ALE-47 Section M - 7 May_.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Section M

7 May 2024

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the

DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS

Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable and have acceptable Small

Business Participation, tradeoffs may be made between the technical rating, technical risk, past performance and cost/price. Note, the previous sentence does not imply nor is it the

Government’s intention to conduct the evaluations in sequential order (i.e., first technical, then small business participation, then past performance, and finally price). The

Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior technical approach and/or lower technical risk and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

Technically acceptable proposals with a High or Unacceptable technical risk rating will not be considered for award. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal 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 as described in paragraph II below.

B. Relative Importance of Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor I: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk

Ratings)

Subfactor One: Engineering Expertise (Acceptable/Unacceptable, Technical Risk)

Subfactor Two: Fabrication, Integration, and Personnel

(Acceptable/Unacceptable, Technical Risk)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Subfactor Three: Delivery Schedule/Requirements (Separate Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

Factor II: Past Performance

Factor III: Small Business Participation (Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Factor IV: Cost/Price

Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, and past performance when combined are significantly more important than cost/price. However, Factor IV, Cost/Price, is an important consideration in the best value award decision.

Within Factor I, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and Subfactor 3 is significantly more important than Subfactors 1 and 2. Factor III, Small Business

Participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, and thus will not be a part of the tradeoff decision. Factor I, Technical, for Subfactors 1 and 2, includes both technical acceptability/unacceptability and technical risk. The technical acceptability/unacceptability ratings for Subfactors 1 and 2 will not be a part of the tradeoff decision. However, the technical risk rating portion of the technical factor for

Subfactors 1 and 2 will be a part of the tradeoff decision. Factor I, Technical, Subfactor 3 will be a part of the tradeoff decision in its entirety.

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 SSA, 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. Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and should discussions be necessary, the Government reserves the right to establish multiple competitive ranges in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3) and

FAR 15.306(d)(5).

2. Pre-Award Survey: The Government reserves the right to conduct Pre-Award Surveys on those offerors that submit timely proposals prior to the SSA making a best value decision.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

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. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions not listed in this cover letter. The submitted certificate or letter from an accredited organization demonstrating a quality program meeting AS9100D (Quality

Management Systems - Requirements for Aviation, Space and Defense Organizations) requirements shall be evaluated to ensure validity and approval of the quantity program.

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. Offerors who meet the requirement to have

First Article Testing waived, as described in RFP Part IV (First Article Applicability), will be considered a ‘proven’, ‘first-article qualified’, or simply a ‘qualified’ source. Offers who must complete First Article Testing will be considered an ‘unproven’, ‘not first-article qualified’, or an ‘unqualified’ source. These terms may be used interchangeably within the RFP and associated documents/attachments.

2. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents

(Statement of Work (SOW), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L

(Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award). The cross-reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated per FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS, to assure it reflects a sound approach to the offeror’s proposed small business subcontracting. Failure by the large business offeror/joint venture to submit this small business subcontracting plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

C. Volume II, 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 SOW dated 18 Jan 2024 and Request For Proposal Part I -

Schedule, Section B, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The Technical Proposal must address 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, SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. Offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify risks with the proposed approach beyond those identified by the offerors themselves. As a reminder, within Factor I, Technical, subfactor 3 is significantly more important than subfactors 1-2.

1.1. Subfactor 1: Engineering Expertise: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s response demonstrates an acceptable approach to and capability for the following:

1.1.1. Engineering and reverse engineering to accomplish parts replacement and redesign associated with diminishing manufacturing resources and parts obsolescence, including reverse engineering associated with Field

Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) and Programmable Array Logic

(PAL) devices, timing, code / firmware, and programming. (SOW paragraphs 2.8.2, 2.8.3)

1.1.2. Engineering and reverse engineering to develop, verify, and validate acceptance test procedures, including test software and test equipment.

(SOW paragraphs 2.1.1., 2.1.2, 2.1.3, including all sub-paragraphs for unproven sources. SOW paragraphs 2.2.1, 2.2.2, 2.2.3, including all sub-paragraphs for proven sources.)

