MACHSectionM(15Jun07).doc

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

The Government will select the best overall offer based on Mission Capability, Past Performance, Proposal Risk, and Cost/Price. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3 Source Selection and the AFMC supplement (AFMCFARS) thereto. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 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. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Government the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements affordably. This may result in an award to 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 superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a source selection decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team's evaluations of the evaluation factors and subfactors (described below). While the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is subjective by nature and professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for Systems Development & Demonstration (SDD) with options for the Production phase of the Modular Aircrew Common Helmet (MACH) program. The Government reserves the right to make no award.

c. Rejection of Unrealistic offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including 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. No advantage will accrue to an offeror who submits an unrealistically low offer.

d. Number of Proposals

The Government will evaluate a maximum of one proposal from each offeror.

M002 EVALUATION CRITERIA

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors and their Relative Order of Importance

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. Four factors will be used in this evaluation: Mission Capability, Proposal Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. The first three factors are of equal importance. Cost/Price, although an important factor, is of less importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e) - Evaluation Factors and Significant Subfactors, the evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price, however cost/price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. Subfactors 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4 under Factor 1; and Subfactors 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 under Factor 2 are of equal importance. Mission Capability subfactor 1.5 is less important than subfactors 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. Proposal Risk subfactor 2.5 is less important than subfactors 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4.

Factor 1 - Mission Capability Subfactor 1.1 - Management Subfactor 1.2 - Technical Subfactor 1.3 - Systems Engineering Subfactor 1.4 - Production Capability Subfactor 1.5 - Small Business Participation Factor 2 - Proposal Risk

Subfactor 2.1 - Management

Subfactor 2.2 - Technical

Subfactor 2.3 - Systems Engineering

Subfactor 2.4 - Production Capability

Subfactor 2.5 - Small Business Participation Factor 3 - Past Performance Factor 4 - Cost/Price

b. Factor and Subfactor Rating

Each subfactor under the Mission Capability factor will be assigned a color rating, The color rating depicts how well the offeror's proposal meets the subfactor requirements in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements. The Mission Capability subfactors and color ratings are described in paragraph c (below). Each subfactor under the Proposal Risk factor will be assigned a proposal risk rating (paragraph d below). Proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with an offeror's proposed approach. A Performance Confidence Assessment will be assigned to the Past Performance factor (see paragraph e below). Performance Confidence represents the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform as proposed and is based on an assessment of the offeror's present and past work record. Cost/Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph f below. When the integrated assessment of all aspects of the evaluation is accomplished, the color ratings, proposal risk ratings, performance confidence assessment, and evaluated cost/price will be considered in the order of priority listed in paragraph a. Any of these considerations can influence the SSA's decision.

c. Factor 1 - Mission Capability

Each subfactor within the Mission Capability Factor will receive one of the following color ratings, based on the assessed strengths, inadequacies and/or deficiencies of each offeror's proposal as they relate to each of the Mission Capability subfactors. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Mission Capability factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of threshold requirements.

(1) Subfactor 1.1 – Management

The subfactor is met when the offeror presents:

(a) A fully integrated CWBS, CSOW, IMP, and IMS which detail an approach that facilitates proactive management of schedule, performance and risks in accordance with sound business practices and these documents present an integrated program that can be effectively and efficiently managed. They must provide the Government clear visibility into schedule, performance, testing, manufacturing/production planning and preparation, and logistics, as well as clear visibility into program risks. The Offeror’s approach must provide evidence that management has the above information in a timely, accurate fashion and in sufficient detail to make informed proactive and corrective decisions.

(b) A sound risk management program.

(c) The prime contractor has a minimum of 2 years, within the last five years, of Government or commercial experience as a systems integrator.

(d) The prime or teaming partner(s) has a minimum of 2 years, within the last five years, of experience in aircrew systems integration.

(e) The prime or teaming partner(s) has a minimum of 2 years, within the last five years, of experience relating to the manufacture of flight helmet equipment.

(2) Subfactor 1.2 - Technical

This subfactor is met when the offeror presents a proposal that:

(a) Has a sound design approach that has the potential to meet all KPPs, and as many of the Key System Attributes (KSA) and Other System Attributes (OSA) thresholds in the Prioritized Requirements Matrix (Refer to Attachment L-7) as possible. Rationale for trade-offs (Refer to Section L, Paragraph 5.1.1) will be evaluated based on risk, schedule implications, cost savings, and performance gains. In general obtaining an objective over a threshold is desired. However, the government may give more credit for attaining KSA thresholds over OSA objectives.

