Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and 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 Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Price, and Past Performance. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, 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 tradeoff to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the non-price factors of the higher priced offer outweighs the price difference. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all propsals and source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government plans to award up to one (1) contract to produce kits for the C-5M Core Mission Computer/Weather Radar (CMC/WxR).

1.3 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award this effort based upon initial proposals, as received, without discussions. 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.

1.4 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.

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

Offerors are hereby advised that only those proposals determined by the Contracting Officer (CO) to have a reasonable chance for contract award will be included within the competitive range, should discussions be deemed necessary. During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition that are not among the most highly rated proposals, at the time of the determination. If the CO determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be included within the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the CO may further limit the number of proposals included within the competitive range to the greatest number permitting an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, or otherwise excluded from the competition before award, they may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505.

1.5.1 The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M Section 2.0 Evaluation Factors, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Quality Management Approach Subfactor 2: Program Management Plan (PMP)

Factor 2: Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 3 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 2 (Price) is less important. Within the

Technical Factor, Subfactors 1 and 2 are equally important. When combined, the Technical Factor and Past Performance Factors are significantly more important than the Price Factor;

however, the Price Factor will contribute substantially to the Source Selection Decision.

2.2 Factor 1 - Technical Volume

The two (2) Technical Subfactors will be evaluated using the Technical Rating Method and the Technical Risk Rating Method. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, and of low or moderate risk, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Offerors will not be rewarded for exceeding any objectives or thresholds, and strengths will not be applied during the evaluations of Offerors’ proposals. Descriptions of the ratings used are in Tables 2.2.A and 2.2.B.

Table 2.2.A Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Table 2.2.B Technical Risk Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased price 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 price 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 are likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased price 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.

2.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Quality Management Approach—Description: The Offeror’s approach to their Quality Management will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror’s Quality Management adequately addresses the requirements of the SOW and on-time, high-quality kit deliveries. A high-quality kit is defined as a kit that is well organized for easy inventory, includes all components, has all pre-assembly completed in accordance with the Record Time Compliance Technical Order (TCTO), Technical Data Package (TDP), and is free of defects. This subfactor will be evaluated for the adequacy and risk of the Offeror’s Quality Management by assessing the Offeror’s Manufacturing Plan, Quality Management System, and Supplier Management approaches. An Offeror’s proposal may be unawardable if it does not adequately address the requirements of the solicitation or is deemed high risk such that it is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance that cannot be overcome even with close Government monitoring.

2.2.1.1 Manufacturing Plan. The manufacturing plan provides proposed methods, strategies, and resources for producing the required products. The plan should clearly describe the following:

2.2.1.1.1 Describes how the manufacturing management system clearly meets the tailored requirements of AS6500.

2.2.1.1.2 Describes the major kitting assembly sequence and manufacturing process flows for the CMC/WxR Kit Production.

2.2.1.1.3 Describes the Offeror’s facility requirements and layouts necessary to accomplish kitting assembly.

2.2.1.1.4 Pre-Award Readiness Survey substantiates the Offeror’s readiness to execute their Manufacturing Plan and provides an executable strategy to mitigate shortfalls.

2.2.1.2 Quality Management. The planned quality assurance system should clearly describe policies and practices that will:

2.2.1.2.1 Assure product quality.

2.2.1.2.2 Achieve stable, capable processes.

2.2.1.2.3 Prevent defects.

2.2.1.2.4 Result in effective root cause analyses and corrective actions.

2.2.1.3 Supplier Management. The supplier management program plan should clearly describe the following:

2.2.1.3.1 Describes how key suppliers are selected and managed.

2.2.1.3.2 Describes how supplier activities will be integrated into the overall program plan.

2.2.1.3.3 Describes specific supplier risks and achievable plans for mitigating those risks.

2.2.1.3.4 Describes effective plans for preventing the intrusion of counterfeit parts in factory equipment and delivered products.

