ALEP_3_Section_M_RFP_VersionV2.pdf

Aircrew Laser Eye Protection Atch 02 – Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

FA8606-18-R-0013

31 May 2018

AIRCREW LASER EYE PROTECTION (ALEP) BLOCK 3

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA8606-18-R-0013

FA8606-18-R-0013

1.0 GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a source selection 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, 31 March 2016; and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government will be conducting a Full and Open Competition, and will select the proposal(s) with Acceptable and Low-to-Moderate Risk ratings under the Technical Factor. Price/cost will be evaluated at the delivery order level.

A contract may be awarded to the Offerors who are deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best Offerors to meet the Government’s technical requirements. The Government will select those Offerors whose proposal is determined to have a sound technical approach based upon an integrated assessment of the Technical Subfactors. The source selection process is, by its nature, subjective and professional judgement is, therefore, implicit throughout the entire process.

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria (described below) in the solicitation.

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 high quality laser eye protection (LEP). Offerors will provide a written Overall Summary of their products, design and manufacturing capabilities, and any 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. Offerors cannot be deemed ineligible for award based solely on a lack of previous LEP design or manufacturing experience. The intent of this gate is for offeror’s to submit the appropriate documentation requested above. Offerors are not required to detail how they have the ability to provide at least one of the Government’s required form factors to meet this Gate criteria, which is required in Technical Subfactor 1:

Performance Capability found in paragraph 2.2.3. This is a separate requirement from Technical Subfactor 1: Performance Capability found in paragraph 2.2.3.

FA8606-18-R-0013

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. Classified data is not releasable to any industrial vendor who has not received a final security clearance and the facility address must meet all requirements that can handle SECRET security level. Respondents shall submit company name, address, POC name, phone number, and Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) code. The Government will take this information to ensure Offerors can receive and send classified information. Any offeror who does not provide a valid CAGE code that has the appropriate security clearance requirements with the proposal may be 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 Technically Unacceptable or rated as High or Unacceptable Risk will be ineligible for award.

Atch 02 – Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

STEP THREE:

1.2.5 The Government intends to 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.

Atch 02 – Section M: Evaluation Factors 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 will result in 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 Technical rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical Factor. Any subfactor evaluated as Unacceptable will be ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be Technically Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, if conducted, will be considered for award.

TABLE 1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

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.

Atch 02 – Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award

Table 2 Technical Risk Rating

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule 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 provide at least one of the Government’s required form factors (day spectacles, night spectacles, and day visors as described in the Statement of Work) in accordance with the requirements matrix provided with the RFP documentation. This subfactor also evaluates the offeror’s approach to utilize Small Businesses.

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.

This subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal provides the above documentation which substantiates that the offeror has the ability to design, test, and manufacture LEP as referenced in Atch L-1 Requirement Matrix. In order to meet the

Atch 02 – Section M: Evaluation Factors for Award requirements as stated in Sec L, Para 4.2.5.1.2, the Small Business Participation Plan is evaluated as a part of Performance Capability for Technical Risk rating and Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating and will not be given its own separate rating.

2.2.4 Subfactor 2: Production Plan

Description: This subfactor evaluates the vendor’s production capacity & quality process to perform to at least one of the Government’s required form factors (day and night spectacles, day and night ballistic spectacles, and day visors as described in Statement of Work) in accordance with the requirements, as referenced in Atch L-01 Requirement Matrix.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror’s proposal provides documentation (Integrated Master Schedule, Manufacturing Management Plan and Quality Management Plan) that demonstrates the production capacity that uses sound and mature manufacturing processes for at least one the Government’s required form factors (day and night spectacles, day and night ballistic spectacles, and day visors as described in Statement of Work).