SectionMFinal.pdf

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SSP Attachment 5 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 a minimum of three (3) contracts as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to award to more or fewer contracts or no contracts at all if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines it is in the best interest of the Government. If the Government determines to not award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offeror(s). 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 a minimum of three (3) 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) Price. The Government will rank the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) portion of the Price Factor, then Technical Factor, followed by the remainder of the Price Factor analysis (Reasonableness and Balance), as follows:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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 the three (3) 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 three (3) initial proposals, all proposals will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability. If the Government receives more than three (3) initial proposals, the Government will select three (3) lowest priced proposals, and then evaluate them for Technical Acceptability. If any of the three

(3) lowest priced proposals are evaluated as “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 minimum of three (3) technically acceptable proposals, or until all proposals have been evaluated for technical acceptability.

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

If the Government receives less than three (3) proposals for evaluation, or less than three (3) proposals remain after the Technical assessments, all proposals will be evaluated for Price. If any of the initial proposals are evaluated as unreasonable or unbalanced, the proposal(s) will be replaced with the next lowest priced, technically “Acceptable” proposal until there are a minimum of three (3) proposals for price evaluation or until all proposals have been evaluated for 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 three (3) 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 a minimum of three (3) proposals

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

are selected for award. If the Government receives less than three (3) 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 an understanding of the contract requirements and to determine if the salary and fringe proposed are realistic. 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 07 Feb 2017 and any revisions, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. An acceptable 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 of the requirements as outlined in the PWS, specifically the following paragraphs:

- 4.2.1a; 4.2.1f

- 4.3 (exempt 4.3.1)

- 4.4 (exempt subparagraphs)

- 4.5 (exempt 4.5.2.1; 4.5.2.2; 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)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Furthermore, this subfactor is met when, the processes or unique examples of past technical work sufficiently detail offeror technical capabilities (2 unique processes or examples, minimum, for each element below as related to military-unique equipment; at least one element discussed below has to relate to field or depot support) for each of the following elements:

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); methods for identifying problems and/or concerns and quantifying their risks.

2. Studies: Alleviating maintenance and obsolescence deficiencies;

determining optimum inspection (maintenance/corrosion/replacement/etc.,) intervals.

3. Engineering Analysis: Determining root cause(s) of deficiencies, providing plans/details/requirements for sustaining aging MHU system/subsystems.

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;

5. Engineering: Developing/providing the necessary technical documentation and information on design, engineering, reverse engineering, and testing requirements to ensure 5-year sustainment.

6. Information and reports provided by the offeror shall include information and/or processes as related to engineering tasks and/or services performed on nuclear certified 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 technical proposal that sufficiently discusses the technical approach that will be used to show an understanding of the requirements as outlined in 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)

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

- 4.6.3 (exempt 4.6.3 a-d)

- 4.8 (exempt 4.8.2a)

Furthermore, this subfactor is met when, the processes or unique examples of past technical work sufficiently detail offeror technical capabilities (2 unique processes or examples, minimum for each element below as related to military-unique equipment;

at least one element discussed below relates to field or depot support) for each of the following elements:

1. Testing: Conducting developmental, operational, and/or functional testing that includes at least one of the following upfront tasks: Finite Element Analysis (FEA)/Simulation, damage tolerance analysis, Nondestructive Inspection (NDI), or lab/physical tests (for subsystems or end item) in accordance with Government documentation (military specifications, performance work statements, nuclear certification standards, handbooks, etc.).

2. 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.

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

4. Data and Sources: Providing all technical documentation, delivering Government-owned engineering drawings/packages, to ensure Government owned configuration and control.

5. Past Government-approved testing and/or engineering services reports, or relevant sections of test reports, shall be provided detailing each of the elements listed above. 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 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, and fabricate components related to the MHU-110/141 for the purposes of evaluation, analysis and testing. The proposal sufficiently identified the organizational structure of the company and addressed the lines of responsibility and decision making that will exist, the prototype manufacturing and assembly processes to be used, This shall include (at a minimum) equipment and plant layout and an explanation of the processes that support requirements detailed in the PWS 4.2.2e-f and 4.9.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

i. 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, Price Factor

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

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 three sample tasks (SSP Attachments 6, 7, and 8) based on the following:

a. For each Sample Task the offeror will propose in accordance with

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

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 (3) three tasks. The total price for each of the (3) three 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 three tasks. Proposed 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-110/141 Engineering Services and Technical Support Price Spreadsheet, RFP Attachment 9. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only:

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Source Selection Information -- See FAR 2.101 and 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Offeror:

CLIN Contract Type Description Qty U/I Unit Price Amount

0004 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

$0

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

Post Award Conference

Total Price Post Award Conference

Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Total Price Sample Task Order 1

Awardable Task Order 1

Awardable Task Order 2

NSP

Total Price Sample Task Order 2

Awardable Task Order 3

NSP

NSP

Total Price Sample Task Order 3

MHU ‐110/141 Engineering Services and Technical Support

Cost Price Spreadsheet

Solicitation Number: FA8540‐17‐R‐0007

Offeror shall enter data in yellow highlighted fields only.