(b) Demonstrates design maturity (Refer to Section L, Paragraph 5.1.2 )

(c) Has a sound risk mitigation approach for the specific technical risks identified in Sec. L, paragraph 5.2, and those additionally identified by the offeror.

(d) Has a sound, effective, and timely approach for the test & evaluation activities identified in Section L, paragraph 5.4.

(3) Subfactor 1.3 – Systems Engineering (SE)

This subfactor is met when the offeror presents a proposal that:

(a) Has a sound plan for management of the integration effort. (Refer to Section L, paragraph 6.1)

(b) Has a sound SE approach that will ensure the MACH system is operationally safe, suitable and effective (Refer to Section L, paragraph 6.2)

(c) Contains a sound plan for training, deployment, operation, support, maintenance, and disposal of the system. (Refer to Section L, paragraph 6.3)

(4) Subfactor 1.4 – Production Capability

This subfactor is met when the offeror presents a proposal that provides evidence they have or can achieve the manufacturing/production capability (to include facilities, manpower, equipment, tooling, methods/processes, production rate, yield capability, quality assurance processes, and hazardous material management procedures) to meet the MACH system production schedule and quantities. The approach must address at least the minimum activities defined in Section L, paragraph 7.

(5) Subfactor 1.5 - Small Business Participation This section is optional for Small Business Offerors.

(a) If a subcontracting plan is required in accordance with FAR 19.7, this subfactor is met when:

(i) The Offeror, as a minimum, demonstrates a valid corporate commitment to meeting the subcontracting goals for small businesses and subcategories, listed in the table below, or provides a rational explanation for not meeting the subcontracting goals. It is desirable to demonstrate specific, binding commitments for substantive work for the proposed effort.

(ii) The Offeror demonstrates realistic targets expressed in dollars and in percentages of the total proposed subcontracting dollars for each small business category listed above.

(iii) The proposal reflects realistic targets for the SDB Participation Program expressed in dollars and percentages of anticipated total contract value for the authorized NAICS Industry Subsectors with respect to SDB participation in accordance with FAR 19.12.

(iv) The Offeror’s subcontracting plan meets the requirements of FAR 19.7. This is not an evaluation criterion, it is a basic contract requirement.

(b) If a subcontracting plan is not required by FAR 19.7 the minimum requirement of this Subfactor is met. If the small business submits the following optional information, it may be considered desirable to the Government.

(i) The Offeror demonstrates a valid corporate commitment between all parties in providing subcontracting opportunities for all small business, small disadvantaged business, woman owned small business, service disabled veteran owned small business, and HUBZone small business. It is more advantageous to demonstrate specific, binding commitments for substantive work for this proposed effort.

(ii) The Offeror demonstrates realistic targets expressed in dollars and percentages of the total subcontracted dollars for each MACH subcontracting category.

(iii) The Offeror demonstrates realistic targets for the SDB Participation Program expressed in dollars and percentages of total contract dollars for the authorized NAICS Industry Subsectors with respect to SDB participation in accordance with FAR 19.12.

d. Factor 2 - Proposal Risk Each subfactor under the Mission Capability factor will also be a subfactor under the Proposal Risk factor. Proposal risk assessment focuses on the risks and weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and the need for increased Government oversight, as well as the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The first four subfactors (2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4) will also be evaluated for realistic proposed man-hours and appropriate labor category mix in meeting the requirements of the offeror’s CSOW. For each identified risk, the assessment also addresses the offeror's proposal for mitigating the risk and why that approach is or is not manageable. The Government will use all documents the offeror submits in accordance with Section L in this evaluation. Each Proposal Risk subfactor will receive one of the following ratings.

e. Factor 3 - Past Performance

(1) Under the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment represents the evaluation of an offeror's present and past work record to assess the Government's confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform as proposed.

(2) The Government will evaluate the offeror's demonstrated record of contract compliance in supplying products and services that meet user's needs, including cost and schedule.

(3) Past performance information may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), similar systems of other Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers, and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources.

(4) Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by the offeror and data obtained from other sources.

(5) The PCA rating is based on recency, relevance, and performance assessment ratings described below.

· Recency:

As stated in Section L, Paragraph 10.4(b), the Government will not consider performance on an Offeror submission that concluded more than three years prior to the due date of this solicitation.

