GMTS Section M__LPTA_Past Performance.pdf

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)

Guided Missile Test Stands 309 Maintenance Support Group

Hill Air Force Base, UT

09 June 2024

SECTION M - EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. This is a Lowest Price, Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) in accordance with 215.3. These regulations are available electronically at the ACQUISITION.GOV site. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest total evaluated price from among those rated as “Acceptable” for all Technical Sub- Factors. A contract may be awarded to the offeror 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 sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. The Government intends to award one (1) contract and reserves the right to award without discussions. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, 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 section II below.

B. The evaluation factors that establish the requirements of acceptability are set forth in this section. The technical factors will be rated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. All offerors who pass the technical factors will be treated equally except for their prices. Award will be made on the basis of the lowest evaluated price of proposals meeting or exceeding the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. Award will be made to the technically acceptable offeror with the lowest price, which is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR 9.1 and whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements.

C. Evaluation Process: The Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection process will be used.

The Government will evaluate Request for Proposal (RFP) submissions as responsive/non-response. The Government will evaluate offerors’ price proposals for award purposes by considering their Total Evaluated Price (TEP), which is the sum of all CLINs. Offerors' technical proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Offerors' past performance proposal will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined non-responsive and thereby excluded from further consideration.

D. Determination of Responsible Prospective Contractors: In order to be determined as responsible, an offeror must meet the following conditions:

• Offeror must meet the standards identified in FAR 9.104-1 Offerors who are determined to be non-responsible will be referred to the Small Business Administration (SBA) for a Certificate of Competency (COC).

E. Distribution. Distributed material will be identified as source selection sensitive and distribution will be strictly limited to appropriate personnel, and shall be encrypted where practicable. Should any offeror object to its proprietary information being shared between source selection evaluators and advisors via commercial email as described above, advise the Contracting Officer using the contact information in the RFP.

F. 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 sub-factors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation’s terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

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

A. General

1. Evaluation Factors: Proposals are evaluated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an acceptable rating in every non-price factor/subfactor (Factors II and III).

Evaluation will be based upon the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

(a) Factor I- Price – Completed RFP and Price Proposal

(b) Factor II- Technical – Written Technical Proposal

Sub-Factor One: Systems Engineering Approach Sub-Factor Two: Technical Data & Verification Sub-Factor Three: Testing Sub-Factor Four: Program Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)

(c) Factor III- Past Performance

B. Volume I, Factor I – Price - Completed RFP and Price Proposal

1. General: As instructed in Section L, B. Volume I, Completed RFP and Price Proposal, the Government will award to the offeror who meets the requirements of completing the RFP requirements while proposing the lowest TEP, subject to the offeror’s non-price factors/subfactors are determined as acceptable.

C. Volume II, Factor II - Technical – Written Technical Proposal

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Statement of Work (SOW), Systems Requirements Document (SRD), and Software Requirements Specifications (SRS), and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Technical Subfactor One

Description: Systems Engineering Approach Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal describes the Offeror’s plan to accomplish requirements analysis, design, development, integration, and testing for the upgrade/refurbishment of the Guided Missile Test Stands (GMTSs), ensuring all current functional requirements identified in the SOW, SRD, SRS, and other supporting documents are met and/or exceeded.

Technical Subfactor Two

Description: Technical Data & Verification Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal clearly and logically explains the Contractor’s process to verify all upgraded/refurbished components within the new design meet or exceed with all functional requirements of the GMTS as defined in the SOW, SRD, SRS, and other supporting/referenced documentation. The proposal must include a detailed description of the processes and tools to be used to evaluate and resolve obsolescence issues, conduct trade-off studies and reports, and ensure a compliant technical data package.

Technical Subfactor Three

Description: Testing Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed testing approach, methodologies, strategies, and planned resources to ensure compliance to the performance requirements, specifications, and drawings as defined in the SOW Section 5.2. The Contractor shall explain their process for evaluating specifications to implement test procedures for functional, electrical, and environmental testing.

Technical Subfactor Four

Description: Program Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed Program Management Plan and IMS that demonstrates their Program Management and Schedule experience to meet the SOW, SRD, and CDRL requirements. The proposal shall describe the Contractor’s program management system to direct and control the administrative, technical, configuration, financial, and logistics functions. The proposal shall clearly identify risk management processes, explaining the criteria, methods, and procedures that would be used to identify the critical items associated with the implementation of the contract. The Contractor shall also include a draft IMS that details all essential project milestones, demonstrates how the project will meet each milestone on time, proposed process for material purchases (to include long-lead items), and considers the operations/impacts of suppliers and key Government organizations (e.g., AFNWC).

2. Technical Rating: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s written technical proposal for meeting the Government’s requirement. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every subfactor.

Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

D. Volume III, Past Performance Factor

1. General: The past performance evaluation will assess the offeror’s/joint venture members’ ability (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its critical subcontractors’ involvement) to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. A critical subcontractor is defined as an entity (subcontractor and/or teaming contractor), other than the offeror itself. Past performance shall be used as an evaluation factor within the LPTA process. The government shall evaluate past performance in accordance with FAR 15.305 and DFARS 215.305.

