I.5.b. Eval Criteria Guide Sections L&M.pdf

V2.1_JUNE2021

Section L – Instructions, Conditions and Notices to Offerors or Respondents

1.0 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS

General Notes:

Note 1: For pricing purposes, the anticipated period of performance start date of this order is July, 2023.

Note 2: This requirement is solicited as unrestricted.

Note 3: The Product Service Cost (PSC) for this requirement is [5998].

1.1 General Information

All questions concerning this procurement, either technical or contractual, must be submitted via email. No direct discussion between the technical representative and prospective offeror will be conducted. Questions and proposals shall be submitted via email to the following point of contact:

Name: Hannah Sherron Email: Hannah.r.sherron.civ@us.navy.mil

1.2 Submission Requirements

(a) Each offeror shall submit its entire proposal electronically. The Government will evaluate each offeror's understanding of the Government's requirements and ability to perform the work on the basis of its proposal. Offerors shall provide information and documentation in detail to clearly identify its overall qualifications.

(b) Proposals shall be submitted electronically via email to Hannah Sherron at hannah.r.sherron.civ@us.navy.mil. Offerors shall comply with the detailed instructions for the format and content of the proposals; proposals that do not comply may be considered unacceptable and may render the offeror ineligible for award.

(c) Proposals shall be marked with ‘CUI Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104’ at the top and bottom of each page submitted. The first page of each document submitted shall contain the below 5 line Designation Indicator with “XXXX” replaced with Offeror’s entity name.

Controlled By: Vendor XXXX.

CUI Category: PROPIN, PROCURE, SSEL Limited Dissemination Control: DL ONLY, Distribution to C02 FED, 00L FED, SSEB Team FED, and Vendor XXXX.

POC: Vendor XXXX.

1.3 Proposal Format

(a) The proposal shall be submitted in the English language. The narrative material in the proposal shall be prepared in no smaller than 10 point font, single-spaced with no less than a one inch margin on all sides. In the event photo reduction is used for tables, charts, and drawings, their presentation must be clear and legible. No pictures or hyperlinks are allowed. Adobe .pdf or Microsoft Office compatible files are required. Offerors are required to submit their proposals in separate volumes as follows:

Volume Volume Title Maximum

Number of Pages

I Delivery Timeframe 3 II Technical Capability 3 III Past Performance 1 IV Price Unlimited

Important: Offerors shall not include classified material in the volumes.

(b) Offerors shall provide a cover letter with the following information:

(1) Solicitation number;

(2) The name, address, email address, telephone numbers, Cage Code, and Tax Identification Number (TIN) of the offeror;

(3) A statement specifying unconditional acceptance of all terms, conditions, and provisions included in the solicitation and agreement to furnish any or all items upon which prices are offered at the price set opposite each item.

(4) A statement that the proposal is valid through 90 calendar days from the date specified for receipt of proposals;

(5) Names, titles, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of persons authorized to negotiate on the offeror’s behalf with the Government in connection with this solicitation;

(6) DCAA and DCMA office points of contact, including branch location, contact name, telephone number, and email address;

(7) Name, title, and signature of a person authorized to sign the proposal;

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

(8) Identify all enclosures being transmitted as part of its proposal; and,

(9) If the offeror (prime and/or subcontractor) is proposing on other than a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) type basis (e.g., Cost Plus Fixed Fee), include the status of the offeror’s accounting system and provide supporting documentation (e.g. DCMA letter confirming adequacy of accounting system). Prime offerors are advised that the Government will perform a Business Systems status review of all proposed subcontractors. If a proposed subcontractor does not have an approved accounting system, and is proposed on an other than FFP type basis, the Government requires the prime offeror to detail in its proposal what analysis it performed to determine the subcontractor’s approach to accounting for costs as acceptable; and

(c) Offerors shall provide fill-in information for all clauses/provisions that require it.

2.0 PASS/FAIL REQUIREMENTS

The offeror shall submit the following information with its proposal which will be evaluated as a pass or fail in relation to the solicitation requirements:

INSERT PASS/FAIL SECTION L FACTORS HERE

3.0 NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS

Offerors shall provide information by addressing each factor and subfactor in the format and sequence identified in the solicitation. The offeror must provide information in sufficient detail to allow the Government to make an evaluation of the offeror’s ability to perform the work described in the solicitation. The proposal shall be detailed and clearly stated to allow an assessment by the Government without the need for additional clarifications. All information and data provided shall be specific to this solicitation except for the area of Past Performance.

