TDB_Section_M_-_10_Apr.pdf

TRY-DECIDE-BUY (TDB)

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

10 April 2019

Try-Decide-Buy

Attachment 3 Section M: EFFA

FA8606-19-R-0014

Table of Contents

1 GENERAL

Basis for Contract Award

Number of Contracts to be Awarded

Clarifications

Discussions

Correction Potential of Proposals

Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

2 SOURCE SELELCTION PROCESS FLOW

Gates:

2.1.1 Shipping:

2.1.2 ITAR Compliance Gate:

Technical Factor:

3 EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Technical Factor

Technical Risk Rating

Subfactor 1: Teaming Approach

Subfactor 2: NAICS Code

1 GENERAL

Basis for Contract Award

This competitive 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). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The

TDB multiple award contract (MAC) indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) will be a 100% small-business set-aside and the non-manufacturing rule will apply.

The Government will select the proposal(s) with Acceptable technical rating and

Low-to-Moderate Risk rating under the Technical Factor. Price/cost will be evaluated at the delivery order level.

A contract will 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 value to the Government. The

Government will select those offerors whose proposal is determined to be the best value to the Government based upon an 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 assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria (described below) in the solicitation.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award multiple contracts, one to each acceptable offeror that has Acceptable Technical Rating with Low or Moderate Technical Risk. The

Government anticipates awarding the TDB MAC IDIQ to approximately 10-12 qualified small businesses. The government reserves the right to award more or fewer contracts, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the government.

Clarifications

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 (CO) reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revisions.

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 Revisions (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 response are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, 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.

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. 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 SOURCE SELELCTION PROCESS FLOW

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

STEP ONE:

Gates:

2.1.1 Shipping:

Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) Gate:

The government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for a written description, which demonstrates a sound approach to shipping equipment

OCONUS. Any proposal received that does not meet this requirement will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award.

2.1.2 ITAR Compliance Gate:

The Government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for documentation which validates that the vendor is International Traffic in Arms Regulations

(ITAR) compliant. The vendor must be registered with the State Department’s

Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) at time of submission. Offerors must provide their valid DDTC documentation. Any proposal received that does not meet this requirement will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award.

STEP TWO:

Technical Factor:

The Government will rate the technical factor for compliance and risk as detailed herein. A proposal with a technical factor found to be Technically Unacceptable or rated as High Risk will be ineligible for award.

3 EVALUATION FACTOR

Evaluation Factor and Subfactors

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

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Teaming Approach

Subfactor 2: NAICS Code

Technical Factor

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the offeror’s proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below to the entire Technical factor. A Technical factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and; therefore, ineligible for award. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Technical Risk Rating

In addition to the Technical Compliance Ratings noted above, the entire Technical

Factor will also receive one overall Technical Risk rating described in Table 2.

Assessment of Technical Risk identifies weaknesses and significant weaknesses

(See FAR 15.001) 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 requirements.

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, 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, 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.

Subfactor 1: Teaming Approach

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposal which provides a sound process to establishing supplier teaming arrangements in order to provide the supplies required in the SOW.

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

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror clearly demonstrates a sound process to establish teaming arrangements necessary in order to provide the supplies required in the SOW.

Subfactor 2: NAICS Code

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to perform under the

NAICS codes in accordance with the SOW paragraph 3.2.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides documentation that the offeror has the necessary background to perform as stated below.

The offeror’s documentation shall include:

1. Documentation of contract performance for one (1) or more contracts out of the core NAICS Codes, found in SOW paragraph 3.2

2. Documentation of contract performance for up to two (2) contracts out of the remaining list of NAICS Codes, found in SOW paragraph 3.2

3. Documentation of contract performance shall be one (1) government contract out of the three (3).

4. Not more than three (3) contracts total.

Failure to provide documentation outlined in item number 3 above, will not deem offeror’s proposal unacceptable, but will be factored into the offeror’s overall risk rating. The government will evaluate the contracts in order to verify the offeror’s familiarity with the scope of the program, in accordance with the SOW.