SECTION_M_dated_5_Nov_2014_-_Final.docx

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Evaluation and Source Selection Process

The Government will evaluate proposals based on the response to the information requested in the Solicitation and against the Solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described in Section M herein. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the “Best Value” to the Government. Proposals will not be compared to requirements which are not addressed in the Solicitation. Similarly, each proposal will be evaluated for every factor identified in Section M. The degree to which the Offeror’s proposal satisfies these requirements shall be the basis for the adjectival ratings and risk ratings assigned.

Portions of the information on this program are classified as SECRET. To be considered for award, the Offeror shall have a minimum SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL). The Offeror shall submit documentation indicating its facility has been granted a SECRET FCL. Offerors who are considering a subcontractor must also submit documentation indicating that its subcontractor has obtained the necessary clearance in order to be considered for award for those subcontracts that will handle classified material. All FCL information will be verified through the Defense Security Service for all Offerors and their subcontractors. Offerors without a security FCL will neither be able to discuss nor access key aspects of the program that are classified nor will they be able to pass such information on to their subcontractor. If the Offeror does/do not have a Facility Clearance allowing access to and storage of SECRET information, no further consideration will be given. Any proposal which fails to meet this specific material requirement shall be deemed deficient and will not be evaluated any further, or considered for award.

This Solicitation contains Export Controlled Information. It is the responsibility of the Offeror, not the Government, to obtain the necessary export licenses to share any such information with subcontractors or to obtain access to the files themselves. The failure or inability of an Offeror to obtain the appropriate license or agreement will not be considered as a mitigating factor in the evaluation process. In essence, if the appropriate information is not conveyed in the proposal, an Offeror’s risk rating may be impacted.

Evaluation Process

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. For any requirement in the Solicitation, the Offeror may receive strength(s) if they exceed threshold values. Emphasis areas will receive multiple strengths if threshold values are exceeded. The Government will also limit the number of proposals in the competitive range by utilizing the following Go/No Go process:

M.1.2 Go/No Go Criteria

Offeror must meet two (2) entry criteria prior to the Government evaluation of the Offeror proposals. Failure to meet any, or all, of the criteria will result in dismissal of the Offeror proposal from the evaluation. The Government will not review any Offeror proposal that does not meet the following criteria:

1) Cost Target – Defined by Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC) <=$5M (FY14$M). If the resulting AUMC is less than or equal to $5M (FY14$M), then the Offeror’s proposal will receive a “GO.” Conversely, if the resulting AUMC is greater than $5M (FY14$), then the Offeror’s proposal will receive a “NO GO” and will not be evaluated by the source selection team. Amounts will not be rounded up or down. AUMC is defined in Section L21.2.

2) For Water Mobility, the ACV GVW must be capable of shore-to-shore maneuver from distances of three (3) Nautical Miles (NM) in water conditions up through two (2) foot Significant Wave Height (SWH).

Offerors are cautioned that its initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms.

All proposals remaining after the Go/No Go assessment will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation, as well as for the risk associated with the Offeror’s approach. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L, may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and/or risk assessment. Proposals remaining after the Go/No Go assessment shall be evaluated against the evaluation factors described below.

Best Value Source Selection

The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this Solicitation will be conducted on a Best Value Continuum basis utilizing a “trade-off” process. The Government seeks to award to an Offeror who demonstrates the greatest likelihood that it will meet the requirements at an affordable price. As part of the best value determination, the Government will assess the risks of each proposal including strengths and weaknesses, in selecting the proposal(s) that are most advantageous and represent the best overall value to the Government. In utilizing the “trade-off” process to obtain the best value, the Emphasis areas under Vehicle Performance will carry significant weight. In addition, in utilizing the “trade-off” process the Government may award a contract to other than the lowest priced or the highest technically rated Offeror.

The following factors shall be used to evaluate proposals:

· Vehicle Performance

· Manufacturing Capability

· Past Performance

· Energy

· Small Business Utilization & Subcontract Management

· Cost/Price

The relative order of importance of the non-price factors is as follows; Vehicle Performance, Manufacturing Capability, Past Performance, Energy, and Small Business Utilization & Subcontract Management with Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Capability being significantly more important than Past Performance, Energy, and Small Business Utilization & Subcontract Management. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than cost/price. The Government’s proposal evaluation will assign ratings at the factor level. However, cost/price will be evaluated but will not be assigned a rating.

