NGAME Section M Evaluation Factors for Award_Industry Day Draft.pdf

NEXT GENERATION AMMUNITION & MUNITIONS EQUIPMENT (NGAME)

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 a Technically Acceptable source selection methodology 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 DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for best value award decision. The Government intends to award multiple contracts under this RFP. However, the Government reserves the right not to award any contracts and may do so without prior notice to the offerors. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by offerors.

This source selection will be conducted without trade-offs. A qualifying offeror is one that is deemed responsible and technically acceptable. An unacceptable rating for any factor will result in offerors being ineligible for award. A decision on the Technical Acceptability of each offeror’s technical and small business participation proposals will be made in accordance with the evaluation criteria in Section M, paragraph II below. Cost/Price will be evaluated in-depth at the order level; however, Price will be evaluated as identified below.

The Government shall evaluate proposals in accordance with this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection 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 qualifying offeror(s) whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section M, paragraph II below.

B. Factors, and Relative Importance

1. Factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be carried out. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors.

Factor I: Technical Proposal

Factor II: Small Business Participation

Factor III: Price Proposal

2. Relative Importance: Factor I – Technical Proposal and Factor II – Small Business Participation will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Factor III – Price is evaluated but it is not rated. There will be no tradeoffs made amongst the three factors.

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

A. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary in accordance with FAR 15.306.

If discussions are conducted, only offerors determine to be technically acceptable will be eligible to participate. As this acquisition uses a technical acceptability evaluation and does not employ proposal ratings or tradeoff analysis, the Government does not anticipate establishing multiple competitive ranges or limiting the competitive range based in “highly rated” proposals. 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).

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.

offerors are reminded that the Government may independently identify exceptions taken to the RFP terms and conditions not listed in this cover letter. 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. DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement”: The submitted DD Form 2345 “Military Critical Technical Data Agreement” will be evaluated to validate it is current with the Defense Logistics Agency’s Logistics Information Service – Joint Certification Program. The DD Form 2345 must be current for the Offeror submitting the proposal. The Government will only accept and review the actual DD Form 2345. System screen captures from the DLA JCP will not be accepted. Failure to submit DD Form 2345 will result in the Offeror being considered failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions and thus render the proposal not eligible for award.

3. Small Business Subcontracting Plan: The small business subcontracting plan will be evaluated by 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. Offerors are strongly encouraged to utilize the document entitled “DoD Checklist for Reviewing Subcontracting Plans” available at https://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/DoD- CSP/Subcontracting-Guide/.

4. Supplier Performance Risk System: If available, offerors shall have a current assessment in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) as required by DFARS 252.204-7019 and DFARS 252.204-7020. An assessment date is considered current within the last three years of this solicitation issuance. The Government will consider the offeror’s risk assessment for item, price, and supplier risk, as applicable. Offerors are able to access their risk assessments by following the access instructions in the SPRS users guide available at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm.)

5. Required Clause and Provision “Fill-Ins”: The offeror’s completed RFP will be evaluated to ensure that all clauses and provisions that require “fill-in” information, as identified in RFP Attachment (Number TBD), List of Fill-In Clauses and Provisions to Complete are appropriately completed. Failure to complete all required fill-ins 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, Technical Proposal

1. General: Each offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the NGAME self-score matrix, to determine if the offeror demonstrates experience in any of the identified Focus Area Categories as detailed in the NGAME Focus Area Categories Section below. The substantiating documentation provided within the technical proposal shall be used in the evaluation for the Government’s validation of the offeror’s submitted self-score.

This technical factor is met when the offeror’s NGAME self-score matrix with a maximum of two (2) recent/relevant work samples is validated and determined by the Government to substantiate the offeror’s self-score.

The work samples shall represent contracts/orders of work performed for the United States Government and be within the last five (5) years from the proposal due date.

In order to maximize the offeror’s NGAME self-score matrix, the Government recommends that each submitted work sample shows expertise across multiple Focus Area Categories. The burden of proof for substantiating points in the offeror Self-Scoring Matrix rests solely with the offeror. The Government reserves the right to contact the Government POC identified in the work samples, or any other resources deemed necessary for any or all evaluation criteria during validation of self-scores.

The offeror must show experience in at least one Focus Area Category to get a point on the NGAME self-score matrix. The maximum self-score that an offeror may claim for any given work sample is two (2) points: one for https://business.defense.gov/Portals/57/Documents/DoD%20Checklist%20for%20Reviewing%20Subcontracting%20Plans%20(July%202024)_Revised%20Final.pdf?ver=hHfQYeKuLsHZ-XO0JwHDOg%3d%3d https://business.defense.gov/Portals/57/Documents/DoD%20Checklist%20for%20Reviewing%20Subcontracting%20Plans%20(July%202024)_Revised%20Final.pdf?ver=hHfQYeKuLsHZ-XO0JwHDOg%3d%3d https://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/DoD-CSP/Subcontracting-Guide/ https://business.defense.gov/Acquisition/Subcontracting/DoD-CSP/Subcontracting-Guide/ https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil/reference.htm each Focus Area Category. If the Government determines that an offeror’s substantiating documentation is insufficient to support the self-score in a Focus Area Category, the Government will decrement a point for any Focus Area Category found to be insufficient. Consequentially, the total work sample self-score could potentially be decremented to zero (0) points.

