M-900 - Evaluation Basis for Award - Updated.pdf

SSP Attachment 5 – Section M, Evaluation Basis for Award

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 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one (1) contract for Group A, and one (1) contract for Group B.

A decision on the technical (Group A and B) and small business acceptability (Group A only) of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable (Group A and B) and have acceptable Small Business Participation (Group A only), tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is considered significantly more important than cost/price. 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 past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. 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 for each group from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offerors whose proposals conform to all required terms and conditions, include all required representations and certifications, meet all requirements set forth in the RFP and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below. One offeror shall not be eligible to win both contracts, except in the case of only receiving one proposal.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: 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 (applicable to both Group A and Group B):

Factor I. Past Performance

Factor II. Technical

Group A Subfactor 1: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Design Subfactor 2: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Human Factors Subfactor 3: 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU Output Power Rating Subfactor 4: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Cooling System Design

Group B Subfactor 1: 72 kW GPU Design Subfactor 2: 72 kW GPU Human Factors Subfactor 3: 72 kW GPU Output Power Rating Subfactor 4: 72 kW GPU Cooling System Design

Factor III: Small Business Participation (Group A Only)

Factor IV: Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: The four (4) subfactors within Factor II, Technical, are all equal in importance. Factor II, Technical, and Factor III, Small Business Participation (Group A only) will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis, and thus will not be a part of the tradeoff decision.

Factor I, Past Performance is significantly more important than cost/price.

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

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award this contract after discussions, which will be held in accordance with FAR 15.306. The Government will consider all offerors that submit timely initial proposal submittals to be within the initial competitive range for purposes of opening discussions promptly after the RFP closes. As a streamlining technique, discussions will be considered formally opened one week after the RFP closes.

Throughout the course of proposal evaluations and discussions, 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. Gating Evaluation Process

Gate 1: An RFP compliance review and past performance evaluation will be conducted for all offerors that submit a timely initial proposal submittal. All offerors evaluated and determined to be in compliance with the RFP, and have “Satisfactory” and/or “Substantial” confidence assessment ratings will be determined to meet the Gate 1 exit criteria and move to Gate 2. All offerors evaluated and determined to not be in compliance with the RFP, and/or have “Limited”, “No”, or “Neutral” confidence assessment ratings after Gate 1 oral discussions will remain in Gate 1.

Gate 2: A complete evaluation of the technical factor will be conducted for the offerors evaluated and determined to meet the exit criteria for Gate 1. All offerors within Gate 2 that are evaluated and determined to be technically “Acceptable” will be determined to meet the Gate 2 exit criteria and move to Gate 3. All offerors within Gate 2 that are evaluated and determined to be technically “Unacceptable” after Gate 2 oral discussions will remain in Gate 2.

Gate 3: A small business subcontracting plan (required from Group A, large business offerors only), small business participation evaluation (Group A only), and a complete evaluation of the price factor will be conducted for the offerors evaluated and determined to meet the exit criteria for Gate 2. All offerors within Gate 3 evaluated and determined to have an adequate small business subcontracting plan (Group A, large business offerors only), “Acceptable” small business participation (Group A only), and proposed pricing determined to be reasonable and balanced will be determined to meet the Gate 3 exit criteria and move to Gate 4. All offerors within Gate 3 with inadequate small business subcontracting plans (Group A, large business offerors only), “Unacceptable” small business participation (Group A only) and/or proposed pricing determined to be unreasonable and/or unbalanced after Gate 3 oral discussions will remain in Gate 3.

It is the Government’s intention to re-establish the competitive range upon conclusion of Gate 3 evaluations. All offerors that do not meet the applicable exit criteria for Gates 1, 2 and 3 (should the “reach back” be required as discussed in Note 1 below) will be elimintated from the competitive range, and no further proposal revisions or submittals will be accepted or evaluated in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(3), FAR 15.306(d)(5) and FAR 15.307(a).