Proposals that do not contain the information required in the solicitation risk being determined unacceptable by the Government.

In the response to the solicitation, the offeror must address the below factors and subfactors.

3.1 Delivery Timeframe

The Offeror shall provide their approach to developing a delivery timeframe including the following details:

1.) The Offeror shall provide a chart with its proposed production schedule including milestones and a narrative explanation of any process risks and mitigation strategies thereof.

2.) Long Lead Items: The Offeror shall identify which five (5) components it has identified as the most difficult to obtain and imposing the most risk of schedule slipage. Included in this list shall be how the Offeror addresses procuring these components within their proposed schedule and risk associated with each component (why risky and what is the risk), as well as, how the offeror will mitigate that risk.

3.2 Past Performance

The Offeror shall provide up to three (3) past performance references, if available, that reflect recent relevant experience performed within the last five (5) years of closing date of the RFQ that demonstrates the ability to perform the work required under this contract. Include a discussion on how the references provided are relevant to the work being proposed.

For each reference, the Offeror shall identify at least one of the following customer Points of Contact (POCs): Program Manager (PM), Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO), or Contracting Officer Representative (COR). The Offeror shall provide the current address, phone number, FAX number, and email address for each POC. The Government may also consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror;

including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases, and/or personal knowledge. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact and to contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. Offerors are encouraged to provide contract reference information for which they are the Prime contract holder or provide detailed clarification to the extent of which they contributed as a Subcontractor to the referenced contract.

3.3 Technical Capability

The Offeror shall provide a complete technical approach to performing the required work, including specific details of how the work will be performed as follows:

1.) Manufacturing Approach: The Offeror shall describe their approach for the fabrication of the required control panel. The description shall include commitment to workmanship, manufacturing steps, assembly steps, and inspection steps.

2.) Quality Inspections: The Offeror shall provide a proposed process to ensure that all items are of the highest quality and all parts are within the stated dimensions and tolerances in accordance with the attached drawings. The method shall include, as an example, documentation used during the process of creating the required items.

Offerors shall not include ANY Cost/Price information in the Technical Capability volume.

4.0 PRICE

Include all data and information required for evaluation. The Offeror shall complete Section B, CLINs 0001-006 by filling in the proposed unit prices for the items listed in Section B Pricing Tables. Offeror shall provide unit pricing for all CLINs.

Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

(a) The Government intends to make a single award as a result of this solicitation. Award will be made to the responsible offeror passing all Pass/Fail requirements of the solicitation and whose proposal contains the combination of those factors offering the best overall value to the Government. The best overall value to the Government will be determined by comparing the difference in value of technical (non-cost/price) features of proposals with the difference in the cost/price to the Government.

(b) The Government intends to award a order on the basis of initial proposals without conducting discussions (except for clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined to be necessary by the Contracting Officer or Source Selection Authority.

1.2 Relative Importance

The following table indicates all factors that will be considered for award.

FACTORS

1. Delivery Timeframe

2. Past Performance

3. Technical Capability

4. Price

The relative importance of the factors are detailed below:

Delivery Timeframe, Technical Capability, and Past Performance are of equal importance, and Price is less important than Delivery Timeframe, Technical Capability, and Past Performance.

All evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are more important than Price. Price will increase in importance as competing proposals approach Delivery Timeframe/Technical

Capability/Past Performance equality or when it is so significantly high as to diminish the value of technical superiority to the Government.

2.0 NON-COST/PRICE FACTORS

The Government will evaluate offers and assign one of the adjectival ratings indicated in paragraph (6.0) of this provision for each of the following non-cost factors.

3.1 Delivery Timeframe

The Offeror will be evaluated on its assessment of procuring components for the contract. The technical approach shall demonstrate that the Offeror has a good assessment of the current supply market and has done sufficient investigating to provide a realistic delivery schedule.

