Attachment___3_Section_M_Small_Business_Eval.pdf

FA8656-14-R-0188

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICE: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION

PROVISIONS:

52.214-22 EVALUATION OF BIDS FOR MULTIPLE AWARDS (MAR 1990)

52.217-5 EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JUL 1990)

M1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

M1.1. Basis for Contract Award. By submission of its offer, the Offeror agrees to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors and sub factors. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) 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, Appendix A, 04 March 2011 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 21 April 2014. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, 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 sub factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. Technical acceptability and price will be evaluated by separate teams. Those proposals found to be technically unacceptable will not have a price evaluations completed. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will do an integrated best value assessment of the final competitive range. While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC), 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.

Initially, the government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE. For the purpose of this small business set aside, a small business offeror's proposal must meet the Program Management and at least three of the technical requirements to receive a rating of

ACCEPTABLE. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. At its discretion, the Government may enter into discussions to see if proposals can be made awardable (ACCEPTABLE). See paragraph M3.1, Technical Acceptability Factor, for details on the evaluation of the technical proposal.

Next, price evaluations will be completed for ACCEPTABLE in accordance with paragraph M4, Price Factor, below. The Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by developing an Independent Government Estimate.

M1.2 Award Without Discussions. The Government intends to hold discussions, but reserves the right to award the contracts without discussions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Offerors are advised to give an offer suitable for an award decision in the initial proposal. The Government does not intend to use non-government advisors or evaluators in this source selection. Discussions will be allowed during the oral presentations. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold further 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. If FPRs are required the Government will determine if oral presentations or written proposals are required.

M1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded. The Government intends to make approximately 21 awards - 15 full and open to large or small businesses, and up to 6 reserved for small businesses. However, the Government reserves the right to award more or fewer total contracts or a different large/small business mix if the SSA determines it is in the Government's best interest. The SSA will consider the Government's expected volume of work, available funding, adequate competition, and the availability of best-value proposals. NAICS Code 332993 (Ammunition) is used as a basis for size determination.

M1.4 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP). The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of Government-furnished property (GFP).

M2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE

EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or sub factors.

Factor I: Technical/Technical Risk Sub factor A. Program Management/Technical Approach/Risk/Security Sub factor B. Experience

Factor II: Representative Labor Effort Price

M3.0 FACTOR I: TECHNICAL

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub factor. Any sub factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. 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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub factors:

M3.1 Sub factor A: Program Management/Technical Approach/Security. This sub factor evaluates the offeror’s Management approach to meet the program management elements of the SOW Section 3.0 Requirements. This will be evaluated relative to the offeror’s knowledge, experience and ability to provide all facets of Design, Engineering Development; Fabrications;

Testing; Hardware/Software Modifications; Logistics; Demonstrations/Studies. For any weaknesses/risks identified, the evaluation will address the offeror’s proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Program Management

1. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to allocate resources and make trade-offs among competing objectives and alternatives. Offeror has met this measure of merit for this criteria by addressing the following:

Offeror uses practical, relevant guidance and documented procedures.

Offeror employs standard products and documents which deliver valid, useful measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as monthly progress reports, program reviews, final reports, etc.).

Offeror provided a relevant, successful example of using processes to allocate resources and execute trade-offs between competing objectives and alternatives.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

2. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to meet project timelines within given parameters.

Offeror has met this measure of merit for this criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as Integrated Master Schedules [IMSs], milestone charts, monthly acquisition reports, earned value management reports, work breakdown structures, etc.).

Offeror provided a relevant, successful example of utilizing their guidance/procedures to meet a project timeline.

3. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to plan, estimate, budget, finance, and manage cost of individual projects to be complete within established budget. Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as earned value management reports, work breakdown structures, cost/budget estimates, etc.).

guidance/procedures to produce a final product with military utility.

4. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to implement subcontract management and/or a quality management system to ensure requirements flow-down to support potential projects. Offeror has met this measure of merit for this criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as preferred supplier agreements, non-disclosure agreements, contracts, acceptance procedures, etc.).

Offeror provided a relevant, successful example of utilizing their guidance/procedures to employ subcontractors and demonstrate quality management system in a complex development environment.

5. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to conduct risk management as it applies to potential projects. Offeror has met this measure of merit for this criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as a standard Air Force consequence criteria chart, risk matrices, risk mitigation plans, etc.).

guidance/procedures to conduct risk management.

Trade Space and Capabilities Studies

1. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to perform capabilities studies to include:

Defining the problem Developing the analysis plan Gathering & reviewing data Constructing/populating models Testing hypothesis Running models Analyzing results Developing insights Documenting/briefing results and soliciting feedback

Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by answering the following:

Offeror uses practical, relevant guidance and documented procedures.

