Attachment_2_-_Section_M.pdf

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

1. 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 multiple contracts 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 approximately four (4) of the offerors having 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 offerors 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 2 below.

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

a. General

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 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.

ii. Gating: Proposals will be evaluated using two (2) evaluation factors: (1) Technical and (2) Cost/Price. The Government will assess the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) portion of the Cost/Price Factor, then Technical, followed by the remainder of the Cost/Price Factor analysis, as follows:

Initial Proposals. The Government will rank offers based on an initial assessment of offerors’ TEP, followed by a full evaluation of Technical Acceptability, then Cost/Price, as follows:

Step 1: Rank by Total Evaluated Price. The Government will rank all proposals by the initially proposed total evaluated price, from lowest to highest.

Competition Pool. The Government will select approximately four (4) lowest priced proposals for further evaluation.

Step 2: Technical. The Government will evaluate the maximum number of Technical Proposals for an efficient competition, as specified in this section, assigning ratings as described in paragraph c, ii. If any of the proposals receives an

“Unacceptable” rating in any technical subfactor, that Offeror will no longer be considered for award via the gating process, unless discussions are opened and the Offeror is determined to be within the competitive range.

If the Government receives less than four (4) initial proposals, all proposals will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. If the Government receives more than four

(4) initial proposals, the Government will select up to four (4) lowest priced proposals, and then evaluate them for Technical Acceptability. If any of the initial proposals evaluated is “Unacceptable,” the “Unacceptable” proposal(s) will be replaced with the next lowest priced proposal(s) on a one-for-one basis, until there are a maximum of four (4) technically acceptable proposals, or until all proposals have been evaluated for technical acceptability.

Step 3: Cost/Price Analysis. The Government will conduct a complete Cost/Price analysis in accordance with paragraph d on the lowest priced, technically “Acceptable” proposals, as selected through Steps 1 and 2.

If the Government receives less than four (4) proposals for evaluation, or less than four (4) proposals remain after the Technical assessments, all proposals will be evaluated for Cost/Price. If any of the initial proposals are evaluated as unreasonable or unbalanced, the proposal will be replaced with the next lowest priced, technically “Acceptable” proposal until there are a maximum of four (4) proposals for cost/price evaluation or until all proposals have been evaluated for cost/price.

Award Decision. The Government reserves the right to award without discussions.

If the Government conducts Discussions, and an “Unacceptable” rating is not resolved, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

If at least four (4) of the lowest priced proposals are technically “Acceptable” and have fair and reasonable pricing, the Government may award with or without discussions, starting with the lowest priced technically acceptable proposal and each subsequently lowest priced proposal until approximately four (4) proposals are selected for award. If the Government receives less than four (4) proposals, the Government may award with or without discussions to all offerors with an “Acceptable” rating for each technical subfactor, and fair and reasonable pricing.

The Government reserves the right to award some or all of the sample awardable tasks at time of award. Sample awardable tasks will be awarded on the basis of lowest price per task.

b. Volume I, Completed RFP

i. Total Compensation Plan: The total compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this total compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

c. Volume II, Technical Factor

i. 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 Performance Work Statement (PWS) dated 17 Nov 2016 and any revisions, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Sub-factor One: Technical Approach This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a detailed technical proposal that comprehensively discusses the technical approach that will be used to show a complete understanding and demonstrates accomplishment of the task-types as outlined in the PWS as required by the following:

- 4.2 (exempt 4.2.1g)

- 4.3 (exempt 4.3.1)

- 4.4 (exempt subparagraphs)

- 4.5 (exempt 4.5.2.1; 4.5.2.4; 4.5.2.6; 4.5.3 a, c-f; 4.5.4; 4.5.5; 4.5.6 a-d, f-g and j-l)

- 4.6.3 (exempt 4.6.3 a-d)

- 4.8 (exempt 4.8.2a)

The processes or examples of past technical work shall sufficiently detail offeror technical capabilities (2 unique processes/examples, minimum, for each element below as related to military-unique equipment; at least one factor below has to relate to field or depot support) for the following:

1. Evaluating and (Re)establishing Technical Baselines: Assessing/reviewing and fully documenting the current baseline and technology of fielded systems, including;

a. Assessing and detailing installed mechanistic and electrical/software theory, as necessary, and comparing/contrasting such information of legacy design to modern commercial items available.

b. Verifying full-scale system functionality(ies) and operation/command appropriateness and repeatability for legacy equipment and systems; methods for identifying problems and/or concerns and quantifying their risks.