Gate 4: All offerors within Gate 4 will receive a Final Proposal Revision (FPR) Request in accordance with FAR 15.307(b). All offerors that submit a timely FPR and are evaluated as still meeting the applicable exit criteria for Gates 1, 2, and 3 will meet the Gate 4 exit criteria and move to Gate 5. Offerors that do not submit a timely FPR will remain in Gate 4. The Government reserves the right to conduct Pre-Award Surveys on those offerors that submit timely FPRs prior to the SSA making a best value decision.

Gate 5: The SSA will make a best value decision IAW DoD Source Selection Procedures and the evaluation criteria established in the evaluation factors for award.

NOTE 1: The Government reserves the right to reopen the Gating process in Gate 3 to ensure a reasonable pool of offerors is presented to the SSA for an award decision. In other words, upon the conclusion of Gate 3 evaluations, if the number of offerors identified as meeting the exit criteria for Gate 3 is determined to not be a reasonable pool of offerors, the Government reserves the right to “reach back” to either Gate 1 or Gate 2 to continue discussions with offerors to bring them forward. The determination of a reasonable pool of offerors is within the Government’s discretion, and cannot be defined upfront due to the inherent subjective nature of the tradeoff process.

NOTE 2: Discussions will be conducted as deemed necessary during the gate evaluation process. As discussions are conducted and offerors either move to the next gate or do not, notifications will be issued accordingly to those offerors proceeding to the next gate or are eliminated from the competitive range as applicable.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

1. Completed RFP: Volume I, Completed RFP shall be evaluated to ensure the RFP and any amendments issued are signed, and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required. The cover letter shall be evaluated to determine the number, types, and accompanying rationale of exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions, as well as to identify which group (Group A and/or Group B) the offeror is proposing to. The Government reserves the right to determine any exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions as being non-compliant with the stated RFP requirements, and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

2. Small Business Subcontracting Plan – Group A Large Business Offerors Only: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated per FAR 52.219-9, as supplemented by the DFARS and AFFARS, 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. Past Performance Factor

1. 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. For each Group (i.e., Group A and Group B), a critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself that will:

Group A: provide or perform the loadbank portion of the work or the 270 VDC output.

Group B: provide or perform the 270 VDC output.

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. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past fifteen (15) years from the issuance date of this RFP.

The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture member’s present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any of the following even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement:

-subcontractor(s), vendor(s), or supplier(s) (with the exception of those entities identified as meeting the critical subcontractor definition)

-any predecessor companies, affiliates, other divisions or corporate management

-any key personnel

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) 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) and the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). 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.

b) 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. 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.

c) 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/joint venture member/critical subcontractor’s up to six

(6) Group A and/or up to three (3) Group B contracts may by definition represent only a rating less than very 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 magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort 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.

3. 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. The Government shall use the information submitted for each order (or series of orders) to evaluate the effort’s recency, relevancy, and quality.

3.1 Series of Orders: If a series of orders was submitted for evaluation, in lieu of an individual order, the offeror should have provided the total dollar value, total period of performance, total quantity produced, type and complexity of data deliverables, and type and complexity of testing for each order in the series.

The total quantity produced on each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Quantity Produced to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort.

The total period of performance of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Period of Performance to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort.

The total dollar value of each order (in the series of orders) shall be added up to calculate the Total Dollar Value to be used in the evaluation, for the submitted effort.

The type and complexity of data deliverables provided on each order (in the series of orders) shall be evaluated as a whole for the series of orders.

The type and complexity of testing provided on each order (in the series of orders) shall be evaluated as a whole for the series of orders.

The Total Dollar Value, Total Period of Performance, Total Quantity Produced, Overall Type and Complexity of Data Deliverables, and Overall Type and Complexity of Testing for the series of orders will be used to evaluate the submitted effort’s programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, as described in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note. As explained in Section M, Paragraph II.C.4 Note, the technical complexities along with the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort and complexities will be evaluated to arrive at a Relevancy Rating for the effort. The more orders in the series of orders, the higher the potential programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort could be.

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’s identified Points of Contact (POCs) provided or any means available to the Government in order to verify that the series of orders is for the same continuous technical scope.