1.1.3. Engineering and reverse engineering to create, update, and provide configuration control of Technical Data Package (TDP) contents, including incorporation of Government submitted Notice Of Revisions

(NORs) and Engineering Orders (EOs). (SOW paragraph 2.8.5 , including sub-paragraphs)

1.2. Subfactor 2: Fabrication, Integration, and Personnel: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s response demonstrates an acceptable approach to and capability for the following:

1.2.1. Fabrication, integration, and test, to include test failure analysis and correction. ((SOW paragraph 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2 including sub-paragraphs, 2.1.3, and 2.2 including sub-paragraphs))

1.2.2. Staffing to include key personnel and experience levels in the areas of

Security, Quality, Test, Engineering, Counterfeit Parts, Configuration

Management, and Operations/Manufacturing.

1.2.3. Manufacturing personnel training / qualification and staff levels, to include certifications (IPC or equivalent) in the following areas

(Attachment 3 – Capability Table):

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

1.2.3.1.Requirements for Soldered Electrical and Electronic Assemblies, IPC-J-STD-001.

1.2.3.2.Acceptability of Electronic Assemblies, IPC-A-610.

1.2.3.3.Rework of Electronic Assemblies/Repair and Modification of

Printed Boards and Electronic Assemblies, IPC-7711C/7721C.

1.2.3.4.Requirements and Acceptance for Cable and Wire Harness

Assemblies, IPC/WHMA-A-620.

1.2.4. An effective system, such as an Enterprise Resource Planning type system, that automates the integration of internal and external management information across your entire organization, encompassing finance / accounting, manufacturing, sales and service, and customer relationship management. The narrative shall describe how the functional areas are linked, the extent to which they are linked, and the approach for how they shall share and exchange information. The narrative shall describe the medium (i.e., Aegis CircuitCam, paper copy, etc.) in which Bill of

Materials and Manufacturing instructions are provided to shop floor personnel.

1.3. Subfactor 3: Delivery Schedule: The subfactor is met when the offeror’s response demonstrates a feasible approach to and capability for the following, and all the information clearly demonstrates a level of knowledge and understanding of the requirement that meets, or exceeds the requirements in a way beneficial to the Government.:

1.3.1. Deliver LRUs/SRUs, at a minimum, within the stated timeframes (shown in Table A), after contractor’s receipt of order. Note: an offeror’s proposed and substantiated technical approach that exceeds the USG requirements (i.e. less than the stated delivery schedule) may be deemed beneficial to the Government.

1.3.2. In accordance with the H-901 clause, Delivery Requirements, the

Government's required quantities per monthly delivery is up to 150 each

Category 1 items and 120 each Category 2 items (see Table A). Note: an offeror's proposed and substantiated technical approach that exceeds the

USG's quantities requirements (i.e. proposed quantity volume higher than the Government's required quantity volume) may be deemed beneficial to the Government.

Table A

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

NSN Noun CLIN

Delivery (Number of months after reciept of order)

Category

5930-01-333-2196 EW Safety Switch X001 6 months Category 1

5865-01-334-8349 EW Dispenser, Countermeasure X002 6 months Category 1

5865-01-380-8046 EW Control Display Unit X003 10 months Category 2

5865-01-437-3371 EW Programmer (Air Force -0005) X004 12 months Category 2

5865-01-437-3373 EW Programmer (Navy - 0006) X005 12 months Category 2

5865-01-687-1948 EW Programmer (Navy -0010) X006 12 months Category 2

5865-01-451-2868 EW Sequencer X007 12 months Category 1

5865-01-527-2187EW Sequencer (Army) X008 12 months Category 1

5998-01-357-0599 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Sequencer Fire Select CCA

X009 12 months Category 2

5998-01-357-0600 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Sequencer Signal Conditioner CCA

X010 12 months Category 2

5998-01-357-0601 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Sequencer Control Logic CCA

X011 12 months Category 2

5998-01-357-0602 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Interconnect, J1/J2 CCA 8A2A3A1

X012 12 months Category 2

5998-01-357-0603 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Sequencer J3 Interconnect CCA

X013 12 months Category 2

5998-01-388-7062 EW

Circuit Card Assembly CDU Power Supply Module CCA

X014 12 months Category 1

5998-01-333-1980 EW

Circuit Card Assembly

CDU CPU CCA

X015 12 months Category 2

5895-01-335-6069 EW Panel, Control, Elect X016 12 months Category 2

5998-01-414-1387 EW

Circuit Card Assembly CDU Front Panel I/O CCA

X017 12 months Category 2

5998-01-580-9469 EW

Circuit Card Assembly CDU Power Supply/Connector

Interface CCA X018 12 months Category 2

5998-01-383-8263 EW

Circuit Card Assembly CDU Discrete I/O CCA

X019 12 months Category 2

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

5998-01-580-7506 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Programmer Power Supply CCA

