

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

V. Cost/Price Factor

A. General: The offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price calculation in accordance with the following:

i. 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. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

ii. 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 contract line items including the Basic and all

Options, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to

(a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of

CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN.

Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The

Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Schedule B of the RFP.

Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

iii. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will calculate the TEP based on the following:

(a) The offeror will propose in accordance with the following CLIN structure as applicable:

CLIN Title Pricing Quantity

0001 Bid A (Unproven Source) (Alt 1) 0001AA First Article Unit Firm Fixed-Price 1 EA

0001AB Production Units Firm Fixed-Price 4 EA

0002 Bid B (Proven Source) (Alt 1 )

Production Units

Firm Fixed-Price 5 EA

0003 Bid C (Unproven Source) (Alt 2)

First Article

Firm Fixed-Price 1 EA

0004 Bid D (Proven Source-MEQ) (Alt 2)

Production Units

Firm Fixed-Price 5 EA

0005 Data Not Separately Priced 1 LO

0005AA A001 Status Report

0005AB A002 Conference Agenda

0005AC A003 Conference Minutes

0005AD A004 IUID Marking Report

0005AE A005 IUID Marking Plan

0005AF A006 Integrated PM Report

0006 Travel Cost Reimbursable No Fee 1 LO

OPTION I:

1001 Production Units Firm Fixed-Price 5 EA

1002 Data Not Separately Priced 1 LO

1002AA A001 Status Report

1002AB A002 Conference Agenda

1002AC A003 Conference Minutes

1002AD A004 IUID Marking Report

1002AE A005 IUID Marking Plan

1002AF A006 Integrated PM Report

OPTION II:

2001 Production Units Firm Fixed-Price 5 EA

2002 Data Not Separately Priced 1 LO

2002AA A001 Status Report

2002AB A002 Conference Agenda

2002AC A003 Conference Minutes

2002AD A004 IUID Marking Report

2002AE A005 IUID Marking Plan

2002AF A006 Integrated PM Report

1. For all FFP CLINs, an evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price times the respective quantity.

2. For proposals that include quantity ranges, the government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price or that CLIN.

3. Offerors will also propose an estimated cost for CLIN 0004 (Travel).

Proposed travel costs will not be included in the TEP calculation.

4. CLIN 0005 (Data) will be Not Separately Priced and therefore not included in the TEP calculation.

5. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

(b) The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP for each First Article and Production unit CLIN as follows:

1. Both unproven sources (First Article required) and proven sources (First

Article not required), TEP will be calculated using CLINs 0001, 0002, 1001, and 2001.

2. For CLINs 0001 (Bid A) and 0003 (Bid C) – First Article, the evaluated price for all proposals will be $455,000.00. Proven sources are not required to propose for First Article costs. For CLINs 0002 (Bid B) and

0004 (Bid D) the evaluated price will be the proposed unit price multiplied by the quantity required. For CLINs 1001 and 2001 the evaluated price will be the unit price multiplied by the specified number of units.

3. The sum of all the CLINs, less travel, for each proposal will represent the total evaluated price for that proposal.

4. This award will be made on an all or none basis. Any proposals not offering for all items for all quantities will not be evaluated and will not be eligible for award.

(c) The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(d) Pictured below is an example of the TEP Calculation. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only and is not inclusive of all contract periods. The Government estimated dollars, hours, rates, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be erformed.

CLIN Title Qty Pricing Unit Price Total Price

0001 Production 5 EA Firm Fixed-Price $100.00 $500.00 0002 Travel 1 LO Cost Reimbursable No Fee $2,000.00 $2,000.00

1001 Production 5 EA Firm Fixed-Price $100.00 $500.00

2001 Production 5 EA Firm Fixed-Price $100.00 $500.00

Subtotal $3,500.00 Less Travel ($2,000.00)

Total Evaluated Price $1,500.00