4. 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 up to six (6) Group A and/or up to three (3) Group B submitted contracts. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

The following relevancy criteria apply for the specified groups and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume II of its proposal:

4.1. Group A Ground Power Units (GPU)/Universal Load Bank (ULB) Definitions

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. In order to be considered Very Relevant, the effort must have included the design, manufacture, test, and sale of generator sets and/or loadbanks capable of operation (source or sink) between power levels of 72 kW/90 kVA and 250 kW/312 kVA. To be considered very relevant, the submitted present/past performance effort for a generator set shall have F-22 and/or F-35 mobile equipment certification (i.e., multi-phase testing involving both a Systems Integration Laboratory and live aircraft) and approval. In addition, the submitted present/past performance effort for loadbanks must meet at least six (6) and/or generator sets must meet at least eight (8) of the following ten (10) criteria (not listed in any type of priority):

a) Multiple types of aircraft power inputs or outputs (i.e., 400 Hz, 28.5 VDC, and/or 270 VDC)

b) Multiple quantities of aircraft power inputs or outputs

c) Simultaneous aircraft power inputs or outputs

d) Air transportable by military cargo aircraft

e) Ambient operating temperature range of at least -25oF to +125oF

f) Enhanced corrosion protection (i.e., powder coating, metal wire arc spray, galvanizing, etc.—corrosion protection systems other than liquid primers and paints)

g) SAE AS 8090 mobility (i.e., four wheel, Ackerman steering, leaf spring, towable, chassis with automotive style parking brake)

h) Multiple modes of operation (i.e., initial source of power derived from diesel engine or utility grid)

i) Diesel engine directly coupled to a rotating 60 Hz A.C. machine

j) Solid state power conversion/inversion

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. In order to be considered Relevant, the effort must have included the design, manufacture, test, and sale of power plants/generator sets/frequency converters/inverters and/or loadbanks capable of operation (source or sink) between power levels of 60 kW/75 kVA and 250 kW/312 kVA. To be considered relevant, the submitted present/past performance effort for power plants/generator sets/frequency converters/inverters shall have military aircraft approval. In addition, the submitted present/past performance effort must meet at least six (6) of the following seven (7) criteria (not listed in any type of priority):

a) Multiple types of aircraft power inputs or outputs (i.e., 400 Hz, 28.5 VDC, and/or 270 VDC)

b) Multiple quantities of aircraft power inputs or outputs

c) Air transportable by military cargo aircraft

d) Ambient operating temperature range of at least 0oF to +120oF

e) Military style mobility (i.e., four wheels, Ackerman steering, any type of springs, chassis, automotive style parking brake)

f) Diesel engine coupled to any style rotating three phase A.C. machine

g) Solid state power conversion/inversion

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. Examples of such efforts include production and sales of any type of portable A.C loadbank, D.C. loadbank, or any type of military/commercial complex ground support equipment. The submitted present/past performance effort for military and commercial complex ground support equipment (other than portable A.C. or D.C. loadbanks) must meet either of the following criteria (not listed in any type of priority):

a) Multi-fuel capable diesel engine powering any type of on-board (attached) solid state or rotating machinery (i.e. power generation/conversion/inversion, pre-conditioned air, hydraulics, pnuedraulics, pneumatics, liquid cooling, etc.) featuring any type of rolling mobile chassis

b) Commercial or military aviation solid state power conversion/inversion equipment with any type of rolling mobile chassis or hard mounted forklift mobile enclosures suitable for outdoor use

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2 Group B GPU Definitions

VERY RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. In order to be considered Very Relevant, the effort must have included the design, manufacture, test, and sale of generator sets capable of operation between power levels of 72 kW/90 kVA and 250 kW/312 kVA. To be considered very relevant, the submitted present/past performance effort for a generator set shall have F-22 and/or F-35 mobile equipment certification (i.e., multi-phase testing involving both a Systems Integration Laboratory and live aircraft) and approval. In addition, the submitted present/past performance effort for generator sets must meet at least eight (8) of the following ten (10) criteria (not listed in any type of priority):

a) Multiple types of aircraft power outputs (i.e., 400 Hz, 28.5 VDC, and/or 270 VDC)