Offeror employs standard products and documents which deliver valid, useful measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into predicted performance, schedule impacts, and cost implications (such as analysis plans, monthly status/progress reports, cost-capability curves, final reports, etc.).

Offeror provided a relevant, successful example of utilizing their guidance/procedures to define a trade space and predict military utility.

Design and Engineering Development

1. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to perform the following functions:

a) Design approaches

b) Validate analytical models

c) Quantify contract technical performance and manufacturing quality

d) Measure progress in a system engineering design and development

e) Minimize design risks

f) Predict integrated system operational performance (effectiveness and suitability) in the intended environment

g) Identify system problems (or deficiencies) to allow for early and timely resolution

Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as work plan/schedule, drawing packages, PDR/CDR progress reviews [out briefs, reports, minutes, etc.]).

Demonstrations and Tests

1. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to provide essential information to decision-makers, assess attainment of technical performance parameters, and determine whether systems are operationally effective, suitable, survivable, and safe for intended use. Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as test plans, test reports, data analysis plans, test run cards, etc.).

guidance/procedures to test a final product and demonstrate military utility.

Hardware and Software Modification

1. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to ensure compatibility, interoperability, and integration of all interfaces between the system and its operating environment, including electrical/electronic and mechanical hardware design and software development. Offeror has met this measure of merit for this criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as work plan/schedule, drawing packages, PDR/CDR progress reviews [out briefs, reports, minutes, etc.).

Offeror provided a relevant, successful example of utilizing their

Fabrication and Manufacturing

1. Offeror must demonstrate the ability to:

a) Fabricate complex systems and ensure proper manufacturing planning

b) Ensure that the system design will lead to an efficient and economical quantity

c) Track and assess the status of the program to determine if schedule, cost, and quality standards are being met

d) Conduct assessments and reviews of the manufacturing effort.

government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as manufacturing readiness assessments [MRAs], manufacturability studies, assembly plans/ instructions, plant layouts, quality control plans, manufacturing plans, progress reports, producibility analyses, production reports, etc.)?

Offeror provided a relevant, successful example of utilizing their

Logistics

1. (Sustaining/System Engineering) Offeror must demonstrate the ability to support an in-service system in its operational environment to ensure continued operation and maintenance of the system with managed risk. Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as a Life Cycle Sustainment Plan, obsolescence studies , source of repair assignment process [SORAP] report , plans, monthly status/progress reports, analysis, etc.)?

Offeror provided a relevant, successful example of utilizing their guidance/procedures to produce a product that is reliable in a military environment.

2. (Design Interface) Offeror must demonstrate ability to decide what is needed to integrate the logistics-related readiness, combat capability, systems commonality, and supportability design parameters into system and equipment design. Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by answering the following:

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as support requirements study report, built-in-test [BIT] requirements analyses, etc.).

guidance/procedures to produce a supportable final product.

3. (Supply Support) Offeror must demonstrate ability to determine, acquire, catalog, receive, store, transfer, issue, and dispose of secondary items necessary for the support of end items and support items. Offeror has met this measure of merit for these criteria by answering the following:

government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as Automated Logistics Integrated Computer Extracts studies, supply chain management studies, etc.).

guidance/procedures to produce a supportable final product.

4. (Packing, Handling, Storage and Transportation) Offeror must demonstrate ability to ensure that assets are packaged/preserved, handled, stored and transported properly.

measure of merit and provide appropriate insight to both the contractor and government into performance, schedule, and cost progress (such as transportation plans, handling procedures, material handling equipment [MHE] studies, facilities requirements, safety/security studies, etc.).

guidance/procedures to produce a product that is easily storable and transportable.

M3.2 Sub factor B. Experience: Experience, will be assessed based on the following:

Measure of merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal satisfactorily reflects the experience (examples) required under para M3.1 above.

M4.0 FACTOR II –REPRESENTATIVE LABOR EFFORT PRICE

Offerors should complete the pricing model attached to the Model Contract. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable, unbalanced, or unaffordable may not be considered for award.

(1) The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes, based upon the total price proposed for the representative labor effort.

(2) Reasonableness: The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The Offeror’s representative labor effort price will be evaluated for reasonableness in comparison with an independent government estimate. The labor effort sheet reflects potential representative list of labor categories that may apply to future Delivery Orders. Offerors should provide competitive rates with applicable burdens that will roll up into a bottom line price

(3) Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price (or for FPI contracts the maximum contract Government liability) to the budgetary information included in the solicitation. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total price (or proposed maximum contract Government liability) and the total budgetary information included in the solicitation.

M4.1 Evaluation: The representative labor effort price will determine the rank order of potential IDIQ awards once an offeror is determined technically acceptable.

M5. MINIMUM DELIVERY ORDER SUBMISSION

The government intends to award a minimum delivery order of $2,000 to cover the cost of a post award conference to discuss the day-to-day process for this overarching program.

M6 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 Sub 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.