FDL Section M Final.pdf

Section M

Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source

Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures

5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the

Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the

Government. 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 superiority and/or overall business approach and/or superior past and present performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and sub factors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business

Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below

B. Factors, Sub factors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Sub factors: A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and sub factors:

Factor I: Technical (which includes both Technical and Technical Risk Ratings)

Sub factor One: Size Constraint, the design will be a self-contained functional unit that fits within the following form factor:

1. Weight: Gross Weight: 0.44 lbs

2. Overall External Dimensions: 8.05” (length) x 0.97” (width) x 0.97” (height)

3. Approximate working space: 6.5” (length) x 0.825” (width) x 0.825” (height)

4. Electrical Connections: None

Sub factor Two: Measurement accuracy, the individual sensors, vibration, temperature, pressure, and vibration will meet the following standards of accuracy and be certified to applicable National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) standards:

1. Vibration: The contractor shall use accelerometers that will have the capacity to record data for:

A threshold of a 2 ± 0.1 second duration with a sample rate of at least 2500 Hz occurring every 600 ± 2 seconds when in active operation for a minimum length of

12 hours. Measure up to 8 G with a resolution of 0.01 G

An objective of a 3 ± 0.1 second duration with a sample rate of at least 5000 Hz occurring every 120 ± 2 seconds when in active operation for a minimum length of

12 hours. Measure up to 80 G with a resolution of 0.001G

2. Temperature: The contractor shall verify that the data is both accurate and precise, measuring in absolutes (-65℉ to 171℉ ±2℉) at 1 Hz over the duration of the vibration data recording.

3. Pressure: The contractor shall verify that the sensor is valid for use down to 10 kPa (up to 45k ft MSL) and suitable for the required altitude of the test and shall evaluate and record pressure data a 1 Hz over the duration of the vibration data recording.

Sub factor Three: Durability, the contractor will demonstrate through proposed design how risk of damage to the device during flight will be mitigated. Success will be determined by the ability of the unit to pass 3 axis vibrational testing at 3 temperatures for a total of 9 hours of random vibration in accordance with the requirements described in MIL-STD-810H, Test

Method 514.8, Test Procedure I, Category 12 (Jet Aircraft).

Factor II. Past Performance

Factor III. Cost/Price

2. Relative Importance: Technical, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, and past performance when combined are significantly more important, than cost/price. Within

Factor I, sub factors 1, 2, and 3 are equally important.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

B. Volume I, Completed RFP

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the sub factors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the SOW, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following sub factors in sufficient detail. For each sub factor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

Sub factor One: Size Constraint. This sub factor is met when the contractor provides a detailed plan as to how all proposed component will conform to the size constraint listed in section B. An adequate response to this sub factor may include any initial models of component orientation, dimensions of components proposed, potential paths of modification if problems arise, and plans for potential size/efficiency trade study.

Sub factor Two: Measurement Accuracy. This sub factor is met when the contractor provides a technically sufficient plan as to how they propose to test the completed prototype for measurement accuracy requirements listed in section B in a way that will provide confidence of the test results such as using calibrated equipment traceable to NIST standards.

Sub factor Three: Durability. This sub factor is met when the contractor provides a technically sufficient plan as to how they propose to test the completed prototype for durability requirements listed in section B in a way that will provide confidence of the test results such as using calibrated equipment traceable to NIST standards.

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical sub factor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub factor requirements. Sub factor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration for performance in excess of threshold requirements, up to the objective requirements. No further positive considerations will be given for performance in excess of the objective requirements.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival 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 of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

3. Technical Risk Rating: Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical sub factor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection

Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival 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.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

The Past Performance evaluation is an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the offeror’s record of recent, relevant and overall quality of past performance information that pertains to the product or services outlined in 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.

(2) Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and/or 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, as solicited; information obtained from questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition; information obtained from established systems such as, 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 may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the

Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting

Officers and Fee Determining Officials.

(i) Recency. An evaluation 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 3

TABLE D-1- PAST PERFORMANCE ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING

METHOD

Adjectival 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 does not have a 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 is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated further.

(ii) Relevance. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contract citations 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). 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 citations, 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:

TABLE – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATING METHOD

Adjectival 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) Quality of Products or Services. The Government will consider information from customers on how well the offeror performed on past contract citations. For recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of products or services, 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). Pursuant to FAR

15.304(c)(3)(ii) and DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the past performance assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with

FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business

Subcontracting Plan, when included in the resulting contract. The quality of product or service performance assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports an unsatisfactory 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.

(3) Assigning Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating. The past performance acceptable/unacceptable http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/dfars/dfars215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/52_215.htm rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance, and quality of product or service assessments. Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level

(see Table D-1 above). More recent past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance evaluation rating than past performance of lesser recency.

E. Volume IV, Cost/Price Proposal Factor

1.0 CLIN 0001 Prototype Production will be used for evaluation of offers and will be a consideration in the award decision. It will include fee for the CPFF CLIN.

The pricing criteria used for evaluation are: (1) Completeness, (2) Reasonableness, (3) Balance (4)

Realism,

2.0 Completeness – The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness.

Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from the competition.

3.0 Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness (general and administrative expense and cost of money when applicable). If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with

FAR 15.4 will be required to support the proposed price.

4.0 Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing.

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable overall CLIN amount, the price of the

CLIN is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Air Force.

5.0 Realism – Cost realism will be conducted on the CPFF portion of this contract. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal.

6.0 Affordability - The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total price to budgetary information. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for the fiscal year of the contract as well as a comparison between the total price and the total budget. The maximum dollar amount at which a proposal is considered affordable is $300,000, based upon current budgetary information derived from an estimate of the cost of the program. A proposal with an overall price that exceeds $300,000 will be considered unaffordable, and therefore, unawardable under this solicitation.