ALEP_3_Section_M-_RFP_Draft.pdf

FA8606-18-R-0013

26 March 2018

AIRCREW LASER EYE PROTECTION (ALEP) BLOCK 3

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DRAFT

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This source selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix B, 31 March 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government will select the proposals with Acceptable and Low-to-Moderate Risk ratings under the Technical Factor.

1.2 Source Selection Process Flow

The Government will perform this source selection in the following manner:

STEP ONE:

1.2.1 Gates

1.2.1.1 Optical Item Manufacturing Gate: The Government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for documentation which proves that the offeror can perform design and manufacture of high quality laser eye protection (LEP). Offerors will provide a written Overall Summary of their products, previous LEP efforts. Any proposal received that does not meet this condition will be returned to the offeror without any further evaluation and is considered ineligible for award.

1.2.1.2 Classified Processing Gate:

The wavelengths and protection levels for ALEP Block 3 are classified SECRET and the offerors must be U.S. entities with a secure facility able to receive SECRET classified documents. The DD-254 submission will act as the determination of this gate. Any proposal received that does not meet this condition will be returned to the offeror without any further evaluation and is considered ineligible for award.

STEP TWO:

1.2.2 Technical Factor: The Government will rate the technical factor at the subfactor level for compliance and risk as detailed herein. A proposal with a technical subfactor found to be Unacceptable or rated as High Risk will be ineligible for award.

1.2.3 Price: Price/cost will be evaluated at the delivery order level.

STEP THREE:

1.2.4 The Government will award multiple contracts, one to each acceptable offeror with (1) Acceptable Technical Capability and (2) Low or Moderate Technical Risk.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award multiple Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Contracts for the Aircrew Laser Eye Protection (ALEP) Block 3 program. The Government reserves the right to make no award if that is determined to be in the Government’s best interest.

1.4 Clarification: Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.5 Discussions: It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA determines that discussions are necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as Acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation and in support of competitive range determinations, should the SSA determine discussions are necessary, the “correction potential” of any deficiency. The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror’s proposal does not meet the Government’s requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions: Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions Unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The Government will evaluate the technical factor at the subfactor level for both compliance and risk. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Performance Capability (Small Business inclusion) Subfactor 2: Production Plan

2.2 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical Evaluation includes a Technical Compliance Rating and a Technical Risk Rating for subfactors 1 and 2.

2.2.1 Technical Compliance Rating

The Technical Compliance evaluation of the Technical Factor provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Each technical subfactor will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical Factor. Any subfactor evaluated as Marginal or Unacceptable will be ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be Technically Acceptable, Good or Outstanding, either initially or as a result of discussions, if conducted, will be considered for award.

TABLE 1 Technical Compliance Ratings

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.2.2 Technical Risk Rating

In addition to the Technical Compliance Ratings noted above, Technical Subfactors 1 and 2 will also receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2. Assessment of Technical

Risk identifies weaknesses and considers potential for disruption of schedule or degradation of performance, which may result in the need for increased Government oversight and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 2 Technical Risk Rating

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

A proposal with a High Risk or Unacceptable rating under any subfactor shall be considered unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be Low to Moderate Risk, either initially or as a result of discussions, if conducted, will be considered for award.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

2.2.3 Subfactor 1: Performance Capability

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offerors ability to perform to at least one of the Government’s required form factors (day spectacles, night spectacles, and day visors as described in Statement of Work Section X.X) in accordance with the requirement matrix provided with the RFP documentation.

Measures of Merit: Measures of Merit: Offeror will provide documentation and explanation of their products, previous LEP efforts, and manufacturing capabilities and displays a sound systems engineering plan, detailed design engineering and analysis tools used, sound method of test, and sound manufacturing processes that meet one of the Government's required form factors. The Government will evaluate this as the offeror’s proposal.

This subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal provides the above documentation which substantiates that the offeror can use an experienced based approach to design, test, and manufacture high quality LEP and will be rated as Acceptable.

2.2.5 Subfactor 2: Production Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the vendor’s production capacity & quality perform to at least one of the Government’s required form factors (day spectacles, night spectacles, and day visors as described in Statement of Work Section X.X) ) in accordance with the requirements.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides documentation (Schedule, IMS, etc.) that demonstrates the production capacity that uses sound and mature manufacturing processes, sound and mature manufacturing processes include at a minimum quality management program, unit compliance testing, and diminishing sources consideration and/or mitigation IAW MRL Deskbook version 2.4 (dated August 2015) which can be found at www.dodmrl.com.