Attachment_6__-_Section_M_Phase_2.pdf

Compressor Rotor Blades

FA9101-17-R-1000

Attachment 6

SECTION M

AEDC-M002, Evaluation Factors for Award – Final Downselect for Phase II, Wind Tunnel Compressor Blade Manufacture

M-1.0. Basis for Option Execution

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 and Cost / Price. The Government will modify the basic contract awarded to one of the contractors during Phase I by exercising the option for CLINs 0003-0004 as a result of this evaluation. Or the Government may exercise the option for CLINs 0003-0004 to more than one contractor. Tradeoffs will be made between the Technical Factor which includes the Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating, and Cost / Price as described in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 below. Technical is considered significantly more important than cost / price. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to exercise the option for CLINs 0003-0004 for the offeror / contractor who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. This 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 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.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal and submitted documentation conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraphs 2.2 and 2.3 below.

Atch 6 http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

M-2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS

M-2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

M-2.1.1. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s / contractor’s delivered / provided information for the Technical Design Review (TDR) will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical Design Review

Factor 2: Cost / Price

M-2.1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical is significantly more important than Cost / Price;

however, Cost / Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

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 Technical Subfactor rating.

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. The 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.

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 subfactor 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.

TABLE 2B – TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

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: Technical Design Review (TDR)

Description: This subfactor will evaluate all submittals required for the exit criteria of the TDR listed in Atch 1, Statement of Work for 16T C1 Compressor Rotor Blades.

Measures of Merit for Subfactor 1, TDR:

M-2.2.3.1. This subfactor is met when:

M-2.2.3.1.1. The offeror’s preliminary design, analysis package, and trade studies are complete, accurate, and meet the requirements in the SOW.

M-2.2.3.1.2 The offeror provides a summary of all proposed engineering changes or exceptions to the SOW requirements.

M-2.2.3.1.3. The offeror provides a design narrative describing the design and analysis process, including assumptions made, development of preliminary material properties, and any additional concepts which were considered and why they were rejected.

M-2.2.3.1.4. The offeror provides a preliminary service life analysis that meets the SOW requirements.

M-2.2.3.1.5. The offeror provides a preliminary description of design for repairability that meets the requirements for Atch 2, Equipment / Service Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blade Structural Design / Analysis, Tooling, Testing Units, and Manufacturing..

M-2.2.3.1.6. The offeror provides traceability to document that the design meets the requirements for Atch 2, Equipment / Service Specification for 16T C1 Compressor Blade Structural Design / Analysis, Tooling, Testing Units, and Manufacturing..

M-2.2.3.1.7. The offeror provides an updated risk analysis and risk management strategy to ensure that all pertinent project risks are identified and mitigated.

M-2.2.3.1.8. The offeror’s preliminary full scale test plans show that they will meet the SOW loading requirements.

M-2.2.3.1.9. The offeror’s material characterization plan shows a complete and accurate plan which meets the requirements in the SOW.

M-2.2.3.1.10. The offeror submits an impact panel test report including pictures and post impact non-destructive inspection (NDI) results that clearly identifies an acceptable extent of damage caused by an impact to the offeror’s blade design.

M-2.2.3.1.11. The offeror submits a preliminary tooling drawing which reflects an acceptable proposed tooling concept to manufacture the blades per the SOW and specification.

M-2.2.3.1.12. The offeror provides an acceptable initial manufacturing plan that demonstrates the offeror’s concept to manufacture the blades per the SOW and specification.

M-2.2.3.1.13. The offeror provides an updated schedule for final design, tooling, testing, and manufacturing which shows a realistic timeline for all project deliverables and the critical project path.

M-2.3. Cost or Price Factor

M-2.3.1. Offerors selected for an initial award in Phase I may resubmit the Cost / Price Proposal Volume for the Downselect Phase II. The Government will re-evaluate contract line item number (CLIN) 0003 for realism, reasonableness, and balance and re-evaluate CLINs 0005-0014 and 0019-0020 for reasonableness and balance. Furthermore, offerors who are selected in the Phase I are cautioned that the only allowable adjustment to CLINs 0005-0020 is DOWNWARD to reflect the cost certainty provided by a more mature design solution. If downward adjustments are made, the Government will analyze the final Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for reasonableness, realism (for the CLINs 0003-0005), and balance. The Government will also calculate a new most probable cost (MPC) for each offeror awarded a contract from the initial evaluation Phase I pertaining to

CLIN 0003.

M-2.3.2. Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only.

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

M-2.3.2.1. Most Probable Cost. The Government will compute the MPC for CLIN 0003. The offeror's proposed estimated costs shall not be controlling for source selection purposes. MPC shall be determined by adjusting each offeror’s proposed cost, and fee when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis.

M-2.3.3. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

M-2.3.4. 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-2.3.5. 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-2.3.6. 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. 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.