2. Studies: Alleviating maintenance, dependability, and obsolescence deficiencies at end-item level; determining optimum inspection (maintenance/corrosion/replacement/etc.,) intervals

3. Engineering Analysis: Determining root cause(s) of deficiencies, evaluating/determining service life; providing plans/details/requirements for sustaining aging MHU system/subsystems; means and examples of improving product service life driven by technical shortcomings, etc.

4. Design Solutions: Including researching, recommending appropriate action(s); obtaining, implementing new technical data when necessary;

developing and implementing test plans and conducting follow-on testing;

and inspecting for form, fit, and function products as appropriate.

5. Engineering: Developing/providing the necessary technical documentation and information on design, engineering, reverse engineering, testing, and quality assurance requirements to enable the procurement or manufacture of an interchangeable or multi-functioning item to ensure 5-year (minimum) system-level sustainment.

The offeror is required to demonstrate a wide range of system/subsystem technical support/resolution and involvement as related to military-unique equipment demonstrating each element by providing information involving both unique situations as well as detailed technical supporting documentation.

Information and reports provided by the offeror shall include information and/or processes as related to engineering testing and/or services performed on nuclear certificated equipment as related to AFI 63-125 or similar (for example, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program, Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program, etc.)

Sub-factor Two: Testing Approach This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a detailed plan which sufficiently discusses how it intends to organize, manage, coordinate, schedule and implement/conduct testing of the MHU-196/204 leading up to and throughout the testing phase to satisfy the following PWS paragraphs:

- 4.2 (exempt 4.2.1g)

- 4.3 (exempt 4.3.1)

- 4.4 (exempt subparagraphs)

- 4.5 (exempt 4.5.2.1; 4.5.2.4; 4.5.2.6; 4.5.3 a, c-f; 4.5.4; 4.5.5; 4.5.6 a-d, f-g and j-l)

- 4.6.3 (exempt 4.6.3 a-d)

- 4.8 (exempt 4.8.2a)

The processes or examples of past technical work sufficiently demonstrate offeror technical capabilities (2 unique processes or examples, minimum, for each element below as related to military-unique equipment; at least one factor below has to relate to field or depot support necessary to alleviate work stoppages) for the following:

1. Testing: Conducting developmental, operational, and functional testing that may have included upfront Finite Element Analysis (FEA)/Simulation, damage tolerance analysis, Nondestructive Inspection (NDI), or lab/physical tests (for subsystem and end item) in accordance with military specifications and/or nuclear certification standards, handbooks, requirements, etc.

2. Acceptance and Documentation: Providing comprehensive analysis and testing to allow Government-employee transition, if necessary, of a successfully demonstrated technology into a formal system acquisition or overhaul program, or similar.

3. Implementation and Retrofitting/Building: Demonstrating document (work statement, test requirements, etc.) compliance via fully retrofitting assets to test potential design solutions, to conduct experimental testing, etc.:

a. Determining/documenting order of assembly/disassembly, development and use of special tooling / jigs (and their use, inspection, etc., instructions) necessary to support such processes.

b. Providing comprehensive instructions to allow complete retrofitting of equipment similar to the MHU-196 and MHU-204 systems.

4. Reporting: Documenting and providing/producing comprehensive information, resulting in Customer use/implementation.

5. Data and Sources: providing all Technical Order and engineering drawings, instructions and sources, to ensure Government owned configuration control, etc.