The vehicle factor has four (4) emphasis areas. The Government will utilize the data provided by the Offerors, as requested in Section L17.1.1 and Section L17.1.10 and validate Offeror assertions utilizing Government models.

Factor Ratings

Proposals will be evaluated at the factor level.

M.3.1 The Government will not award a contract to any Offeror that has an “Unacceptable” rating for any of the factors.

M.3.1.1 Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Factor Ratings

The Government will rate the Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Capability Factors using both adjectival and risk ratings. Narrative descriptions of the evaluation findings will accompany the adjectival and risk designations. Table 1 below reflects the adjectival ratings for the Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Capability Factors. Table 2 below reflects the risk ratings for the Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Capability.

Table 1: Adjectival Ratings for the Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Capability

Table 2: Risk Ratings for Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Capability Factors

M.3.2 Evaluation of the Vehicle Performance and Manufacturing Capability Factors

M.3.2.1 Vehicle Performance Factor

· The information provided in Section L17.1 and Sections L17.1.2 to L17.1.10 will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed ACV 1.1 vehicle performance, design, and system integration approaches, to include integration of GFE, software architecture and interfaces, and how this design/integration will meet the requirements of the solicitation and the requirements of the ACV SPS.

· The information provided in Section L17.1.11 will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed solution, ability to produce logistics support products, to manage logistics requirements, and to provide field service support.

· The information provided in Section L17.1.1 and Section L17.1.10 will be utilized to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed ACV 1.1 vehicle performance against the four (4) Emphasis Areas.

Emphasis Area 1: Launch From Amphibious Ships: Objective Only Requirement In accordance with the procedures identified in the Wet Well Operations Manual, the Offeror will receive one (1) strength each if the NDI vehicle proposed can launch from the following ships:

· LPD 17

· LSD 41

· LSD 49

Emphasis Area 2: Reserve Buoyancy: (T) = 18%, (O) = 25% The Offeror will receive one (1) strength for every 2% of reserve buoyancy above the threshold requirement.

Emphasis Area 3: Water Speed: (T) = 5 knots, (O) = 8 knots The Offeror will receive one (1) strength for every knot of water speed above the threshold requirement.

Emphasis Area 4: Payload, Embarked Marines: (T) = 10, (O) = (13) Without trading the threshold requirement for days of supply, the Offeror will receive one (1) strength for every embarked Marine above the threshold requirement.

No emphasis area is more important than the other. They are all equally important. In order to receive maximum credit for assertions made by Offeror(s), corroborating data should be submitted. The Government places value of corroborating data and artifacts in the following descending order (but see L.1 above for proposal requirements regarding the Go/No Go evaluation process):

1) Independent or Government test data and artifacts for vehicles with similar configuration and design as the proposed vehicle;

2) Independent or Government test data and artifacts of an analogous vehicle of similar design as the proposed vehicle;

3) Offeror’s test data and artifacts for vehicles with similar configuration and design as the proposed vehicle;

4) Offeror’s test data and artifacts of an analogous vehicle of similar design as the proposed vehicle;

5) Modeling, simulation, and analysis of the proposed vehicle.

M.3.2.2 Manufacturing Capability Factor

This factor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s overall manufacturing capability approach. The information submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to assess:

1) The Offeror’s current MRL.

2) The Offeror’s maturity plan i.e. the maturity plan is executable within time and resources allocated to achieve MRL 8 by Milestone C.

3) The Offeror’s manufacturing schedules for EMD, LRIP and FRP.

4) The Offeror’s plan to manufacture in CONUS.

In addition to the information submitted by the Offeror, the Government will conduct manufacturing site visits during source selection.

Energy

The Government will rate the energy factor using the combined adjectival/risk ratings identified in Table 3 below. Narrative descriptions of the evaluation findings will accompany the adjectival and risk designations.

Table 3: Combined Adjectival/Risk Ratings for the Energy Factor

M.4.1 Evaluation of the Energy Factor

This factor will be used to evaluate the Offeror’s overall approach to energy efficiencies, promote waste reduction, source reduction, and maximum practicable recovered material content.