b) Multiple quantities of aircraft power outputs

c) Simultaneous aircraft power outputs

d) Air transportable by military cargo aircraft

e) Ambient operating temperature range of at least -25oF to +125oF

f) Enhanced corrosion protection (i.e., powder coating, metal wire arc spray, galvanizing, etc.—corrosion protection systems other than liquid primers and paints)

g) SAE AS 8090 mobility (i.e., four wheel, Ackerman steering, leaf spring, towable, chassis with automotive style parking brake)

h) Multiple modes of operation (i.e., initial source of power derived from diesel engine or utility grid)

i) Diesel engine directly coupled to a rotating 60 Hz A.C. machine

j) Solid state power conversion/inversion

RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. In order to be considered Relevant, the effort must have included the design, manufacture, test, and sale of power plants/generator sets/frequency converters/inverters capable of operation between power levels of 60 kW/75 kVA and 250 kW/312 kVA. To be considered relevant, any submitted present and/or past performance effort for power plants/generator sets/frequency converters/inverters must have military aircraft approval. In addition, the submitted present/past performance effort must meet at least six (6) of the following seven (7) criteria (not listed in any type of priority):

a) Multiple types of aircraft power outputs (i.e., 400 Hz, 28.5 VDC, and/or 270 VDC)

b) Multiple quantities of aircraft power outputs

c) Air transportable by military cargo aircraft

d) Ambient operating temperature range of at least 0oF to +120oF

e) Military style mobility (i.e., four wheels, Ackerman steering, any type of springs, chassis, automotive style parking brake)

f) Diesel engine coupled to any style rotating three phase A.C. machine

g) Solid state power conversion/inversion

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. Examples of such efforts include production and sales of any type of military/commercial complex ground support equipment. The submitted present/past performance effort for military/commercial complex ground support equipment must meet either of the following criteria (not listed in any type of priority):

a) Multi-fuel capable diesel engine powering any type of on-board (attached) solid state or rotating machinery (i.e. power generation/conversion/inversion, pre-conditioned air, hydraulics, pnuedraulics, pneumatics, liquid cooling, etc.) featuring any type of rolling mobile chassis

b) Commercial or military aviation solid state power conversion/inversion equipment with any type of rolling mobile chassis or hard mounted forklift mobile enclosures suitable for outdoor use

NOT RELEVANT: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, and type and complexity of testing. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract may be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating may be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the instant acquisition, Ground Power Modernization (GPM) program. They are as identified in paragraphs 4.3 and 4.4 below. The expected magnitude of work and complexities identified below will be used as a baseline for programmatic/logistical scope evaluation purposes.

4.3 Group A Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Quantities: 250 each 144 kW GPUs; 300 each 144 kW ULBs; approximately 1,464 each 72 kW GPUs 144 kW GPU – 5 per month 144 kW ULB – 5 per month 72 kW GPU – 20 per month

Duration of Time: 10 Years

Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

Type of Data Deliverables: Operations & Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts Breakdown, Provisioning Data, Test Plans, Test Reports, Test Procedures, Design Analysis, Software Assurance Evaluation Report

Type and Complexity of Testing: Developmental Test and Evaluation (contractor’s in-plant testing, external laboratory testing for EMI, environmental, mobility, etc.; aircraft simulator testing; aircraft and/or equipment compatibility testing) and Operational Testing and Evaluation (user testing)

4.4 Group B Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

Quantities: Approximately 1,464 each 72 kW GPUs 72 kW GPU – 20 per month

Duration of Time: 10 Years

Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

Type of Data Deliverables: Operations & Maintenance Manual with Illustrated Parts Breakdown, Provisioning Data, Test Plans, Test Reports, Test Procedures, Design Analysis Software Assuance Evaluation Report

Type and Complexity of Testing: Developmental Test and Evaluation (contractor’s in-plant testing, external laboratory testing for EMI, environmental, mobility, etc.; aircraft simulator testing; aircraft and/or equipment compatibility testing) and Operational Testing and Evaluation (user testing)

5. 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.

5.1. 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 up to six (6) Group A and/or up to three (3) Group B contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor(s), when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical 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. All offerors shall address this for all submitted efforts.

