Section_M_-_CNC_Mill.pdf

ATTACHMENT #3

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M001 SOURCE SELECTION

a. Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 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 04 May 2011. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, 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 offeror who is 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 subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. 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.

b. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to one contract(s) for the CNC Mill Program.

c. Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP.

N/A

d. Discussions

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. 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.

e. 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 subfactors. 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.

M002 EVALUATION FACTORS

a. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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 Proposal

Subfactor 1: Concept Sketch and Product Detail

Subfactor 2: Operational Capabilities

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

b. Technical Factor

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 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.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:

Subfactor 1: Concept Sketch and Product Detail

a. Description: This subfactor evaluates The Government will evaluate the concept

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.

sketch and product literature (cut sheets) for conformance to the specification.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal concept sketch and product literature (cut sheets) meets the items below:

1. Verification that the CNC Mill conforms to capabilities as listed in the specification including, but not limited to, X, Y, and Z travels, Spindle Taper, Horse Power, RPM Range, 4 th

Axis (Rotary Table), programmable controller, including programming features.

2. Verification that equipment conforms to regulations and industry standards.

3. Verification that the equipment will interface with the existing power system and is grounded in accordance with industry codes.

Subfactor 2: Operational Capabilities

Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposal to ensure the proposed CNC Mill meets the operational requirements for accuracy.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal meets the operational requirements for accuracy with a low to moderate risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

c. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

(1) Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the ratings described below.

TABLE 2- PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the

Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past

Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the

Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System

(PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic

Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with

Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract

Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

(i) Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past three years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

(ii) Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the

Technical subfactors and Price factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and

Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to Relevant contracts include procurements for similar

CNC Mills as specified within the SOW including company names, addresses, and phone numbers with contacts upon requests. The Offeror shall demonstrate the capability to service the equipment beyond the warranty or that the equipment can be serviced by a local certified representative. The Offeror shall provide past performance data to demonstrate that the repair service call could be answered on-site within 36 hours and repair parts delivered within

48 hours of an order placement. A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

TABLE 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

Rating Definition

RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

NOT RELEVANT Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

(iii) Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

(3) Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table 2).

d. Price Factor

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 evaluated price for CLIN 0001AA and CLIN 0001AB.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to the CNC Mill prices, to include separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M0002 – (FA9101-15-R-0015) REVIEWS and VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site 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 conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.