X020 12 months Category 2

5998-01-439-9525 EW

Circuit Card Assembly (-0009) Programmer CPU CCA

X021 12 months Category 2

5998-01-702-8446 EW

Circuit Card Assembly (-0020) Programmer CPU CCA

X022 12 months Category 2

5998-01-603-6648 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Programmer Discrete I/O CCA

X023 12 months Category 1

5998-01-334-2219 EW

Electronic Component CDU Electronic Indicating Panel

Assembly X024 12 months Category 2

5998-01-337-7526 EW

Circuit Card Assembly CDU Switch Panel CCA

X025 12 months Category 2

5998-01-335-3197 EW

Circuit Card Assembly CDU Discrete I/O Module Assembly

X026 12 months Category 1

5998-01-335-3198 EW

Circuit Card Assembly CDU CPU Module Assembly

X027 12 months Category 2

5865-01-333-4735 EW

Housing, Countermeasures Programmer Electronic Enclosure

Assembly X028 12 months Category 2

5998-01-336-3867 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Programmer Motherboard

X029 12 months Category 2

5998-01-336-9190 EW

Circuit Card Assembly Programmer 1553 Max Bus CCA

X030 12 months Category 2

5935-01-334-3230 EW

Bracket, Electrical Breechplate Assembly

X031 12 months Category 2

5998-01-357-8993 EW Circuit Card Assembly X032 12 months Category 2

2. Technical Rating: For Subfactors 1 and 2, 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 for Subfactors 1 and 2 will 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 subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in both Subfactors 1 and 2.

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

3. Technical Rating: For Subfactor 3, the technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. This subfactor will

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of the specified requirements.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

Technical Risk Rating: The technical risk rating is applicable to Subfactors 1, 2, and 3.

Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Note: The Government shall utilize the definitions as provided in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, section 5 for “strength”, “significant strength”, “weakness”, “significant weakness”, “uncertainty”, and

“deficiency”. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on the applicability of these terms to their proposal.

D. Volume III, Past Performance

General: The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity

(subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will perform testing and/or populating of multi-layered circuit card assemblies and/or assembly of final units, or those entities expected to conduct greater than or equal to 30% of the overall effort, based on the offeror’s proposed price. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s/joint venture members’ and if applicable, the critical subcontractors’ demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet users’ needs, including cost and schedule. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information). All three aspects must be considered for each of the contracts or requirements evaluated. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past five

(5) years (with at least one year of performance history) from the issuance date of this solicitation. The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation AND if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

1. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the

Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a. Supplier Performance Risk System: Pursuant to DFARS PGI 204-76(b), (c)(3) and (e), the Government will assess the offeror’s profile in SPRS for supplier risk, including, but not limited to, quality and delivery, to consider the risk of unsuccessful performance and supply chain risk. IAW DFARS 252.204-7024, offerors may access their own risk assessments and the SPRS User Guide at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm. Additionally, SPRS evaluation criteria are available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf.

b. Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past

Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity

Information System (FAPIIS), Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS), and the

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

c. Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. The availability of CPARS reports constitutes an offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor as having had a previous opportunity to respond to the information.

Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

d. Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

e. Aggregate: The Government may consider an offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor’s contracts in the aggregate in the assessment of a confidence assessment rating, should the present and past performance lend itself to this approach.

That is, an offeror’s/joint venture member’s/critical subcontractor’s three (3) efforts may by definition represent only a rating less than very relevant (but at least somewhat relevant) when each contract is considered as a stand-alone effort. However, when these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater scope and magnitude of effort and https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/pdf/SPRS_DataEvaluationCriteria.pdf

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

complexities and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. Then, considering the offeror/joint venture member/critical subcontractor’s respective role and their work in aggregate, a confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole.