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

6. 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:

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.

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.

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 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 technical characteristics and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort) are considered in the assignment of the performance confidence assessment rating assignment. 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 order to be eligible for at least a “Satisfactory” confidence rating, Group A offerors shall demonstrate both generator set and loadbank past performance within their overall performance record. Please note that just 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.

Adjectival Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

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”. For purposes of this acquisition, a strong record of relevant past performance will be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating. See paragraph M.II.A.2.

above.

D. Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal(s) shall be evaluated based on the subfactors below to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of PD21WRWNZEA007, PD21WRWNZEA008, and PD21WRWNZEA009, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient details.

NOTE: In accordance with paragraph L.II.E.1., offerors shall address only one subfactor per section in the technical proposal, avoid including subfactor discussions in multiple sections, and use the same headings/subfactor numbers/PD paragraph numbers/etc. as used in this paragraph. Offerors proposing to Group A shall arrange each portion/section of the technical proposal to clearly delineate between the 72 kW GPU, the 144 kW GPU, and the 144 kW ULB as well as between subfactors. For example, Subfactor 1, 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Design, shall be clearly delineated by the offeror to segregate 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB content from one another.

1.1. Group A (144 kW GPU PD - PD21WRWNZEA007; 72 kW GPU PD - PD21WRWNZEA008; 144 kW ULB

PD – PD21WRWNZEA009):

1.1.1. Subfactor 1: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Design

The standard for Subfactor 1 is met when the detailed narrative included in the technical proposal provides a sound engineering approach to be used for the design of the 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and the 144 kW ULB and demonstrates through accurate supporting data such as explanations, analysis, calculations, and/or conceptual layout drawings that the design approach meets the requirements mandated by the following paragraphs (excluding associated subparagraphs) of

PD21WRWNZEA007: 3.2.1 GPU general layout, 3.5.7.7 Fuel tank (without addressing paragraph 3.5.5 embedded in paragraph 3.5.7.7), 3.9.1 Weight and dimensions, 3.9.2 Enclosure, 3.9.2.1 Doors, 3.9.2.2 Power cable storage, 3.9.3.3 Axles, 3.9.3.4 Towbar, and 3.10.6.2 Air transportability.

PD21WRWNZEA008: 3.2.1 GPU general layout, 3.5.7.7 Fuel tank (without addressing paragraph 3.5.5 embedded in paragraph 3.5.7.7), 3.9.1 Weight and dimensions, 3.9.2 Enclosure, 3.9.2.1 Doors, 3.9.2.2 Power cable storage, 3.9.3.3 Axles, 3.9.3.4 Towbar, and 3.10.6.2 Air transportability.

PD21WRWNZEA009: 3.2.1 ULB general layout, 3.9.1 Weight and dimensions, 3.9.2 Enclosure, 3.9.2.1 Doors, 3.9.2.2.1 B-52 external power cable assembly compartment, 3.3.2 ULB power input panels, 3.9.3.3 Axles, 3.9.3.4 Towbar, and 3.10.6.2 Air transportability.

72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU: The submitted information included supporting data needed to verify that the proposed 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU designs are capable of meeting the dimensional, weight, and air transportability requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA007 and PD21WRWNZEA008. The supporting data included the following documentation:

1. Conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs that sufficiently outlined the complete 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU via exterior views (top, bottom, both sides, and both ends). At a minimum, the exterior views illustrated cable assembly storage, the doors (in both the open and closed positions), axles, towbar, and fuel filler location(s).

2. A direct exterior side view conceptual illustration, isometric drawing, or model print out that sufficiently illustrated the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU in its maximum gross vehicle weight (GVW) condition negotiating the maximum C-130 ramp cresting angle.

3. Superimposed (ghost) conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs (wherein the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU exterior is superimposed over the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU interior) that sufficiently illustrated the locations of major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to:

radiator/CAC, engine, engine air cleaner assembly, engine muffler/resonator, batteries, fuel tank(s), A.C.

generator, LRU(s), and 120/208 VAC, 60 Hz power supplies/transformer.

