Evaluation_Basis_for_Award.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 4

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

A. 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 one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision on the technical acceptability or unacceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Among those offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, award will be made to the offeror having the lowest total evaluated price. Award will be made to the responsible offeror 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. Contract terms and conditions consistent with customary commercial practices are specified in the solicitation/contract, with otherwise tailored terms and conditions specified in the Addendum to the solicitation/contract.

B. 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. Should the SSA determine discussions are necessary, the Government will consider throughout the evaluation the “correction potential” of the proposal. The judgement of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If one or more aspects of an offeror’s proposal do not meet the

Government’s requirements and the proposal is not considered to be correctable without substantial rewrite, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. 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.

2. Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows.

A. Technical Factor.

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the CID

A-A-59932 and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

B. The Government will evaluate the subfactors in each written technical proposal as follows:

Subfactor One: Performance.

This subfactor is met when the detailed narrative in the written technical proposal provides an acceptable approach which demonstrates compliance in meeting all of the requirements mandated by

2.7, 2.7.1, 2.7.2, items “a-l” in 2.8, 2.8.5 in A-A-59932:

2.7 Performance.

2.7.1 Payload.

2.7.2 Towing capacity.

2.8 Mobility. (a) Maximum speed (b) Gravel roads (c) Cross-country terrain (d) Acceleration (e)

Clearances (f) Gradeability (g) Ramp negotiation (h) Side slope negotiation (i) Turning diameter (j)

Steering force (k) Parking brakes (l) Service brakes

2.8.5 Brakes.

Each offeror provided detailed, explanations and rationale of how each requirement is met when the vehicle is at maximum GVWR and when the vehicle is at maximum GVWR with a fully loaded trailer to comply with 2.7.1 and 2.7.2. Each offeror has ensured that the provided explanation includes drawings and schematics, where applicable, that are clear, legible, easy to follow, and appropriately labeled.

Subfactor Two: Common Remote Operated Weapon Station (CROWS) Compatibility. This subfactor is met when the detailed narrative in the written technical proposal provides an acceptable approach which demonstrates compliance in meeting all of the requirements mandated by 2.12, 2.12.1, 2.12.2, 2.12.3, 2.13 in CID A-A-59932:

2.12 Turret and hatch.

2.12.1 Gun mount.

2.12.2 Gunner’s seat.

2.12.3 Gunner’s visibility and protection.

2.13 CROWS compatibility.

Each offeror has provided engineering analysis including, but not limited to, detailed explanations of the design approach and clear, legible and properly scaled drawings depicting the installation/assembly process to demonstrate integration of CROWS on the vehicle, integration of the turret and Gunnar’s system, and compatibility of the Gunner’s system with the vehicle if the CROWS is not an assembled vehicle. If the offeror has previously installed CROWS on the vehicle, the offeror has provided documentation of test results, otherwise test results are not required from offerors who have not previously installed CROWS.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Subfactor Three: Armor. This subfactor is met when the detailed narrative in the written technical proposal provides an acceptable approach which demonstrates compliance in meeting all of the requirements mandated by 2.15 in CID A-A-59932:

2.15 Armor and ballistic protection.

Each offeror has provided a detailed explanation of the design approach to show the armor’s performance against various caliber rounds. Each offeror has provided a detailed explanation of the integration of the armor onto the chassis including, but not limited to, an illustrated parts breakdown of the armor panels to demonstrate how the cab will be protected. If applicable, each offeror has ensured that the explanations include drawings, schematics, documentation, certifications, test results, and material specification supporting the requirements. Additionally, the explanation includes specifications of the material used to armor the vehicle including, but not limited to, type of metal and mechanical characteristics. Each offeror has ensured that the provided explanation includes drawings and schematics, where applicable, that are clear, legible, easy to follow, and appropriately labeled.

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:

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

C. Price Factor.

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume I, Completed RFP and Clauses, for reasonableness and balanced pricing as discussed in paragraphs (i) and (ii) below.

Offerors are reminded that in order to maintain reasonable/balanced pricing, the Government will not accept “Not Separately Priced (NSP),” No Charge (NC), $0, etc. on any line items other than those already designated as “NSP” in the Schedule. Offerors are advised to review all data items and ensure that they are proposing to the specific data requirements and level of effort involved. For data items, where the quantity of one (1) lot is specified, the quantity of one (1) shall be used. The Government

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

will calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror’s proposed prices in accordance with paragraph (iii) below.

(i). 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 and/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.

(ii). Balanced Pricing: Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze the proposed prices to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Section

B (The Schedule). Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing; offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(iii). Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP of each proposal. The TEP will be calculated for evaluation purposes only. The

TEP will be calculated as follows:

(a) The Government will evaluate as outlined in the below spreadsheet. The Government will multiply the identified quantity by the proposed unit price to obtain an evaluated price for each CLIN (and Sub-CLIN). The sum of all of the CLINs (and Sub-CLINs) will represent the evaluated price for the basic.

CLIN Description EVAL

Unit of

Issue

Proposed Unit Price

Total

0001AA First Article 1 EA

0001AB Non‐Recurring Cost for FA 1 LO

0001AC Test Procedures 1 LO

0001AD Test Report 1 LO

0002AA Incremental Production Quantity A 3 EA

0002AB Incremental Production Quantity B 3 EA

0002AC Incremental Production Quantity C 3 EA

0002AD Incremental Production Quantity D 3 EA

0002AE Incremental Production Quantity E 3 EA

0002AF Incremental Production Quantity F 3 EA

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 AND 3.104

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

0003AA Conference Agenda 1 LO NSP

0003AB Conference Minutes 1 LO NSP

0003AC SYSTEM SAFETY HAZARD ANALYSIS REPORT 1 LO NSP

0003AD TECHNICAL REPORT STUDYSERVICE BULLETIN 1 LO NSP

0003AE Notice of Revision (NOR) 1 LO NSP

0003AF

CONTRACTOR'S PROGRESS, STATUS, AND

MANAGEMENT 1 LO NSP

0003AG ENGINEERING CHANGE PROPOSAL 1 LO NSP

0003AH REQUEST FOR VARIANCE 1 LO NSP

0003AJ PRODUCT BASE LINE INDEX 1 LO NSP

0003AK SYSTEM SAFETY PROGRAMPLAN 1 LO NSP

TECHNICAL MANUAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

(TMCR) 1 LO

0005 OPTIONAL SPARE TIRE 3 EA

Evaluated Total $ $

(b) The sum of all the CLINs’ evaluated prices will represent the total evaluated price. Offeror’s are required to price all CLINs (and Sub-CLINs), unless designated Not Separately Priced (NSP), with reasonable and balanced prices. All unit prices shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.