H92401-25-R-0002 - DRAFT RFP SECTION M.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M.0 GENERAL

M.0.1 Best Value Tradeoff Introduction: This section outlines the criteria the Government will use in evaluating the offerors’ capabilities and proposals for the TREX contract. The Government will compare each offeror’s capabilities and proposal elements against the predetermined evaluation criteria related to the Government’s requirement defined herein. This is a competitive, best value tradeoff, source selection that will be conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215.

M.0.2 Best Value Evaluation: The Government will evaluate all proposals received against Technical (Factor 1), Past Performance (Factor 2), Delivery Order Management (Factor 3), and Delivery Order Price (Factor 4). As stated in Section L.5, Administrative Criteria will be utilized as part of the separate determination of Contractor responsibility IAW FAR 9.104-1. A combined Technical/Risk rating technique will be used to evaluate Factor 1 and Factor 3. Factor 1 does not include subfactors. For Factor 3, the Government will conduct evaluations at the subfactor level, however an individual color rating for each subfactor within Factor 3 will not be assigned. Instead, the Government will assign a single color rating (one at the Factor 3 level) based on the evaluation findings and risk associated with each of the subfactors. The subfactors within Factor 3 are equal in importance. Factor 2 will receive an overall acceptability rating. Factor 4 and its subfactors will not be given a color rating or scored.

Factor 1 and Factor 3 are approximately equal in importance and both are individually more important than Factor 2 at the Factor levels. Factors 1, 2, and 3, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4.

M.0.3 Evaluation Criteria

M.1 FACTOR 1: Technical - Under the Technical Factor, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound, practical approach for satisfying the requirements stated in the solicitation. The Government will determine if the proposal meets or exceeds requirements, to what degree the proposed approach indicates an understanding of the requirements, and the level of risk to unsuccessful performance per the color rating definitions contained within Table 2 below.

SECTION M -Table 1. Evaluation Criteria

Volume 1, Technical Management Organizational

Structure, Business Processes, and Subcontracting

Factor 1 Technical/Risk

Volume 2, Past Performance Factor 2 Acceptability Rating

Volume 3, Delivery Order Management

Factor 3 Technical/Risk (All Subfactors)

DO 1 - PM-RC sUMS Subfactor 1 Not Assigned Individual Rating

DO 2- PM-I2E SSE Subfactor 2 Not Assigned Individual Rating

DO 3- PM-TCC TVS Subfactor 3 Not Assigned Individual Rating

DO 4 -PM- ISS JTWS Subfactor 4 Not Assigned Individual Rating

Volume 4, Delivery Order Price Factor 4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) (All

Subfactors)

DO 1 Price Exhibit B-PM-RC sUMS Subfactor 1 Total Evaluated Price DO 1

DO 2 Price Exhibit C-PM-I2E SSE Subfactor 2 Total Evaluated Price DO 2

DO 3 Price Exhibit D-PM-TCC TVS Subfactor 3 Total Evaluated Price DO 3

DO 4 Price Exhibit E-PM- ISS JTWS Subfactor 4 Total Evaluated Price DO 4

The Government will utilize the combined Technical/Risk rating methodology contained within Table 2 below, which includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the evaluation findings; strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal when determining the Technical Factor color rating.

Evaluation of risk will assess the degree to which the offeror’s proposed approach for meeting the requirements outlined in this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the increased likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Risk is one aspect of the technical evaluation and contributes to determining the Factor level color rating.

If an offeror’s proposal demonstrates a material failure to meet a Government requirement, it is a deficiency in the offeror’s proposal. Identified strengths may be incorporated into any resultant contract award (i.e., added to the SOW, added as a Section H clause, etc.) as appropriate.

M.1.1 Management Organizational Structure, Business Processes, and Subcontracting. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s outlined plans for each organizational element demonstrates clearly defined responsibilities and sound business management practices and processes in order to meet the organization and expertise required by this solicitation. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed team (including key management personnel) collectively demonstrates the knowledge and expertise required of this solicitation. Specifically;

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed team (both facilities and personnel) demonstrates the ability to manage all DO pre-award functions through contractually binding the offeror (including the capability to effectively conduct timely (i.e. less than 30 calendar days IAW Section H.10.4) negotiations and subsequently subcontract with and/or issue purchase orders to various OEMs and/or vendors/suppliers), while simultaneously managing the processing of existing orders through all phases of the product integration, kitting, assembly, and SOF logistical processes.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s understanding of the type of equipment required, expertise with existing or similar programs/customers supported, ability to effectively manage multiple customer requirements, and processes in place to effectively perform both functional and technical systems integration requirements (SOW Section 1.1) which result in kits that meet the requirements.

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s subcontract management expertise and practices to interact with and simultaneously exercise oversight/control over subcontractor cost, schedule, and performance of multiple subcontractors and OEMs.