2. Ordering Type Contracts Submission: In an ordering type contractual vehicle, performance is demonstrated at the order level (i.e. a delivery/task order). Therefore, in accordance with Section L, if the contract you are submitting is an ordering type contractual vehicle (for example, including but not limited to an Indefinite Delivery “D” type contract per FAR 16.5), the offeror shall have submitted an individual delivery/task order (or series of orders) for evaluation, in lieu of just the basic ordering contract itself.

Offerors are reminded that the Government shall not evaluate efforts for ordering type contracts without the identification of an order or series of orders. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

2.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, rather than a single order under a basic ordering contract, the offeror shall have provided the quantity produced, total period of performance, and type and complexity of data deliverables for each order in the series.

-The Government shall add up the total quantity produced in the series of orders to arrive at a Total Quantity Produced for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall add up the period of performance of each order to calculate the

Total Period of Performance for the series of orders, to be used in the evaluation.

-The Government shall look at the type and complexity of data deliverables across the series of orders, to arrive at an Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables for the series of orders.

The total period of performance, total quantity produced, and type and complexity of data deliverables for the series of orders will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s scope and magnitude of effort and complexities, as described in Section M, Volume

III, Past Performance. Note. As explained in Section M, Volume III, Past

Performance, the scope and magnitude and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders submitted demonstrating the same or similar work as the instant effort, the greater the potential for a higher relevancy rating.

Caution: All orders, within the series of orders being submitted, should contain the same continuous technical scope. These orders, within the series of orders should demonstrate relevance to the instant acquisition. The Government reserves the right to request additional information from the offeror of Points of Contact provided, in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent three (3) submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal.

Prime Contractor and Critical Subcontractor Manufacturing Relevancy Definitions

(Includes: Scope and Magnitude, and Complexity Considerations)

Adjectival

Rating

Description Scope and Magnitude Complexity

Considerations

Very Relevant Present/Past performance efforts that involve the magnitude of work and complexities that are essentially what this solicitation requires. Very Relevant efforts must have included recent performance efforts that involved essentially similar work.

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for at least 219 LRUs and/or 1,319 SRUs (i.e.

NSNs**) per month average occurring in any single calendar year.

An accumulative period of performance of at least 5 years.

Procurement or manufacture of multilayered circuit card assemblies (CCAs) with a layer count of seven or more and populating said assemblies.

Reverse engineered at least one LRU or SRU to overcome parts obsolescence, and delivered Engineering

Drawings and

Associated Lists

(associated with a Class

I ECP) for the redesign.

Primary vendor fabrication and integration, primary vendor test, delivery, and remaining consistent with the quality requirements of AS

9100 of airborne

Electronic Warfare

(EW) SRUs and LRUs.

Relevant Present/Past performance efforts that involve the magnitude of work and complexities that are essentially what this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have included recent performance efforts that involved essentially similar work.

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for at least 182 LRUs and/or 1,100 SRUs (i.e.

NSNs**) per month

Procurement or manufacture of multilayered CCAs with a layer count of seven or more and populating said assemblies.

Reverse engineered at least one LRU or SRU to overcome parts

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

An accumulative period of performance of at least 3 years and up to 5 years.

obsolescence, and delivered Engineering

Drawings and Associated

Lists (associated with a

Class I ECP) for the redesign.

Primary vendor or subcontracted fabrication, primary vendor integration, primary vendor test, delivery, and remaining consistent with Higher-

Level Quality

Requirements*** of airborne EW or Avionics

SRUs and LRUs.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/Past performance efforts that involve the magnitude of work and complexities that are essentially what this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant efforts must have included recent performance efforts that involved somewhat similar work.

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for at least 97 LRUs and/or 586 SRUs (i.e.

NSNs**) per month of performance of at least 1 year and up to 3 years.

Primary vendor, or subcontracted procurement or manufacture of multilayered CCAs with a layer count of seven or more and populating said assemblies.

Reverse engineered at least one LRU or SRU to overcome parts obsolescence (i.e., Class

I or Class II ECP).

Primary vendor, or subcontracted, fabrication, integration, test, and delivery of military SRUs or LRUs.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for less than 97 LRUs and/or 586 SRUs (i.e.

NSNs**) per month

Past performance effort involved little or no manufacture of multilayered CCAs with a layer count of seven or more, and no reverse engineering of LRU or

SRU components.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

An accumulative period of performance of less than 1 year.

