21OCT2019_Sec_M_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

FA8629-20-R-5003

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

SPECIAL WARFARE

PROCUREMENT MAC

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

The Government is conducting this competitive source selection in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, 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 http://www.acquisition.gov.

The Government will award a contract to the offerors that 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 that are judged, based on the assessment of a technical acceptability and risk against the source selection criteria described herein, to present qualified offers. A Price/Cost proposal is not required and will not be evaluated.

(Price will be evaluated at the Delivery/Task Order level.) While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is, by its nature, subjective; therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

This procurement is set-aside 100% for small business. The Non-Manufacturer Rule applies.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.2.1 Contract Award

The Government intends to award multiple contracts; one to each offeror that has an “Acceptable” Technical Factor and a Low/Moderate Risk rating.

1.2.2 Grossly Deficient Proposals

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 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, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not present a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation.

1.3 Correction Potential

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.

1.4 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.

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions and reserves the right to award this procurement based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to establish a competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306(c).

The Government will consider Evaluation Notice (EN) responses and Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) in the source selection decision. Any changes or exceptions made by the Offeror in the FPR are subject to evaluation. A proposal that was evaluated as “Acceptable” at the time Discussions close could be determined “Unacceptable” at FPR and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.6 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

1.6.1 Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as: terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, including those not identified as factors (e.g. the SOW, CDRLs).

1.6.2 Failure to Comply

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 (Reference Section L, Paragraph 3.3.2). The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions “unacceptable” and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2. SOURCE SELECTION PROCESS FLOW

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

STEP ONE:

2.1 ITAR Compliance Gate:

The Government will review the offeror’s initial proposal for a written description that demonstrates a sound approach to shipping export controlled equipment to Outside Continental United States (OCONUS) locations, and for documentation that 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. Any proposal received that does not meet the requirement for this gate will not be further evaluated and will be ineligible for award.

Reference SOW paragraph 13.4.

STEP TWO:

2.2 Technical Factor:

The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor for both acceptability and risk as detailed herein. A proposal with a factor rated Unacceptable or rated as either High or Unacceptable Risk will be ineligible for award.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Factor

The following evaluation factor will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability.

Factor: Technical – Product Sourcing

3.2 Technical Factor

The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor for both acceptability and risk. The Technical subfactor will receive one overall Technical Acceptability rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined in Table 1. A proposal with a factor rated “Unacceptable” or either a “High” or “Unacceptable” Risk will be ineligible for award.

Any deficiency documented in the evaluation of a factor results in an Unacceptable rating for that factor or risk. A factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and therefore, unawardable.

3.2.1 The following measures of merit will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Product Sourcing Description: This factor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide product sourcing elements IAW SOW paragraph 8.0.

A. Measure of Merit 1: Supplier Relationships. This measure of merit is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach to establishing and sustaining supplier relationships that enable it to provide the types of supplies, product support, and training required by the SOW.

B. Measure of Merit 2: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources and Material Sources (DMSMS) Management with Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM)s. This measure of merit is met when the offeror provides a sound approach for identifying and reporting DMSMS information IAW SOW paragraphs 5.4.7.1 and 8.2.

TABLE 1 - Technical Factor RatingUnacceptable Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

C. Measure of Merit 3: Compliance with Sourcing Restrictions. This measure of merit is met when the offeror demonstrates a sound approach to sourcing compliant products, and for monitoring suppliers’ compliance to sourcing restrictions IAW SOW paragraph 8.1.

3.3 Technical Risk Rating

In addition to the Technical Ratings noted above, the Technical Factor will also receive one overall Technical Risk rating described in Table 2. The Technical Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting requirements.

Assessment of Technical Risk identifies weaknesses and significant weaknesses (See FAR 15.001) and considers the 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.

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.