M-Evaluation_Criteria.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. Basis for Award. An award will be made to the offeror who’s proposal is determined to provide the best value (tradeoff) to the Government. An award will be made to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with (IAW) FAR 9.1, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, information required by Section L) and is determined based on the evaluation factors to represent the best value to the government. Best Value Means: the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement. This may result in an award to a higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Contracting Officer (CO) reasonably determines that the technical proposal of the higher-priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. While the government evaluation team and the will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation process, by its nature, is subjective; and, therefore professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

B. Clarifications. The government intends to make award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting discussions; therefore, offerors may be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of the proposal or resolve minor or clerical errors (see FAR 15.306(a)(1) and (2)). Clarifications shall be documented on, and conducted via transmittal of, Evaluation Notices (EN) to the applicable offeror. Each EN shall clearly indicate that the type of exchange being conducted is “Clarification.”

Offerors are not given an opportunity to respond to any identified weaknesses or deficiencies or revise their proposals.

C. Evaluation Factors. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal submitted in response to this solicitation. Selection shall be made on a Trade-off basis. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an assessment of the evaluation factors. Technical approach is considered more important than price.

Within the Corporate Knowledge and Capabilities, subfactor 1.1 and subfactor 1.2 are of equal importance. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined are approximately equal to cost or price.

Reponses to this solicitation will be evaluated against the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Approach/Statement of Work Factor 2: Corporate Knowledge and Capabilities Subfactor 1.1: Proof of Competency on High Powered (20 kW) RF TWT Subfactor 1.2: Simulation modeling Factor 3: Price

For the purposes of making the award decision, all proposals that receive a risk rating of unacceptable will be determined unawardable and will not be evaluated further once unacceptability has been determined. All unawardable offerors will not be evaluated for cost/price reasonableness.

VOLUME I - TECHNICAL EVALUATION

The offeror’s technical approach/SOW will be rated separately from the risk associated with its corporate knowledge and capabilities as identified below.

Factor 1.0: Technical Approach/Statement of Work

The offeror’s proposed approach/statement of work will be evaluated and assigned a technical rating as identified in Table 1.0. The approach will be evaluated for the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the government’s objectives and requirements, for weaknesses, and the likelihood of success.

In the event that the factor is determined “Unacceptable” the technical evaluators will end their technical review at the “Unacceptable” factor and the offeror will be determined unawardable. No further evaluations or cost/price analysis will be conducted.

The government evaluation team will document their ratings along with justifications for the CO’s consideration.

Table 1.0 – Technical Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contain at least one strength.

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

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

Factor 2.0: Corporate Knowledge and Capabilities

The government will evaluate the offeror’s corporate knowledge and capabilities of subfactor and assign a risk rating as identified in Table 2.0.

Subfactor 1.1: Proof of Competency on High Powered (20 kW) RF TWT The Air Force shall evaluate corporate knowledge documented in the proposal to identify possible weaknesses related to hardware design capabilities, software development capabilities, manufacturing capabilities, device programming capabilities, testing capabilities and the processes and tools possessed that are necessary to evaluate and resolve obsolescence issues, conduct trade‐off studies and create a detailed study of the physical and electrical characteristics of the components that make up the L5714-50 Electron Tube.

Subfactor 1.2: Simulation modeling

The Air Force shall evaluate corporate knowledge related to understanding of simulation techniques concerning electron beams, magnetics, and RF coupling and generation and all of components that make up the L5714-50 TWT and experience using those techniques.

TABLE 2.0 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

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.

Once all offerors have been evaluated for technical acceptability and risk, all offerors with a rating of “Acceptable” will be eligible for award. The government will then choose the offeror with the highest technically rated proposal that represents the best value to the government and the results along with supporting narrative will be documented.

In the event that two offerors receive the same ratings the award will go to the offeror with the lowest total evaluated price.

Although past performance will not be used as an evaluation factor, any information submitted by the Offeror as a reference to past or current experience in its Technical Proposal is subject to validation by the Government. The information obtained from other sources available to the government such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) will be used as part of the responsibility determination made IAW FAR 9.104-1. The Government reserves the right to obtain information relative to present and past performance on its own.

VOLUME II - PRICE EVALUATION

FACTOR 3: Price

A. After the government has completed its evaluation, the offeror who’s technical proposal was deemed the best value to the government will be evaluated for price fair and reasonableness. The price evaluation will document the reasonableness and affordability of the proposed total evaluated price.

i. Price will be evaluated using techniques established in FAR 15.404-1 to ensure the

Government receives a fair, reasonable and balanced price.

ii. In addition to the price analysis as described at FAR 15.404-1(b), price proposals will be analyzed to identify any potential unbalanced pricing (See FAR 15.404-1(g)). If the Government sees a wide variation in proposed contract line item prices, the technical evaluation board will be informed as soon as possible during the initial evaluation of proposals so the appropriate personnel may seek clarity through offeror exchanges. Absent any issues related to the stated requirement, unbalanced pricing may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

iii. If the Government cannot determine the proposed pricing to be fair and reasonable, other than cost and pricing data will be obtained from the offerors.

iv. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. In instances where proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

v. In the event that the evaluated Offeror’s price is found NOT to be fair and reasonable, that offeror’s proposal will be reject in accordance with the solicitationevaluation criteria. The Government will then select the next Offeror who’s proposal demonstrated the best value to the Government and proceed with a price analysis. This process will continue until a technical acceptable offeror is found to have fair and reasonable prices.

B. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Calculation:

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the offeror’s proposed prices for contract line items (CLINs) identified on the SF 1447.