2.2.1.4 Measure of Merit – Quality: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal indicates an achieveable Quality Management Approach, that represents a clear understanding of the requirements, an executable strategy to mitigate Offeror’s Manufacturing Plan shortfalls, has a robust program requirements flow-down process to suppliers.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2 -Program Management Plan (PMP)—Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to plan the proposed program within the time constraints outlined in the SOW and Section F of the contract. An Offeror’s proposal may be unawardable if it does not adequately address the requirements of the solicitation or is deemed high risk that it is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance that cannot be overcome even with close Government monitoring. The Offeror’s Program Management Plan (PMP) will be evaluated based on the Government’s review of the Offeror’s Human Resource Management Plan (HRMP), Risk Management Plan (RMP) and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS).

2.2.2.1 Measure of Merit—HRMP: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed HRMP demonstrates a sound strategy to hiring, training and developing the core competencies required to deliver high-quality kits on-time.

2.2.2.2 Measure of Merit—RMP: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed RMP provides a proactive strategy to identify and assess risk, handle risk, and track and report risk to the Government, and the Offeror’s approach to mitigating their self-identified top-three risks is sound.

2.2.2.3 Measure of Merit—IMS: This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposed IMS is both reasonable and comprehensive. Reasonable is defined as an IMS that is considered to be detailed and attainable in meeting of the Government’s requirements.

Comprehensive is met when the Offeror’s proposal includes all elements listed in Section L Attachments L002 and L003.

2.3 Factor 2 – Price

The Offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated based upon the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) proposed for basic requirements (basic award) and all options. Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise such options. All pricing provided in each Offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated in order for the Government to make the best-value tradeoff award decision.

2.3.1 Overview. The Offeror’s Price Proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness. This shall include a review of the price quotes or draft purchase orders from the Government Directed Subcontractors Ballard and Mega Industries. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or incomplete may not be considered for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.2 Reasonableness. The Offeror’s TEP will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.3.3 Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will analyze CLIN prices to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The analytical techniques and procedures described in this Subpart may be used, singly or in combination with others, to ensure that the final price is fair and reasonable. The Travel and Over and Above CLINS are Government provided and will not be evaluated for unbalanced pricing.

2.3.4 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with all the requirements, terms, and conditions of the solicitation.

2.3.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Criteria. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 4.0, the Offerors shall provide pricing using the CMC/WxR Pricing Matrix Instructions. The CMC/WxR Pricing Matrix (Attachment L004) is an Excel file Offerors shall use to provide pricing for the base year plus all option periods. Pricing provided by each Offeror’s inputs will then calculate the Total Evaluated Price. The TEP is the sum of:

2.3.5.1 Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs: The Offeror shall indicate the total price for all Firm Fixed Price components, that shall roll up to a single, total CLIN price.

2.3.5.2 Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF): Government provided estimated cost for Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) -Over and Above CLINs. The Offerors shall include a proposed fixed fee for the Over and Above calculation.

2.3.5.3 Cost Reimbursable with No Fee (CRNF): Government provided estimated cost for Cost Reimbursable with No Fee (CRNF) -Travel CLINs

2.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of Substantial Confidence, Satisfactory Confidence, or Neutral Confidence to be eligible for award. A “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence”past performance rating.

2.4.1 Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will receive a Performance Confidence Assessments Rating based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy and quality of performance described below in Table 2.4.1.

2.4.2 Evaluation Process. The Past Performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS);

Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/ questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.4.2.1 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing for at least 6 months and must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails to meet these conditions will not be evaluated.

2.4.2.2 Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided, complexity, dollar value, and extent of subcontract/teaming performed under those contracts relate to this solicitation. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy

TABLE 2.4.1: Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The Past Performance Information (PPI) will be submitted through the PPI tool (Attachment L005 – Past Performance Information Instruction of Section L) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

TABLE 2.4.2.2 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

2.4.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (i.e., how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent and “Very Relevant,” Relevant,” and “Somewhat Relevant” efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the work performed will be assessed for all aspects relating to this acquisition.

2.4.2.3.1 The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than “Neutral Confidence” rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. In this case, Offerors may be given the opportunity to respond to adverse past performance information.

2.4.2.4 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance Factor (Reference Table 2.4.1).

M002 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 evaluation factors or subfactors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.