M.1.1.1 Small Business Participation. Government will evaluate the extent to which small business firms are specifically identified in the proposal, the extent of commitment to small business firms, and the complexity and variety of the work small business firms are proposed to perform.

M.1.1.2 Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information and Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM).

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s networks and processes reflect an understanding of the CUI and SCRM requirements contained within the solicitation. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the proposed processes/procedures demonstrate the ability to effectively track and restrict unnecessary sharing and/or flow down of covered defense information, mitigate supply chain risk in the provision of supplies and services, establish and maintain an acceptable counterfeit electronic part detection and avoidance system, adequately obtain parts, and ensure that genuine hardware, software and logic elements are levied upon all subcontractors, OEMs, vendors, and/or suppliers.

The Government will favorably consider an element(s) of a proposal that offers tangible benefits to the Government that would be realized throughout the period of performance and result in increased efficiencies and/or a reduced amount of Government oversight as a result of inadequate DO/TO proposal submissions, lack of proper oversight of subcontractors/vendors/OEMs, failure to issue timely purchase orders, etc.

M.2 FACTOR 2: Past Performance: Evaluation of the Past Performance Factor considers the offeror’s (to include proposed major subcontractors) demonstrated record of performance in providing services and products that meet users’ needs and in past performance regarding subcontracting. Past Performance evaluation will focus on how well the offeror performed or is performing on other recent and relevant contracts. For proposed major subcontractors evaluation will focus solely on work that the subcontractor is proposed to perform under this contract.

M.2.1 The Government will conduct a review and evaluation of all performance data obtained to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to the current requirement utilizing the recency and relevancy criteria outlined in Section L. All efforts meeting the recency criteria will be assessed for relevancy. For those efforts determined relevant a performance evaluation will be conducted based on the data gathered by both submitted SF 294/295s or equivalents and CPARS reports as available through the Past Performance Retrieval System (PPIRS). Additionally, if CPARS reports are not available and/or additional information is deemed necessary in order to determine a particular performance rating, the Government may conduct interviews with those references provided in the offeror’s proposal (Past Performance Information Sheets). The Government is not limited to these resources. A performance rating will be established for each of those relevant efforts utilizing the same performance rating definitions contained within the CPARS.

M.2.2 Once all data has been gathered, the Government will assign an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating for Factor 2 considering the offeror’s team’s overall recent/relevant performance record. The Government will use a holistic approach to determine the Government’s expectation of the offeror’s team’s (including both the prime and major subcontractors) ability to successfully perform the required effort. The ratings with definitions that will be utilized are contained within Table 3 below.

SECTION M - Table 3. 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.

SECTION M -

Table 2.

Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or one significant strength and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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.

M.3 FACTOR 3: Delivery Order Management: The Government will utilize the same combined Technical/Risk rating methodology and rating assessments outlined for Factor 1 in Section M.1 for Factor 3.

Identified strengths may be incorporated into any resultant contract award (i.e., added to the SOW, added as a Section H clause, etc.) as appropriate.

Under the DO Management Factor, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s overall approach for each DO (subfactor) and the extent to which the approach demonstrates a sound, practical approach for satisfying the requirements for each DO (subfactor).

This shall include an evaluation of the extent to which the proposed approach demonstrates an understanding of the requirements and the ability (both facilities and personnel) to effectively perform detailed configuration management, purchase, perform systems integration (as applicable per DO), properly package, handle, ship, store, and transport, all equipment in order to ensure a timely delivery.

M.4 FACTOR 4: Delivery Order Price. Price proposals will be evaluated for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and an understanding of the requirement (completeness). Inconsistencies between the proposed DO Price Volume and Technical or DO Management Volumes, unbalanced pricing, or other pricing anomalies may be assessed as proposal risk under the Technical or DO Management Factors.

IAW FAR 15.404 the Government will use price analysis techniques and procedures in order to determine whether the offeror’s proposed prices are fair and reasonable, to include ensuring the prices are not unrealistically low or unreasonably high without valid explanation. The total price for each ELIN is calculated by multiplying the Government provided quantity by the offeror’s proposed unit prices. The sum of all ELINS will determine the overall DO (subfactor) price. The sum the four DO (subfactor) total prices is used to arrive at a total evaluated price (TEP) for Factor 4 as outlined within Attachment 8 under the “TEP” tab. Price will not receive a color rating or score.

M.5 Basis of Award. To arrive at a source selection decision, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) will perform an integrated assessment using the evaluation factors described above, including a subjective tradeoff process. The selection will be based on a determination of benefits to the Government weighed against the price of the proposals to arrive at a best value decision. This may result in an award being made to a higher rated, higher priced offeror(s) where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors. Up to 1 prime contract award will be reserved for the most highly rated small business offeror received under this solicitation.