The Offeror shall provide their approach to developing a delivery timeframe including the following details:

1.) Long Lead Items: The Offeror shall provide a chart with its proposed production schedule including milestones and a narrative explanation of any process risks and mitigation strategies thereof, to be evaluated by the Government. The Offeror shall identify which five (5) components they have identified as the most difficult to obtain. Included in this list shall be how the Offeror addresses procuring these components in their proposed schedule and risk associated with each component (why risky and what is the risk).

3.2 Technical Capability

The Offeror will be evaluated on its technical approach to performing the required work. The technical approach shall demonstrate that the Offeror knows how to manufacture the required parts including quality inspections.

1.) Manufacturing Approach: The Offeror shall demonstrate and describe their approach for the fabrication of the required control panels. The offer will be evaluated for the description of commitment to workmanship, manufacturing steps, assembly steps, and inspection steps.

2.) Quality Inspections: The Offeror shall demonstrate the method of approach that will be used to ensure that all items are of the highest quality and all parts are within the stated dimensions and tolerances in accordance with the attached drawings. The offer will be evaluated for the proposed method to performing quality inspections, to include the documentation used during the process of creating the required items.

3.3 Past Performance

Past performance is a measure of the degree to which the Offeror satisfied its customer’s requirements in the past. The past performance evaluation assesses the degree of confidence the

Government has in an Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. The Government may consider past performance information contained in the Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS). This database was formerly the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS). The Government may also use other information such as CPARS or other data available from Government and non-government sources to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance. The Government reserves the right to limit or expand the number of references it decides to contact, and contact references other than those provided by the Offeror. The Government may contact all or some of each Offeror’s customers to ask whether or not the customer believes:

(1) The Offeror is capable, efficient and effective;

(2) The Offeror’s performance conformed to the terms and conditions of its contract; (3) The Offeror was reasonable and cooperative during performance;

(4) The Offeror was committed to customer satisfaction;

(5) The Offeror was able to hire and retain qualified personnel; and

(6) If given a chance, the customer would select the Offeror again.

The Government may consider past performance information obtained from sources other than those identified by the Offeror, including Federal, State, and local Government agencies, Better Business Bureaus, published media and electronic databases. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

4.0 COST/PRICE

The Government will evaluate proposed prices contained in Section B by performing a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) procedures.

5.0 ADJECTIVAL RATINGS

(a) The Government will perform an evaluation of the non-cost/price evaluation factors and subfactors based on the Offeror’s proposal. This evaluation focuses on strengths and weaknesses of the Offeror’s proposal, resulting in the assignment of an adjectival rating for each factor and subfactor. Cost/Price and Pass/Fail Requirements in Section L Instructions to Offerors will not be assigned an adjectival rating.

(b) Delivery Timeframe Ratings:

The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and bill of materials, and contains multiple strengths; risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and bill of materials and contains at least one strength; risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

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

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and bill of materials: risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and/or lacks understanding of the components and materials needed to successfully fulfil the proposed timeline, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies;

risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

(c) Technical Capability Factor Ratings: Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

The following combined technical/risk ratings include consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

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

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

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

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

(d) Past Performance Evaluation

The past performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror's probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a)(2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one performance confidence assessment rating for each offeror.

There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

(A) The first is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant, and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

(B) The second is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. The criteria to establish what prior performance is recent and relevant shall be unique to each source selection and shall be stated in the solicitation. In establishing what is relevant for the acquisition, consideration should be given to those aspects of an offeror’s history of contract (or subcontract) performance that would provide the most context and give the greatest ability to measure whether the offeror will successfully satisfy the current requirement.

Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming.

There are four (4) levels of relevancy as shown below. With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Rating Description 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.

(C) The third aspect of the past performance evaluation is to establish the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c)(2)). The past performance evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the offeror performed those past contracts. The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

Performance Confidence Assessment. In conducting a performance confidence assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings shown below (reference FAR 15.305(2) for information on assigning a neutral confidence rating).

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 successfully perform the required effort.

Definitions:

Weakness is defined as a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Deficiency is defined as a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

Risk is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor or subfactor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract

Strength is an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit, or exceeds specified performance, or capability requirements, in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract