Attachment_5__-_Section_M.pdf

Compressor Rotor Blades

FA9101-17-R-1000

Attachment 5

SECTION M

AEDC-M001, Evaluation Factors for Award – Initial Source Selection for Phase I, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Design

M-1.0. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dtd 1 April 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Cost / Price. A contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, 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 best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror(s) who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This process may result in an award(s) to a higher rated, higher priced offeror(s), 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 and / or past performance of the higher price offeror(s) outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). 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.

M-1.1. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government may award one or up to three contracts for the initial Phase I source selection for the Wind Tunnel Compressor Rotor Blades Program.

M-1.2. Discussions

The Government intends to award the contract(s) after discussions which will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the PCO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most

Atch 5 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ highly rated proposals. The Government reserves the right to make subsequent competitive range determinations if the PCO determines it necessary.

M-2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M-2.1.1. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

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.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Design and Analysis Capability

Subfactor 2: Testing Approach

Subfactor 3: Manufacturing Capability

Subfactor 4: Program Management

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost / Price

M-2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance taken together are significantly more important than Cost / Price; however, Cost / Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision. Within the Technical Factor, all of the subfactors are of equal importance.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost / Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

M-2.2. Technical Factor

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

M-2.2.1. Technical Rating. The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A, Technical Rating Method, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength, for performance in excess of threshold requirements.

The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2A - TECHNICAL RATING METHOD

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

M-2.2.2. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B, Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the Offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2B – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGMETHOD

Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable

Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

M-2.2.3. Subfactor 1: Design and Analysis Capability

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and capability to design and analyze the wind tunnel compressor blades and tooling for the loads and environment provided in Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades; and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades.

M-2.2.3.1. Element 1, Design Requirements

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror provides a methodology that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the design requirements in accordance with (IAW) Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades; and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades.

M-2.2.3.2. Element 2, Analysis Requirements

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror provides a methodology that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the analysis requirements in Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades; and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades.

M-2.2.3.3. Element 3, Technical Resources

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror provides a plan to ensure sufficient technical personnel and facilities are available to successfully design and analyze the blades and tooling in accordance with the requirements IAW Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades; and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades.

M-2.2.4. Subfactor 2: Testing Approach

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and capability to qualify the compressor blades through static and impact testing per the load requirements in Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades; and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades. This subfactor will also evaluate the offeror’s understanding and plan for characterizing the materials used in the manufacture of the blades IAW with those documents.

M-2.2.4.1. Element 1, Testing Capabilities

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror provides an approach that demonstrates a thorough understanding of the testing capabilities required to ensure the blades meet the design requirements in Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades;

and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades.

M-2.2.4.2. Element 2, Testing Methodology

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a methodology to perform testing and analyze test results.

M-2.2.5. Subfactor 3: Manufacturing Capability

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s understanding and capability to manufacture the wind tunnel compressor blades and the tooling IAW Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades; and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades.

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides a viable preliminary manufacturing concept for the blades which demonstrates their manufacturing capabilities to produce blades and tooling that meet the requirements in Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades; and Atch 2, Equipment Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blades, addressing, as a minimum, production rates, fabrication methodology, and material procurement.

M-2.2.6. Subfactor 4: Program Management

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine if it provides an effective plan to ensure accurate program management, understanding of risks, and quality work for blades and tooling is performed to successfully accomplish the requirements of the SOW.

M-2.2.6.1. Element 1, Integrated Master Schedule

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror presents a reasonable, realistic, and logical Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) for key program tasks and events across all phases, functions, and areas of interest to successfully complete the Compressor Rotor Blade Program.

M-2.2.6.2. Element 2, Configuration Management

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror provides a disciplined configuration management plan.

M-2.2.6.3. Element 3, Risk Management

Measure of Merit: This subfactor is met when the Offeror provides a comprehensive risk management approach that effectively and continuously assesses risks.

M-2.2.6.4. Element 4, Quality Control

Measure of Merit: This element of the subfactor is met when the offeror provides a viable quality control plan.

M-2.3. Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment that establishes the Government's confidence that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

M-2.3.1. Ratings. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5, Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

TABLE 5- PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

Rating Description

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent / relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent / relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M-2.3.2. Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall past performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost / Price factor taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M-2.1.2. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. The Government will, as deemed necessary, confirm past and present performance data identified by offerors in their proposals. 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; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

M-2.3.2.1. 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 20 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

M-2.3.2.2. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products supplied under those contracts relate to the Technical subfactors and Cost / Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference M-2.1.2). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Cost / Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. Consideration will be given to efforts which are considered to be of the type and similar in contract scope, magnitude, and complexity when compared to the products described in this solicitation.

The following past performance relevancy criteria will be used during the evaluation:

Scope: Relevancy in regard to scope includes those technical subfactors identified in M-2.2 and the scope referenced in the Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades. In addition, relevancy will be assessed for work with rotating equipment, composite structural design and analysis, and work with complex composite tooling as well as the capability to perform comparable contract / program management.

Magnitude: Relevancy in regard to magnitude may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the compressor rotor blades SOW.

Efforts of less than $5M total contract scope may not be considered relevant.

Complexity: Relevancy in regard to complexity may be assessed based on, but not limited to, the similarities between a given past performance effort and the products referenced in the compressor rotor blades contract type, and performance period.

A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major subcontractor(s). For purposes of proposal only, a major subcontractor is defined as a subcontractor, other than the offeror itself, that will perform 10 percent or more of contract scope based on labor hours or total cost. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The relevancy matrix and data obtained from other sources (see Attachment L-6) will be used to establish the relevance of present and past efforts. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following degrees of relevancy when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4 below):

TABLE 4. PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present / past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

Somewhat Relevant Present / past performance effort involved some of the 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.

M-2.3.2.3. Performance Quality Assessment. The Government will consider the performance quality (how well the contractor performed on the contracts) of recent, relevant efforts. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Cost / Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and evaluate their effectiveness.

The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment Rating / Color

Description

Exceptional (E) / Blue During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

Very Good (VG) / Purple During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

Satisfactory (S) / Green During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Marginal (M) / Yellow During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

Unsatisfactory (U) / Red During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or fail) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

Not Applicable (N) / White

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

M-2.3.3. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors and Cost / Price Factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Offerors without a record of recent / relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral 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.

M-2.4. Cost or Price Factor

This solicitation contemplates a two-phase selection process as described in Attachment 3, AEDC- L001, Information to Offerors (ITO)—Initial Source Selection for Phase I, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Design; and Attachment 4, AEDC-L002, ITO—Final Downselect for Phase II, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Manufacture. The cost evaluation criteria for the Phase I shall differ from the cost evaluation for Phase II. For this Phase I, the Government will evaluate contract line item numbers (CLINs) 0001-0005 for realism, reasonableness, and balance and evaluate CLINs 0006-0014 and 0019-0020 for reasonableness and balance.

M-2.4.1. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

The TEP for the initial award in Phase I will be the sum of: (1) The Most Probable Cost (MPC) for CLINs 0001-0003, and (2) The proposed price of the FFP CLINs 0005-0014 and 0019- 0020.

M-2.4.2. Offeror’s Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated by the MPC computed by the Government for the basic requirements. The Offeror’s proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. MPC shall be the Government’s estimate of anticipated performance costs plus any fee anticipated to be awarded. The Government will not make any adjustment to the firm-fixed price (FFP) option CLINs.

M-2.4.3. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-2.4.4. Reasonableness: The offeror’s Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

M-2.4.5. Realism: The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed costs.

This process will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101).

M-2.4.6. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, 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.

M-3.0. 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.

M-4.0. 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.