Attachment_6_-_Section_M_-_Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.pdf

FA8681-19-R-0007

Attachment 6

Attachment 6

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1.0 General Information

M-1.1 Basis for Contract Award This is a source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government plans to award to each and all qualifying offerors. A qualifying offeror is an offeror that is determined to be a responsible source, and that submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, including all cost/price and non-cost/price factors.

While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M-1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award a multiple award firm-fixed price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract, to each and all qualifying offerors, with each production lot buy being competed amongst the awardees to include all recurring and non-recurring costs required to produce BLU-136/B warhead case assemblies. However, the Government reserves the right to make one (1) award or no award at all with no obligation to reimburse costs to any offeror.

M-1.3 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) Request for Government Furnished Property of any kind is not encouraged or desirable. The offeror shall not assume any offeror-specific Government Furnished Property when pricing its Not-to-Exceed values.

M-1.4 Discussions It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer shall contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, 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.

M-1.5 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 and/or subfactors. Offerors who provide a proposal but did not request the TDP IAW Section L paragraph L-2.1.5 of this solicitation will not be evaluated. All volumes of the proposal will be evaluated for accuracy and compliance with the requirements of this RFP. 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.

M-1.6 Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any uncertainty. 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 requirement and is not considered correctable, the offeror shall be eliminated from the competitive range. If discussions occur, the Government reserves the right to exclude an offeror from the competitive range at any point, either before or during discussions.

M-1.7 Evaluation Methodology The Government will evaluate offerors technical volume through oral presentations IAW Attachment 8 and review for technical acceptability. The Government will evaluate offerors cost/price volume based on reasonableness. All factors and subfactors Measures of Acceptability (MOAs) must be determined technically acceptable for the offeror to be considered for award. Past Performance will not be an evaluation factor as it has been waived in accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(3)(iii).

M-1.8 Evaluation Factors The following evaluation factors and subfactors 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 subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Fabrication Experience IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and Class B Subfactor 2: Resin Molding of Metal Fragments Subfactor 3: Manufacturing Rounded Metal Cubes Subfactor 4: Manufacturing and Quality

Factor 2: Cost/Price

M-2.0 Volume I - Contract Documentation/Proposal Information

M-2.1 This Volume will be evaluated to determine if the offeror has responded accurately to the solicitation terms and conditions relating to contract documentation.

M-2.1.1 This Volume will be acceptable when the offeror has provided appropriate responses and acknowledges understanding of each item(s) outlined in Section L paragraphs/subparagraphs L-

3.0 – L-3.4.5

M-3.0 Volume II - Factor 1 Technical; Subfactor 1: Fabrication Experience IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and Class B, Subfactor 2: Resin Molding of Metal Fragments, Subfactor 3:

Manufacturing of Rounded Metal Cubes, and Subfactor 4: Manufacturing and Quality The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals IAW M-1.7 above on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor 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.

Table M-3.0 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method Adjectival rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M-3.1 Subfactor 1 Fabrication Experience IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and Class B

M-3.1.1 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. If any of the MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Subfactor 1: Fabrication Experience IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and Class B Experience unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for the award (unawardable).

MOA 3.1.1.1: Welding IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and B

MOA 3.1.1.1 is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates/describes adequate experience developing and verifying conformance of internal Procedure Qualification Records (PQRs) and Welding Process Specifications (WPSs) for fabrication of items comparable in size and complexity to the BLU-136/B IAW the TDP. The offeror satisfactorily explained how the items are comparable to the fabrication of the BLU-136/B warhead assembly. MOA 3.1.1.1 can also be acceptable when the offeror demonstrates/describes adequate experience collaborating with the subcontractor on process development and verifying conformance of the subcontractor’s PQRs and WPSs in fabrication of comparable items. The offeror satisfactorily explained how the items are comparable to the fabrication of the BLU-136/B warhead assembly.

MOA 3.1.1.2: Inspection IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and B.