Evaluation of the Small Business Utilization & Subcontract Management Factor

The Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated against the DoD Small Business goals as defined in L.19. The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent of participation of small business concerns in performance of this contract opportunity. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s utilization of small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran-owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women-owned small business concerns.

The Offeror shall be evaluated on the adequacy of its subcontract management and control in the performance of this contract.

Table 4: Adjectival Ratings for the Small Business Utilization & Subcontract Management Factor

Table 5: Risk Ratings for the Small Business Utilization & Subcontract Management Factor

Past Performance Evaluation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror past performance to determine: (1) how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror (or its key teaming partners) is to this effort; and (2) how well the Offeror performed on previous efforts. Relevancy includes similarity of the past performance to this effort in terms of:

1. Complexity: The relevancy of complexity will be measured against the number and comparable complexity of the systems described in the past performance references. If the systems being integrated do not have comparable hardware interface challenges to those of an amphibious combat vehicles, they will be deemed less than “very relevant.”

1. Dollar Value: Relevancy will be based on the order of magnitude of the performance sample dollar amount when compared to the ACV effort.

1. Period of Performance: Any contract with a Period of Performance less than 24 months will be deemed less than “very relevant.”

With respect to relevancy, more relevant past performance is considered a stronger predictor of future success and will have more influence on the Government’s past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. Past performance relevancy ratings are:

Performance includes, among other aspects, assessing the quality of the delivered work in terms of:

1) Record of conforming to contract quality requirements, cost control requirements and standards of good workmanship.

2) Adherence to contract delivery schedules, including the administrative aspects of performance.

The Government may, at its discretion, obtain and evaluate past performance information from sources other than those provided by the Offeror. Offerors that do not have a record of relevant past performance will receive a neutral rating.

The Government will rate the Past Performance Factor using the below adjectival ratings:

The SSEB will evaluate the above information and may consider other past performance information (e.g. Contractor Performance Assessment Reviews (CPARs), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Past Performance Questionnaires, etc.) to determine an Offeror ability to successfully perform the requirements of the contract.

Cost/Price Evaluation

M.7.1 Reasonableness Analysis

The Government will perform a price reasonableness analysis on the prices proposed for the following Firm Fixed Priced (FFP) CLINs:

0001-0003, 0013, 0015, 0016, and Option CLINs 0018, 1002, 1008, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018, 3002, 3003, 3005, 3008, 3009, 3011, 3013, 4002-4012, 5002-5012, 6002-6012.

M.7.2 Realism/Reasonableness Analysis

The Government will perform a cost realism/reasonableness analysis on the costs proposed for the following Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs:

0008-0012, 0014 and Option CLINs 0017, 1003-1007, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 3004, 3006, 3007, 3010, 3012.

M.7.3 Most Probable Cost Analysis

The Government will perform a most probable cost analysis on the following Fixed Price Incentive (FPI) CLINs:

0004-0007

A Most Probable cost will be developed and considered in the total evaluated price.

M.7.3 Total Evaluated Price

The total evaluated price is defined as the sum of the following:

a. The total of the proposed prices for FFP CLINs and the total of the Most Probable Costs for CPFF and FPIF CLINs. The CPFF CLINs which will be evaluated for Most Probable Cost are 0008-0012, 0014 and Option CLINs 0017, 1003-1007, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2015, 2017, 3004, 3006, 3007, 3010, 3012. The FPIF CLINs which will be evaluatd for Most Probably Cost are 0004-0007. The FFP CLINs which will be evaluated at proposed price are CLINs 0001-0003, 0013, 0015, 0016 and Option CLINs 0018, 1002, 1008, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2016, 2018, 3002, 3003, 3005, 3008, 3009, 3011, 3013, 4002-4012, 5002-5012, 6002-6012.

a. For the FPIF CLINs, the Government will evaluate the proposal at the Target Price.

b. For evaluation purposes of CPFF CLINs, the dollar amount proposed for Fixed Fee will be added to the Most Probable Cost developed by the Government, and will not be adjusted for realism.

c. The NTE amounts for FRP Option CLINs 4002-6012.

d. Adjustments will be made for all Government incurred costs associated with accomplishing the Offeror’s proposed program, including the use of Government Facilities and Government furnished Property, except where costs are equal among Offerors.

image2.emf image3.emf image4.emf image5.emf image1.emf