The Government will take into account past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if such was provided for evaluation and if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources for the instant proposed effort, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

2. Past Performance Assessment: In assessing present and past performance, the Government may employ several approaches, including, but not limited to:

a) Other Sources of Information: Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume.

Present/Past performance information may be obtained from and not limited to, the Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee

Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

b) Adverse Past Performance: Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror, joint venture member and/or critical subcontractor has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The past performance evaluation assessment will consider issues including but not limited to the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends.

c) Critical Subcontractors: The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to ensure it sufficiently explains how the contractor will accomplish/satisfy the requirements of each technical subfactor listed below.

1.Technical Subfactor One

Description: Systems Engineering Approach Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal describes the Offeror’s plan to accomplish requirements analysis, design, development, integration, and testing for the upgrade/refurbishment of the Guided Missile Test Stands (GMTSs), ensuring all current functional requirements identified in the SOW, SRD, SRS, and other supporting documents are met and/or exceeded.

2. Technical Subfactor Two

Description: Technical Data & Verification Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal clearly and logically explains the Contractor’s process to verify all upgraded/refurbished components within the new design meet or exceed with all functional requirements of the GMTS as defined in the SOW, SRD, SRS, and other supporting/referenced documentation. The proposal must include a detailed description of the processes and tools to be used to evaluate and resolve obsolescence issues, conduct trade-off studies and reports, and ensure a compliant technical data package.

3. Technical Subfactor Three

Description: Testing Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed testing approach, methodologies, strategies, and planned resources to ensure compliance to the performance requirements, specifications, and drawings as defined in the SOW Section 5.2. The Contractor shall explain their process for evaluating specifications to implement test procedures for functional, electrical, and environmental testing.

4. Technical Subfactor Four

Description: Program Management Plan and Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) Minimum level of acceptability: This subfactor is met when the proposal includes a detailed Program Management Plan and IMS that demonstrates their Program Management and Schedule experience to meet the SOW, SRD, and CDRL requirements. The proposal shall describe the Contractor’s program management system to direct and control the administrative, technical, configuration, financial, and logistics functions. The proposal shall clearly identify risk management processes, explaining the criteria, methods, and procedures that would be used to identify the critical items associated with the implementation of the contract. The plan shall also provide proof that the contractor has a current DD Form 2345 on file with the Joint Certification Program IAW DoDD 5230.25. The Contractor shall also include a draft IMS that details all essential project milestones, demonstrates how the project will meet each milestone on time, proposed process for material purchases (to include long-lead items), and considers the operations/impacts of suppliers and key Government organizations (e.g., AFNWC).

The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any subcontractor(s) even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.

d) Key Personnel: The evaluation of the offeror’s/joint venture members’ present/past performance WILL NOT include the present/past performance of any key personnel even though they may perform major or critical aspects of this requirement.) For offerors/joint venture members or critical subcontractors tailor as necessary that are newly formed entities (in existence less than six (6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation) who either have no prior contracts or do not possess relevant corporate past performance, but have key personnel with relevant past performance while employed by another company, the quality of such key personnel’s performance as verified by the Past Performance Team will be considered if the submitted contract involves the key personnel performing the same role currently being proposed on the instant acquisition and this performance occurred during the past six

(6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

3. Relevancy Definitions: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. A relevancy determination will be made for each of the recent four (4) submitted contracts.

The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each effort identified in an offeror’s Volume III of its proposal:

• 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.

NOTE: Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical complexities identified for each effort, but also the programmatic and logistical considerations including but not limited to quantity produced, length of effort, dollar values, type, and complexity of data deliverables. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities, and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities, but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

The Programmatic/Logistical Scope and Magnitude of Effort and Complexities to be used in the relevancy evaluation are based on expected magnitude of work and complexities for the GMTS Refurbishment/Upgrade. They are as follows:

3.1 Expected Magnitude of Work and Complexities:

• Quantities: Initial Unit + Five Optional Units (Six Total)

• Duration of Time: 36 months

• Estimated Total Dollar Value: The Government’s estimated acquisition value is not releasable; however, the offeror’s efforts will be evaluated against the Government’s estimate.

• Type of Data Deliverables: Schedules, Reports, Analysis, etc. (See attachment titled, “GMTS CDRL List, Exhibits A and B” for detailed list)

4. Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy and quality assessments of the contracts evaluated, one of the ratings as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures will be assigned to the Past Performance factor.

Past Performance Evaluation Ratings:

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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

5. Small Business Compliance in Past Performance Efforts: Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s/joint venture members’ (and critical subcontractor’s, if applicable) compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, up to four (4) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror/joint venture member (and critical subcontractor, if applicable) tailor as necessary award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance. (Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses.) If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror/joint venture members and critical subcontractor included these clauses, when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror/joint venture member and critical subcontractor’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.