Section M_20200506.docx

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS AND BASIS FOR AWARD DETERMINATION

RIK-M001 EVALUATION CRITERIA (JAN 2020)

(a) Introduction. This Section outlines those factors which comprise the criteria the Government will consider in evaluating Offerors' capabilities and proposals. The criteria listed are intended to show the scope of the evaluation to be performed on proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposal. Evaluation will be accomplished by comparing Offerors' capabilities and proposal elements against Government requirements.

(b) Basis for Contract Award. This is a competitive best value source selection conducted in accordance with tradeoff source selection processes pursuant to FAR Part 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical and Cost/Price. One or more contracts may be awarded. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror(s) who is (are) deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal(s) conform(s) 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 (are) judged, based on the evaluation factors and sub factors, to represent the best value to the Government. The Government will compare differences in the value of technical features with differences in cost or price to the Government. In making this comparison the Government values superior technical features/capabilities greater than lowest cost/price to the Government (see FAR 15.101-1). 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 and/or overall business approach of the higher price Offeror(s) outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. 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 factors are listed in descending order of importance. The Technical factor is significantly more important than the Cost/Price factor. However, cost/price will still contribute substantially to the best value award decision. The Government will not make an award at a significantly higher overall cost/price to the Government to achieve only slightly superior technical features/capabilities.

(c) Procedures. All information furnished by Offerors will be evaluated, including (if holding discussions is determined to be in the best interest of the Government), Offerors' responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs). Please Note: The awardee selection process for initial two (2) real R&D Task Orders (FA8750-20-F-1003 and FA8750-20-F-1004) is as follows:

i. The strengths and weaknesses of the technical approach as well as the technical/management processes and experience/expertise subfactors (within the technical evaluation factor), that were identified in selecting awardees of the Basic IDIQ, will be reused at the order level in order to determine awardees of the initial two (2) real R&D Task Orders.

ii. The cost/price evaluation factor utilized in determining reasonableness, realism, and balance identified in selecting awardees of the Basic IDIQ will be reutilized at the order level in order to determine awardees of the initial two (2) real R&D Task Orders.

(d) (1) Separate Technical/Risk Rating Method: The Offeror's technical solution will be rated separately from the risk associated with its technical approach. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror's technical solution for meeting the Government's requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach to meeting the requirement. The Technical/ Management Approach and Experience/Qualification Subfactors within the Technical factor will receive a color and an adjectival rating (sub factor assessment) in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures paragraph 3.1.2.1, Tables 2A and 2B.

(2). Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color/adjectival rating for the Technical factor. The subfactor assessment depicts how well the Offeror's proposal meets the evaluation criteria and the solicitation requirements. Proposal risk represents the risks that are identified with the Offeror's proposed approach as it relates to accomplishing the requirements of the solicitation. After evaluation of all technical subfactors has been completed, the total evaluated price to the Government will be compared against the evaluation results to determine the combination that provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement.

(e) Specific Criteria for Award. The factors identified below, listed in descending order of importance, will be considered during proposal evaluation.

(1) Factor 1: TECHNICAL. The Technical factor will be evaluated on the basis of the following Subfactors, with Subfactor 2 being of greater importance than Subfactor 1.

(i) Subfactor 1 - Technical Approach and Management Processes: Soundness of the Offeror's approach to understanding, analyzing, and anticipating user, system, and security requirements for advanced signals intelligence research technologies in response to DoD and national requirements; to deliver novel solutions through development, testing, evaluation, integration, transition, enhancement, upgrade and maintenance; and to adequately staff and manage multiple complex orders under schedule and budget constraints.

(ii) Subfactor 2 - Experience and Qualifications: Experience and qualifications of they types of personnel and the quantity and quality of the Offeror’s corporate experience relevant to the requirements.

(2) Factor 2 – COST/PRICE. The Cost or Price factor will be evaluated to assess the cost of doing business with offerors. Proposed labor categories and rates, both direct and indirect, and any associated fees, are analyzed to determine the overall cost of doing business with offerors based upon the following criteria: The Government will evaluate Cost/Price for reasonableness, realism, and balance using the procedures of FAR 15.404. The Total Evaluated Price will consist of the proposed total estimated cost plus fixed fee for all CLINs under Order Nos. FA8750-20-F-1003 and FA8750-20-F-1004. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of GFP. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable if the Cost/Price is unreasonable, unrealistic, or unbalanced based on the following criteria:

(I) Reasonableness - the degree to which proposed cost or price compares to the cost or price a reasonable and prudent person would expect to incur for the same or similar goods or services.

(ii) Realism - the degree to which proposed cost or price demonstrates that the Offeror understands the objectives and requirements of the contemplated contract. Evaluation will consider evidence that the Offeror can successfully complete the requirements for the proposed cost or price. The evaluation will consider as well the degree to which the proposed cost elements conform to established forward pricing standards and procedures The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program. If the Offeror’s proposed costs are found to be unrealistic, the Government may make a probable cost adjustment.

(iii) Balance - the degree to which the offer contains balanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items, including option line items, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items. Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to ensure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each Offeror’s response to the pricing structure in the line items. The evaluation will consider the risks to the Government associated with the unbalanced pricing in determining the award decision, and consider whether award of the order will result in paying unreasonably high prices for performance. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

(f) Rejection of Unrealistic Offers. The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

(g) Correction Potential of Proposals. The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correct ion 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.

(h) Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of Government -furnished property (GFP). See Section L.

(i) Pre-Award Survey. The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each Offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

(END)