** Is an item having a National Stock Number that is sold as an individual unit. An LRU would count as one item, even though it might contain multiple SRUs.

*** For Relevancy definitions only, Higher-Level Quality Requirements are any of the following:

ISO9001:2015, AS9100D, MIL-HDBK-896A, or NATO AQAP-2070.

Prime Contractor and Critical Subcontractor Testing Relevancy Definitions

(Includes: Scope and Magnitude, and Complexity Considerations)

Adjectival

Rating

Description Scope and Magnitude Complexity

Considerations

Very Relevant Present/Past performance efforts that involve the magnitude of work and complexities that are essentially what this solicitation requires. Very Relevant efforts must have included recent performance efforts that involved essentially similar work.

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for at least 219 LRUs and/or

1,319 SRUs (i.e.

NSNs**) per month of performance of at least

5 years.

Functional test of multilayered CCAs with a layer count of seven or more, and functional test of LRUs. Functional test of SRUs shall have included use of a flying probe, Gen-Rad, or similar acceptance test capability test station, and writing of the supporting test software.

Functional test of LRUs shall have included integration of multiple commercial off-the-shelf

(COTS) test equipment with contractor-peculiar interfacing cables and/or test equipment, and writing of the supporting test software.

Test and delivery, while remaining consistent with the quality requirements of AS

9100, of airborne EW

SRUs and LRUs.

Relevant Present/Past performance efforts that involve the magnitude of work and complexities that are essentially what this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have included recent performance

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for at least 182 LRUs and/or

1,100 SRUs (i.e. NSNs**) per month average occurring in any single calendar year.

Functional test of multilayered CCAs with a layer count of seven or more, or functional test of

LRUs. Functional test of

SRUs shall have included use of a flying probe, Gen-Rad, or similar

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

efforts that involved essentially similar work.

3 years and up to 5 years.

acceptance test capability test station, and writing the supporting test software. Functional test of LRUs shall have included integration of multiple COTS test equipment with contractor-peculiar interfacing cables and/or test equipment, and writing of the supporting test software.

Test and delivery, while remaining consistent with the quality requirements of AS 9100, of airborne

EW SRUs and LRUs.

Somewhat

Relevant

Present/Past performance efforts that involve the magnitude of work and complexities that are essentially what this solicitation requires. Somewhat Relevant efforts must have included recent performance efforts that involved somewhat similar work.

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for at least 97 LRUs and/or

586 SRUs (i.e. NSNs**) per month average occurring in any single calendar year.

1 year and up to 3 years.

Functional test of multilayered CCAs with a layer count of seven or more, or functional test of

LRUs. Functional test of

SRUs shall have included use of a flying probe, Gen-Rad, or similar acceptance test capability test station, and writing of the supporting test software. Functional test of LRUs shall have included integration of multiple COTS test equipment with contractor-peculiar interfacing cables and/or test equipment, and writing of the supporting test software.

Test and delivery of military SRUs or LRUs.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Past Performance involved contracts or

Delivery/Task Orders for less than 97 LRUs and/or

586 SRUs (i.e. NSNs**) per month average

Past performance effort involved little or no functional test of multilayered CCAs with a layer count of seven or

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

occurring in any single calendar year.

of performance of less than 1 year.

more, or functional test of

LRUs.

** Is an item having a National Stock Number that is sold as an individual unit. An LRU would count as one item, even though it might contain multiple SRUs.

*** For Relevancy definitions only, Higher-Level Quality Requirements are any of the following:

ISO9001:2015, AS9100D, MIL-HDBK-896A, or NATO AQAP-2070.

NOTE: Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the complexities and the scope and magnitude of effort as individual considerations in the overall relevancy rating assigned. If all of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same Scope & Magnitude but involves only some of the Complexity Considerations, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

4. Quality of Performance: As described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and

FAR 15.304(c)(2), the past performance evaluation shall evaluate quality of performance.