· Relevance:

i. Relevancy of each project will be determined using the Offeror’s Past Performance Information (PPI) to validate coverage of the MACH requirements. The “Rationale for Effort Relevance” (paragraph 17 on the PPI) will be used extensively to determine coverage.

ii. The Past Performance Evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an offeror's relevant present and past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to the Mission Capability subfactors.

iii. In determining relevance, consideration will be given to MACH product similarity, product complexity, integration experience, contract/subcontract management, contract type, and schedule. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

iv. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, critical subcontractors, key personnel, or teaming contractors, if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort.

v. The Government will only consider work performed by those teaming partners proposed to perform at least 10 percent of the proposed effort based on the total proposed price. However, those team members that perform aspects of the effort that is critical to the overall successful performance will also be considered, provided that:

1. The details of the proposed team member’s critical effort is identified in the narrative (reference Section L, Paragraph 10.3.1)

AND

2. The Government determines the veracity of the critical effort based on the MACH requirements.

vi. The Government may consider as relevant efforts performed for agencies of the federal, state, or local governments and commercial customers.

vii. The following are the definitions for assigning the relevancy to the offerors’ past and present contracts:

· Performance:

i. Performance information will be obtained from the references on each project submitted. The Government may also obtain performance data from other sources.

ii. In addition to evaluating the extent to which the offeror's performance meets mission requirements, the assessment will consider things such as: 1) the offeror's history of forecasting and controlling costs; 2) adhering to schedules (including the administrative aspects of performance, timeliness and accuracy of data submittals); 3) reasonable and cooperative behavior and commitment to customer satisfaction; and generally, 4) the contractor's business-like concern for the interest of the customer. Included in this assessment will be a determination of how well large business Offerors met their small business goals as evidenced by prior SF294s/SF295s. (ref paragraph 19 of Attachment L-5)

iii. Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions completed (not just planned or promised). The Government may review recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

iv. The following performance definitions apply.

· Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA):

i. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Mission Capability Subfactors, the resulting PCA is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance (recency, relevance, and performance).

ii. As a result of an analysis of risks and strengths identified in the analysis, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment (PCA), which is the rating for the Past Performance factor.

iii. Both the number of recent fully relevant projects and the performance level on those projects drive the PCA rating.

iv. More “recent and relevant” performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than “less recent or relevant” performance.

v. In integrating the recent and relevant past performance of the prime contractor, subcontractors, teaming partners, and joint venture partners, the Offeror’s overall confidence assessment may be impacted by the amount and type of work proposed to be performed by each entity.

vi. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral/Unknown Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

vii. Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral/Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

viii. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror's evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women-Owned Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small, Small Disadvantaged, and Women-Owned Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

ix. Each Offeror will receive one of the following PCA ratings as described in AFFARS 5315.305(a)(2)(E) for the Past Performance factor.

f. Factor 4 - Cost/Price The prospective contract includes both Fixed Price Incentive – Firm Target (SDD) and Fixed Price Incentive - Successive Targets (Production) CLINs. In addition, there are several Firm Fixed Price line items. Therefore, the analysis mandated by FAR 15.404-1 will be used in the cost/price evaluation.

Price analysis is the process of examining and evaluating a proposed price without evaluating its separate cost elements and proposed profit. The Government may use various price analysis techniques and procedures to ensure a fair and reasonable price, given the circumstances surrounding the acquisition. Some of those techniques are:

Comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation.

Comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates.

Comparison of proposed prices with prices obtained through market research for the same or similar item.

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated by total price for the SDD and Production (with consideration given to Ceiling Price and Profit Adjustment Formulas) in the best value determination.

Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

g. Accounting System

The accounting system audit will be required for the prime offeror. This is a contract requirement in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(e) and 16.403-2(c)(1) and is not considered an evaluation factor.

h. Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror's initial proposal should contain the offeror's best terms from a cost/price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Source Selection Authority later determines them to be necessary. The government will document discussion topics using the government-initiated Evaluation Notices (ENs). If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, the offeror’s responses to the ENs and/or updates in the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the best value decision.

M003 PLANT VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Team (SSET) may conduct plant visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If a plant visit is conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal.

M004 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 this solicitation.

M005 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 evaluation factors or subfactors.

Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide accompanying rationale.

SECTION M FA8902-07-R-1003

PAGE M - 1 of 9