MOA 3.1.1.2 is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates/describes adequate experience with inspection methods, to include visual weld inspection, magnetic particle (MT) and ultrasonic inspection (UT) on welds comparable in size and complexity. The offeror satisfactorily explained how the welds are comparable to the BLU-136/B IAW the TDP. MOA 3.1.1.2 can also be acceptable when the offeror demonstrates/describes adequate experience integrating the subcontractor’s inspection methods in fabrication of welded items. The offeror satisfactorily explained how the welded items are comparable to the fabrication of the BLU-136/B warhead assembly.

MOA 3.1.1.3: Training and Qualification IAW AWS D17.1 Class A and B.

MOA 3.1.1.3 is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates/describes an effective consistent compliance and process for training and certifying a) welders and/or welding operators, b) visual weld inspectors IAW AWS D17.1 Section 7.1.2, and c) non-destructive test (NDT) personnel IAW

NAS 410. MOA 3.1.1.3 can also be acceptable when the offeror adequately demonstrates/describes an effective process to ensure the identified subcontractor complies with the required standards IAW AWS D17.1 and NAS 410.

M-3.2 Subfactor 2 Resin Molding of Metal Fragments

M-3.2.1 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. If any of the MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Subfactor 2: Resin Molding of Metal Fragments unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for the award (unawardable).

MOA 3.2.1 is acceptable when the offeror adequately demonstrates/describes experience with developing and implementing serial production of resin molded products, to include composite assemblies with metal components comparable to the fabrication of the BLU-136/B fragment packs. Offeror also demonstrates/describes experience developing process parameters for cure times and temperatures, assembling metal components and/or fragments into molds, and maintaining mass and dimensional properties for the end product. MOA 3.2.1 can also be acceptable when the offeror adequately demonstrates/describes a proposed subcontractor’s experience with process development of resin molded products with metal components and verification of mass and dimensional property conformance in serial production. Offeor also demonstrates/describes experience collaborating with the proposed subcontractor, or proposed collaboration process, on their fabrication of comparable items and identified how that experience is comparable to the fabrication of the BLU-136/B fragment packs.

M-3.3 Subfactor 3 Manufacturing Rounded Metal Cubes

M-3.3.1 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. If any of the MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Subfactor 3 Manufacturing Rounded Metal Cubes experience unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for the award (unawardable).

MOA 3.3.1 is acceptable when the offeror demonstrates/describes experience with fabrication of rounded metal cubes to include maintaining weight and shape tolerances with items comparable in size and complexity IAW the BLU-136/B TDP. MOA 3.3.1 can also be acceptable when the offeror adequately demonstrates/describes a proposed subcontractor’s experience with process development and verifying conformance of the subcontractor’s ability to maintain specified tolerances in fabrication of comparable items. Demonstrates/describes experience collaborating with the proposed subcontractor, or proposed collaboration process, on their fabrication of comparable items and identified how that experience is comparable to the fabrication of the BLU- 136/B fragments.

M-3.4 Subfactor 4 Manufacturing and Quality

M-3.4.1 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure compliance with the Measures of Acceptability (MOA) provided below. If any of the MOA is assessed as unacceptable, it will make Subfactor 4 Manufacturing and Quality unacceptable and render the entire proposal ineligible for the award (unawardable).

MOA 3.4.1: Manufacturing Plan. This subfactor evaluates the proposed methods, schedules, and resources for producing the required warhead assemblies.

MOA 3.4.1 is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal description for each item listed below demonstrates/describes feasible methods with regard to producing the BLU-136/B Warhead Case Assembly IAW the BLU-136/B TDP:

a. How their manufacturing management program meets/will meet the requirements of AS6500 as tailored for this effort in Attachment 9.

b. A comprehensive assembly sequence and manufacturing and inspection process of the base structure weldment of the inner tube, nose, and tail IAW Drawing 20199380, Body Assembly, Base Structure.

c. Achievable process to meet the assembly rates during prototyping, Low Rate Initial Production

(LRIP).

d. A comprehensive assembly sequence and manufacturing process of the resin molded fragment packs IAW Drawing 20199393, Nose Fragment Pack, Preformed and Drawing 20199373, Fragment Pack Cylindrical, Sectioned.

e. Achievable process to meet the assembly rates during prototyping, Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP), and Full Rate Production (FRP).

f. An integrated, achievable schedule incorporating tooling setup and proofing, supplier deliveries, fabrication and assembly.

g. Adequate facility requirements and layouts. At a minimum, addresses the power, floor space, and ventilation required for the machinery and tooling needed to facilitate the throughput volume.

h. Achievable plans to provide the needed manpower with qualified welders and inspectors, facilities and equipment.