Information and reports provided by the offeror shall include information and/or processes as related to engineering testing and/or services performed on nuclear certificated equipment as related to AFI 63-125 or similar (for example, Aircraft Structural Integrity Program, Mechanical Equipment and Subsystems Integrity Program, etc.)

The offeror is required to demonstrate a wide range of system/subsystem testing/knowledge and involvement as related to military-unique equipment demonstrating each element by providing information involving both unique situations as well as detailed technical supporting documentation.

Sub-factor Three: Preproduction/Fabrication and Product Integration Requirements Capability This subfactor is met when the offeror submits a detailed plan which sufficiently discusses how it intends to organize, manage, perform design, production, and remove and install components onto the MHU-196/204 for the purposes of evaluation, analysis and testing. The proposal sufficiently identified the organizational structure of the company and addresses the lines of responsibility and decision making that will exist, the manufacturing and assembly processes to be used, including but not limited to the facilities, equipment and plant layout and an explanation of the processes associated with design, testing, production, installation, and deployment (for testing/evaluation) of the MHU-196/204 (PWS 4.2, 4.4 (exempt sub paragraphs) and 4.9).

ii. 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 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

d. Volume III, Cost/Price Factor

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

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 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.

2. 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 in the Basic , is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items

3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will calculate the TEP using four sample tasks (SSP Attachments 6, 7, 8, and 9) based on the

a. For each Sample Task the offeror will propose in accordance with the following CLIN structure as applicable:

CLIN DESCRIPTION PRICING ARRANGMENT

0001 Engineering Services FFP 0002 Travel Cost Reimbursable No Fee 0003 Data Not Separately Priced

b. Offerors will propose a Total Price for CLIN 0001 on all (4) four tasks. The total price for each (4) four tasks will then be added together to come up with the TEP.

c. The Government will insert the price for CLIN 0002 (Travel) on all four tasks. Travel costs will not be included in the TEP calculation.

CLIN 0003 (Data) will be Not Separately Priced and therefore not included in the TEP calculation.

d. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

e. Once the TEP is established the Government will follow the gating process in paragraph 2ii of Section M.

Pictured below is an example of the MHU-196/204 Engineering Services and Technical Support Cost Price Spreadsheet RFP Attachment 10. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only:

Offeror:

Post Award Conference

CLIN Contract Type Description Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0005 FFP Post Award Conference* 1 LO $1,000.00 $1,000.00

$1,000.00

CLIN Contract Type Description Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0001 FFP Sample Task Order 1: Structural Analysis 1 LO $0 $0

0002 CRNF Travel* 1 LO $0 $0

0003 FFP DATA 1 LO

$0

CLIN Contract Type Description Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0001 FFP Sample Task Order 2: Parts Availability and Configuration Control 1 LO $0 $0

0002 CRNF Travel* 1 LO $0 $0

0003 FFP DATA 1 LO

$0

CLIN Contract Type Description Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0001 FFP Sample Task Order 3: Depot Overhaul Support 1 LO $0 $0

0002 CRNF Travel* 1 LO $0 $0

0003 FFP DATA 1 LO

$0

CLIN Contract Type Description Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0001 FFP Sample Task Order 4: Corrosion Assessment and Treatment Recommendations 1 LO $0 $0

0002 CRNF Travel* 1 LO $0 $0

0003 FFP DATA 1 LO

$0

$0

* Travel and Post Award Conference are not included in the TEP

Sample Task Order 1

Total Price

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Total Price Sample Task Order 1

Sample Task Order 2

NSP

Total Price Sample Task Order 2

Sample Task Order 3

NSP

NSP

Total Price Sample Task Order 3

Sample Task Order 4

NSP

Total Price Sample Task Order 4

MHU ‐196/204 Engineering Services and Technical Support Cost Price Spreadsheet

Solicitation Number: FA8532‐17‐R‐0006

SSP Attachment 10

Offeror shall enter data in yellow highlighted fields only.