The Government will assess the past performance quality of recent efforts that demonstrate some level of relevancy, as discussed above. The Government reserves the right to utilize any and all available means to obtain quality of performance information including, but not limited to, CPARS, DCMA records, questionnaire responses, interviews, etc. In terms of available CPARS, the Government reserves the right to conduct follow up interviews with CPARS reviewing officials as well as any current effort points of contact regarding trends in the performance. Further, the Government will make an independent determination on quality of performance; the Government will not be bound by any ratings identified in questionnaires, interviews or CPARS, but will take into account the ratings provided as well as the narratives and gathered information to make an independent determination. The Government’s quality assessment will not result in a separate quality rating; instead, the quality assessment will result in an overarching narrative assessment discussing identified ratings (CPARS, questionnaires, etc), narratives, and the Government team’s independent assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion on quality of performance.

4.1. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS

215.305(a)(2), the quality assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or

FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three (3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

subcontractor, if applicable) award subcontracts to small business concerns* to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.

If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns* to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

*Small business concerns includes small business categories of veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns.

5. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: The Government will evaluate the submitted efforts, as well as any efforts independently identified by the Government, for three aspects: recency, relevancy and quality of performance. These aspects will be evaluated in a sequential manner, as follows

a. Each effort will be evaluated for recency, as defined above. For those efforts determined recent, they will be evaluated for relevancy. Should an effort be determined not recent, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

b. For those efforts determined to have some level of relevancy (i.e., at least a

Somewhat Relevant assigned), they will be evaluated for quality of performance. Should an effort be determined not relevant, no further evaluation of that effort will take place.

c. Quality of performance will be evaluated via questionnaire responses from customer points of contact, telephone interviews conducted with customer points of contact, review of available CPARS, etc., as discussed above.

Should the Government be unable to obtain quality of performance information for any effort (i.e., no questionnaires returned, customer points of contact unresponsive, no CPARS available, etc.), that effort will not be considered as a part of the confidence assessment rating.

In order to be considered within the confidence assessment, discussed below, each effort shall demonstrate recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Should any of these three aspects be missing or unable to be determined or evaluated for any effort, that effort will not be included within the confidence assessment. As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, as described above, one of the performance confidence assessment ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor. It is imperative to note that the assignment of a performance confidence assessment rating is not solely determined on the

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

relevancy ratings. Instead, all three elements of the past performance evaluation (i.e., recency, relevancy and quality of performance) are all considered in the performance confidence assessment rating assignment. The areas that make up the effort relevancy ratings (both scope and magnitude of effort and complexities) are considered in the assignment of the performance confidence assessment rating assignment. Additionally, in order to be eligible for at least a “Satisfactory” confidence rating, offerors shall demonstrate both production and testing past performance within their overall performance record. Please note that demonstrating these relevancy categories does not guarantee a “Satisfactory” or higher confidence rating, as the confidence rating takes into consideration all three aspects: recency, relevancy, and quality of performance. Offerors are hereby cautioned that just having recent and Very Relevant, Relevant, and/or

Somewhat Relevant efforts does not guarantee a “Satisfactory” or higher performance confidence assessment rating; the quality of performance information will also be taken into consideration in the assignment of any performance confidence assessment rating.

The performance confidence assessment ratings are excerpted below:

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a performance confidence rating of “Neutral”. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

E. Volume IV, Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives. The Small Business Participation proposal addresses each of the following elements in sufficient detail.

1.1. An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small

Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names with CAGE codes the offeror plans to use in the performance of this resultant contract; and,

1.2. An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by these proposed firms is provided; and,

1.3. The associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total acquisition value is provided. Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet, and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

The associated goals in paragraph 1.3 above in the offeror’s Small Business

Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY23 DOD Small Business

Subcontracting goals:

Business Size Sub

Small Business (SB) 30.00%

Historically Underutilized Business Zone

(HUBZone)

3.00%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business

(SDVOSB)

3.00%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5.00%

Woman-Owned Small Business (WOSB) 5.00%

2. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business

Program objectives. 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 rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor.

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION—SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

CONTROLLED UNCLASSIFIED INFORMATION

Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

F. Volume V, Price Factor

The offeror's Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness and balance (see paragraphs

(1.1) and (1.2) below). The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be calculated in accordance with paragraph 1.3 as described below:

1.1 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 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 prices.

1.2 Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items (including the Basic and Ordering periods) is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

An overstated or understated CLIN price may be due to (a) an illogical progression of rates or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; any of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” price for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The

Government may consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, because acceptance of the proposal could result in advance payment. The Government will analyze each proposal to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to RFP Attachment 4 – Price Matrix.