MOA 3.4.2: Quality Systems. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s planned quality assurance systems.

MOA 3.4.2 is acceptable when the offeror’s proposed policies and practices thoroughly demonstrate/describes an understanding of each of the following with regard to producing the BLU-136/B Warhead Case Assembly:

a. Meet the requirements of AS9100 and provide verification of current AS9100 certification or compliance through DCMA Audit.

b. Effectively assure product quality of components and end products.

c. Achieve stable, capable, repeatable processes.

d. Prevent defects, damage, and dents to the warhead case assembly.

e. Result in effective methods for root cause analyses and corrective actions.

MOA 3.4.3 Supplier Management. This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed supplier management program with regard to producing the BLU-136/B Warhead Case Assembly.

MOA 3.4.3 is acceptable when the offeror’s proposal description for each item listed below demonstrates/describes feasible methods with regard to producing the BLU-136/B Warhead Case Assembly:

a. How supplies are sourced and managed to include source of steel, weld consumables, resin, fragments, internal components, and common Mk84 components IAW the TDP.

b. How steel material is verified through a NADCAP certified lab and includes inspection procedures which meet requirements IAW the TDP.

c. Lists all certified suppliers of components for 2000lb general purpose bomb systems.

d. Lists all non-certified suppliers, the components they will supply and thoroughly explains the certification process.

e. How supplier activities will be integrated into the overall program plan.

f. Lists specific supplier risks and achievable plans for mitigating those risks.

g. Effective plans for preventing the intrusion of counterfeit parts in factory equipment and delivered products.

M-4.0 Volume III - Factor 2 Cost/Price The offeror’s cost/price proposal will not be rated or scored; it will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Price will be reviewed and evaluated for the Not-to-Exceed (NTE) amounts associated with facilitization and each range/quantity band for Delivery Orders placed within two

(2) years from the date of the IDIQ contract award. To facilitate the evaluation of proposal information requested in Section L of this solicitation, information may be obtained from other sources including, but not limited to, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), U.S. Department of Labor, Global Insight Indices and any other resources available to the Government.

M-4.1. For this solicitation, the Government will calculate and utilize an overall Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will evaluate offeror’s pricing volumes and review for completeness and price reasonableness.

M-4.2. Evaluated price for facilitization and each range/quantity band. For facilitization and each range/quantity band, the Government will use a best estimated quantity (BEQ) for evaluation purposes. The BEQ represents the number of units the Government judges it will be able to purchase during the initial two (2) year ordering period for Pilot Production, Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP), and Full Rate Production (FRP) based on the funds available and utilizing the Government cost estimate.

M-4.3. The NTE values will be the unit price associated with facilitization and each range/quantity band. The Government’s NTE values are provided in Section J Attachment 10. Offerors are reminded that, to be eligible for award, an offeror’s proposed NTE values must be less than or equal to the Government’s NTE values provided for facilitization and each range/quantity band.

Note: The NTE value for facilitization shall represent all cost required for facilitizing to meet the range/quantity bands identified in Section J Attachment 10.

M-4.4. The following table, using notional pricing values, illustrates how this evaluation of the offeror’s TEP will be accomplished.

M-4.5 Completeness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for completeness. The Government will evaluate completeness by assessing compliance with the solicitation requirements.

M-4.6. Reasonableness: The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness. 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 and must not exceed any of the Government’s NTE values provided for facilization and each range/quantity band. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(1) and FAR 15.404-1, adequate price competition normally establishes a price fair and reasonable; however, the Government reserves the right to assess reasonableness using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404.

M-5.0 Discussions.

As stated in paragraph 1.4, it is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. If it is in the best interest of the Government to conduct discussions, those discussions will be with offerors retained in the competitive range. The Government reserves the right to exclude an offeror from the competitive range at any point either before or after entering discussions. If discussions are held, offeror responses to evaluation notices and the final proposal revision will be considered in making the source selection decision.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L.

Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract(s) without the opportunity for proposal revision.