NGAME Focus Area Categories

1) CATEGORY 1:

This focus area is met when the offeror provides work samples describing an Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) manufactures and delivers munitions materiel handling equipment (MMHE) and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment. Describe the type of MMHE and/or comparable industrial material handling equipment provided and produced by your company that meets our definition of MMHE referenced in the SOO section I. Provide work samples of design, development, prototypes, projects, efforts, and documentation that are applicable.

2) CATEGORY 2:

This focus area is met when the offeror provides work samples detailing the delivery of technical data, engineering data, and supporting documentation. Technical data is the creating, curating and maintaining of T.O.s and/or material manual, maintenance manual, provisioning, training material and/or operation manuals. Engineering data is the use of engineering tools and analysis such as MBSE (Model-Base System Engineering) material and Technical and engineering data. Samples but not limited to DOORS, Cameo, Ansys, Solidworks, Creo, Catia, MatLab, etc. Provide work samples demonstrating technical and engineering data documentation.

2. Technical Rating: 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 the technical factor. To be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating for the technical factor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

The total score on the self-score matrix must result in two (2) points to be considered technically acceptable, comprised of one (1) point for Category 1 and one (1) point for Category (2). A total self-score matrix score below two (<2), comprised of one (1) point for Category 1 and one (1) point for Category 2, means the technical factor will be determined as unacceptable. Unsubstantiated or misleading claims could result in the Government determining that the offeror’s proposed self- scoring matrix is artificially inflated, thereby resulting in the proposal being determined unacceptable.

C. Volume III, Small Business Participation Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s (required from both Large and Small Business Offerors) 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. The Government will assess the extent to which the offeror proposes acceptable use of Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) concerns in the performance of the proposed contract. The Government will assess the extent to the commitment to such firms, including the proposed percentages of the acquisition, the probability that the offeror shall satisfy the requirements of FAR 52.219-8 – Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and achieve the levels of Small Business Participation identified in their proposal shall be considered.

a. This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three methods the offeror intends to utilize to ensure Small Businesses* have equitable opportunities to compete for subcontracts on all delivery orders.

b. This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least three methods the offeror intends to utilize to develop subcontracting goals to meet and exceed Air Force Small Businesses* goals in all delivery orders.

c. This element is met when the proposal has provided an acceptable approach identifying at least two outreach methods the offeror intends to utilize in locating Small Businesses* for subcontracting on all delivery orders.

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 iii above in the offeror’s Small Business Participation proposal will be evaluated against the FY25 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals:

Business Size Sub Small Business 19.00% Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 5.00% Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone)

1.3%

Woman-Owned Small Business

(WOSB)

3.00%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

3.00%

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.

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.

* Small Businesses include Small Business Concerns, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business Concerns, HUBZONE Small Business Concerns, Small Disadvantaged Business Concerns, and Women-Owned Small Business Concerns.

Note: Offerors are hereby notified that the Government intends to formally incorporate the acceptable Small Business Participation Proposal into the contract. The evaluation of proposed Small Business* goals may be included at the delivery order level.

D. Volume IV, Price Proposal Factor

The offeror’s proposals shall be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with paragraph 1 below.

1. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. The offeror shall provide a proposed price for the Post Award Conference. The proposed price will serve as the contract minimum IAW FAR 52.216-19 Order Limitations.

The offeror will consider the following parameters regarding the PAC.

a. The PAC shall be held virtually using Microsoft Teams.

b. The number of Contractor attendees shall be limited to a maximum of two (2) persons, and the PAC duration shall not exceed four (4) hours.

2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. A Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be assigned based on the offeror’s proposed unit price for the Post Award Conference.

The Offeror will provide the proposed unit price in whole dollars and must be submitted in U.S. currency.

The proposed unit price will serve as the TEP for evaluation purposes only. The “Unit Price” will represent the TEP.

3. Cost/Price Proposals on Individual Delivery Orders: IAW DFARS 215.371, in the event that only one offer is received for a competitive delivery order, information other than certified cost or pricing data may be required at the order level for fixed price orders. No detailed price information will be submitted if not required by the order. In the event a cost proposal is required, the pricing volume of the proposal shall include detailed cost/price amounts of all resources required to accomplish the requirement (i.e. labor hours, direct and indirect rates, travel, incidental equipment, etc.). Cost proposals shall include at a minimum, a complete Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) which coincides with the detailed technical approach and Basis of Estimates (BOEs) and provides all information as specified in the RFP.

NOTE: In-depth price analysis on Delivery Orders: An in-depth cost/price proposal will be provided at the individual order level. The proposal requirements and award basis will be provided for in the contracts Ordering Instruction.