Section_M_(FBO_Draft)__11.29.17.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 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, Cost/Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation Verficiation. 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 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 technical evaluation of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals trading off technical rating/technical risk against cost/price and all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). 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.

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.

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 Systems Approach Subfactor 2: Program Management Plan (PMP)

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Small Business Participation Verification

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor is as follows: Technical, Cost/Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation Verification are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Cost/Price) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Past Performance) is less important. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors 1 and 2 are equally important. When combined, the Technical Factor and Past Performance Factor are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection Decision. Compliance with Factor 4 is mandatory and if not met the Offeror(s) approach is ineligible for a Small Business Set-Aside and is unawardable for this solicitation.

2.2 Factor 1 - Technical Factor

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. Offeror(s) will not be rewarded for exceeding any objectives or thresholds, and strengths will not be applied during the evaluations of Offeror(s) proposal. Descriptions of the methods of risk ratings used are in Tables 2.2.1A, 2.2.1 B, and 2.2.1C.

Table 2.2.1A Technical Rating Method Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

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 the requirements of the solicitation, and thus contains one or more deficienices and is unawardable

Table 2.2.1B Technical Risk Rating Method 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 signifigant 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 are 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.

Table 2.2.1C Definitions Used in Technical / Technical Risk Ratings Deficiency A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Used with Factor 1.

Significant Weakness A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Used with Factor 1.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Used with Factor 1.

2.2.1 Subfactor 1 – Quality Systems Approach—Description: The Offeror(s) approach to their Quality Systems will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror(s) Quality Systems 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), and is free of defects. This subfactor will be evaluated for the adequacy and risk of the Offeror(s) Quality Systems 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 and 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, schedules, and resources for producing the required products. The plan should adequately describe the following:

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

2.2.1.1.2 Describes the major assembly sequence and manufacturing process flows.

2.2.1.1.3 Describes facility requirements and layouts.

2.2.1.2 Quality Systems. The planned quality assurance system should adequately 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 adequately 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 Lists 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.yes

2.2.1.4 Measure of Merit – Quality: This subfactor is met when the Offeror(s) proposal indicates an adequate Quality Systems Approach by reviewing the Manufacturing Plan, Quality Management Program, and Supplier Management approaches. The Offeror(s) proposal shall present an adequate understanding of the requirements that has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and will require only normal Government monitoring to overcome any difficulties during program execution.

2.2.2 Subfactor 2 -Program Management Plan (PMP)—Description: The Offeror(s) PMP will be evaluated to determine the adequacy and risk of the Offeror(s) Program Management approach as it pertains to the CMC/WxR scope described in the SOW and contract. To do this, the Government will review the Offeror(s) PMP, including the associated plans as directed in Section L, in accordance with the following subparagraphs.

An Offeror(s) proposal may be unawardable if it does not adequately address the requirements of the solicitation and 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. The Offeror(s) Program Management Plan (PMP) will be evaluated based on:

2.2.2.1 Human Resource Management Plan (HRMP):

2.2.2.1.1 An adequate explanation of the Offeror(s) current Program Team and available, qualified human resources to produce on-time, quality deliveries of all contract deliverables and supplies.

2.2.2.1.2 The plan demonstrates an adequate approach to the Offeror(s) resource projections required to produce on-time, high-quality deliveries of all contract deliverables and supplies that is low risk, requiring only normal Government oversight.

2.2.2.1.3 The plan demonstrates an adequate approach to hiring, training, and developing the core competencies of the Offeror(s) Program Management Team in order to deliver the supplies and contract deliverables on-time with only normal Government oversight.

2.2.2.2 Risk Management Plan (RMP): The Offeror(s) RMP will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has provided an adequate approach to identify and assess risk, handle risk, and track and report risk to the Government in a manner that is low risk and requires normal Government oversight.

2.2.2.3 Integrated Master Schedule (IMS): The Offeror(s) IMS will be evaluated to determine if the Offeror has provided an adequate approach to: schedule, hire, train, and equip all key human resources; schedule all program milestones, work scope, and contract deliverables; and integrate the schedule in such a manner that the approach is low risk to the Government and can be accomplished with normal Government oversight.

2.2.2.4 Measure of Merit—PMP: This subfactor is met when the Offeror(s) PMP provides an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements that has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, and will require only normal Government monitoring to overcome any difficulties during program execution.

2.3 Evaluation Factor 2 – Cost/Price

The Offeror(s) Cost/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) Cost/

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) Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and completeness. Offeror(s) whose cost is determined to be unbalanced, 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) Cost/Price Proposal 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 proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. A proposal may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.4 Completeness. The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

2.3.5 Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP) Criteria. In accordance with Section L, Paragraph 4.0, the Offeror(s) shall provide pricing using the CMC/WxR Pricing Matrix Instructions. The CMC/WxR Pricing Matrix (Attachment L003) is an Excel file Offeror(s) shall use to provide pricing for the basic effort, plus all options and on all CLINs, including in each fiscal year to allow for flexibility in the evaluation of option exercising. The TEP is the sum of the following: All Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs, Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs, and Cost Reimbursable with No Fee (CRNF) CLINs. Travel and Over and Above will be included in the TEP at the Government-provided estimates. The Offeror(s) shall include a proposed fixed fee for the Over and Above calculation. Pricing provided by each Offeror(s) inputs will then calculate to a Total Evaluated Price. Fields not highlighted in yellow in the CMC/WxR Pricing Matrix are locked for editing and shall not be changed.

Offeror(s) shall input the amounts in each field that are highlighted in yellow in the Excel price matrix.

2.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror(s) probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offeror(s) must receive a past performance rating of Acceptable to be eligible for award.

2.4.1 Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance ratings described below in Table 2.4.1.

TABLE 2.4.1 - PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

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’s 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 or must have been performed during the past 3 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

Past performance information that fails 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 and/or services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to contract scope and type, uses of similar technology, and complexity of effort. 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 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) submitted through the PPI tool (Attachment L004 – 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

Rating Definition RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

2.4.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent and relevant efforts. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered.

2.4.2.3.1 Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider the extent to which the Offeror(s) evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns.

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

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

2.4.2.4 The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

TABLE 2.4.2.4 – PAST PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

SATISFACTORY (S) / GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

UNSATISFACTORY (U) / RED During the contract period, contractor performance is not substantially meeting (or did not substantially meet) contract requirements.

For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

NOT AVAILABLE (N) / WHITE Quality and/or performance information is not available; therefore, no rating is assigned.

2.4.2.5 Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offeror(s) will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. Offeror(s) 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 an "Unknown Confidence" or “Neutral” rating for the Past Performance factor (Reference Table 2.4.1).

2.5 Factor 4 - Small Business Participation Verification

The Offeror(s) proposal will be evaluated against the Non-Manufacturer Rule for Kit Assemblers in order to verify the Offeror(s) approach to kit production and delivery remains eligible for award under a Small Business Set-Aside.

2.5.1 The Offeror(s) total Small Business Participation for manufacturing components to complete the CMC/WxR Production Kits will be evaluated using the total value of components supplied by small businesses and must not be less than 50% of the total value of the kit when the Government Directed Sources exception is applied for the value of the directed components.

2.5.2 Measure of Merit - Extent of Participation of Small Business. This subfactor is met when the Offeror(s) proposal clearly identifies and substantiates that the Offeror has met the Non-Manufacturer Rule for Kit Assemblers.

Table 3 Small Business Rating Method Adjectival

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of Small Business Objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet Small Business Objectives.

M002 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offeror(s) 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. Offeror(s) must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.