4. Calculated maximum dimensions and weight of the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU. Sufficient weight details were provided for major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to: chassis and running gear; enclosure; the complete engine system to include batteries, liquid cooling system, and fuel system; the complete 480 VAC, 60 Hz power system to include the internal A.C. generator, the utility grid shore power inputs, and required regulation and control devices); LRU(s); and control system with control panel.

144 kW ULB: The submitted information included supporting data needed to verify that the proposed 144 kW ULB design is capable of meeting the dimensional, weight, and air transportability requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA009. The supporting data included the following documentation:

1. Conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs that sufficiently outlined the complete 144 kW ULB via exterior views (top, bottom, both sides, and both ends). At a minimum, the exterior views illustrated the location of 144 kW ULB power input panel(s), the power cable storage, the 144 kW ULB cooling air entrance(s) and exit(s), doors (in both the open and closed positions), axles, and towbar.

2. A direct exterior side view conceptual illustration, isometric drawing, or model print out that sufficiently illustrated the 144 kW ULB in its maximum GVW condition negotiating the maximum C-130 ramp cresting angle.

3. Superimposed (ghost) conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs (wherein the 144 kW ULB exterior is superimposed over the 144 kW ULB interior) that sufficiently illustrated the locations of major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to: load elements, cooling fans, and any required power conversion/inversion devices.

4. Calculated maximum weight of the 144 kW ULB. Sufficient weight details were provided for major sub-assemblies and components such as, but not limited to: chassis and running gear; enclosure; the complete load elements system to include control devices; the complete cooling system, any required power conversion/inversion devices; and control system with control panel.

1.1.2. Subfactor 2: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Human Factors

The standard for Subfactor 2 is met when the conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs included in the technical proposal provide a sound engineering approach to be used for the human factors of the 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and the 144 kW ULB, and that the design approach meets the requirements mandated by the following paragraphs of

PD21WRWNZEA007: 3.6 Control system (to include all subparagraphs)

PD21WRWNZEA008: 3.6 Control system (to include all subparagraphs)

PD21WRWNZEA009: 3.6 Control system (to include all subparagraphs)

72 kW GPU: The submitted information included conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs needed to verify that the proposed 72 kW GPU design is capable of meeting the human factor requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA008. The conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs sufficiently outlined the complete 72 kW GPU control panel and human to machine interface (HMI).

144 kW GPU: The submitted information included conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs needed to verify that the proposed 144 kW GPU design is capable of meeting the human factor requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA007. The conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs sufficiently outlined the complete 144 kW GPU control panel and HMI.

144 kW ULB: The submitted information included conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs needed to verify that the proposed 144 kW ULB design is capable of meeting the human factor requirements as defined in PD21WRWNZEA009. The conceptual illustrations, isometric drawings, or model print outs sufficiently outlined the complete 144 kW ULB control panel and HMI.

1.1.3. Subfactor 3: 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU Output Power Rating

The standard for Subfactor 3 is met when the detailed narrative included in the technical proposal provides a sound engineering approach to be used for the output power rating of the 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU and demonstrates through accurate supporting data such as explanations, analysis, and/or calculations that the design approach meets the requirements mandated by the following paragraphs (excluding associated subparagraphs) of

PD21WRWNZEA007: 3.3.1 GPU generator sub-system, 3.4 GPU outputs (without addressing paragraph

3.3 embedded in paragraph 3.4), 3.4.2.3 400 Hz output power rating (without addressing paragraphs

3.4.2.10 and 3.4.2.20 embedded in paragraph 3.4.2.3), 3.4.3.4 28.5 VDC output power rating (without addressing paragraph 3.4.3.8 embedded in paragraph 3.4.3.4), 3.4.4.4 270 VDC output power rating, 3.5 Engine system (addressing temperature and altitude requirements in paragraph 3.8, but not addressing paragraph 3.10.9 embedded in paragraph 3.5), 3.8.1 Operating temperature range, and 3.8.3 Altitude.

PD21WRWNZEA008: 3.3.1 GPU generator sub-system, 3.4 GPU outputs (without addressing paragraph

3.3 embedded in paragraph 3.4), 3.4.2.2 400 Hz output power rating, 3.4.3.3 28.5 VDC output power rating (without addressing paragraph 3.4.3.1.7 embedded in paragraph 3.4.3.3), 3.4.4.3 270 VDC output power rating, 3.5 Engine system (addressing temperature and altitude requirements in paragraph 3.8, but not addressing paragraph 3.10.9 embedded in paragraph 3.5), 3.8.1 Operating temperature range, and

3.8.3 Altitude.

72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU: Submitted information included supporting data needed to verify the proposed full (without de-rating) 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU output power rating at +130° F operating temperature and 3,000 feet altitude while operating on F-24/JP-8 fuels as defined in PD21WRWNZEA007 and PD21WRWNZEA008.

The supporting data included an analysis with a detailed discussion of the selected engine; A.C. generator with excitation system; number (quantity of on-board), system architecture, and input power source of (all) LRUs;

parasitic loses resulting from on-board accessory equipment (such as, but not limited to: cooling fans, battery charging, control system power conversion losses, accessory 120/208 VAC, 60 Hz receptacles, etc.); and supporting calculations of the proposed GPU power output rating utilizing the GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet.

The separate, completed GPU Engine Derating Calculation Worksheet also included the following supporting data for the selected engine, A.C. generator, LRUs, and accessory equipment (parasitic loads):

1. Abridged performance data for the selected engine configuration excerpted directly from the engine manufacturer’s performance specification sheet indicating: complete horsepower and torque curves, fuel curves, manufacturing tolerances, standard de-ratings, etc. as prepared by the engine manufacturer.

2. Engine manufacturer’s de-rating or engine test data when adjusted to worst-case ambient conditions specified in PD21WRWNZEA007 and PD21WRWNZEA008 while operating from F-24/JP-8 fuel.

3. Information regarding power requirements for all parasitic loads to include horsepower consumption curves/cut sheets supplied by the manufacturer of a specific accessory, to include contractor’s prepared parasitic losses for contractor produced accessory (parasitic) loads, such as the GPU control system, 120/208 VAC, 60 Hz receptacles, etc.

4. Abridged performance data for the selected A.C. generator configuration, excerpted directly from the A.C generator manufacturer’s data sheet indicating: class of insulation system, ambient operating temperature and altitude derating curve(s) indicating available A.C. generator power output rating at the environmental conditions specified in PD21WRWNZEA007 and PD21WRWNZEA008, nameplate rating of A.C. generator indicating power factor and kVA.

5. Efficiency data for the selected LRUs.

1.1.4. Subfactor 4: 72 kW GPU, 144 kW GPU, and 144 kW ULB Cooling System Design

The standard for Subfactor 4 is met when the detailed narrative included in the technical proposal provides a sound engineering approach to be used for the cooling system design of the 72 kW GPU, the 144 kW GPU, and the 144 kW ULB and demonstrates through accurate supporting data such as explanations, analysis, calculations, and/or conceptual layout drawings that the design approach meets the requirements mandated by the following paragraphs of

PD21WRWNZEA007: 3.5.4 Engine cooling system, 3.5.4.1 Engine liquid cooling system, 3.5.4.2 Engine charge air cooling system, and 3.8.1 Operating temperature range.

PD21WRWNZEA008: 3.5.4 Engine cooling system, 3.5.4.1 Engine liquid cooling system, 3.5.4.2 Engine charge air cooling system, and 3.8.1 Operating temperature range.

PD21WRWNZEA009: 3.4 Electrical loads, 3.5.1 Cooling fans, 3.5.2 Cooling air flow, 3.5.3 Cooling fan(s) operation, 3.7.6.1 Over-temperature and airflow failure protective circuit(s), and 3.8.1 Operating temperature range.

72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU: The submitted information included supporting data needed to verify that the proposed 72 kW GPU and 144 kW GPU cooling system design is capable of continuous operation at the worst case ambient conditions while operating at full rated power output level as defined in PD21WRWNZEA007 and

PD21WRWNZEA008.

The supporting data included an analysis with a detailed discussion of the entire proposed engine cooling system design addressing: worst case high and low…