190415_-_PC_Gen_III_Soft_Armor_Section_M.DOCX

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M

Section M

M.1 EVALUATION

Prior to evaluation, all proposals will be reviewed for compliance with the terms and conditions related to the submission instructions in Section L. The Government will first evaluate compliant proposals based on the Go/No Go Criteria. Offerors must meet the Go/No Go criteria before the Government conducts a tradeoff evaluation of their proposal. Offers failing to meet the Go/No Go criteria will not be further evaluated, and therefore, not eligible for award. Proposals with a “GO’ will move on to the tradeoff evaluation phase.

GO/NO GO CRITERIA

Offerors shall provide Source Selection samples in accordance with Table 1. Offerors that do not provide the required source selection samples will receive a “NO GO”, and the proposal will receive no further evaluation.

Table 1: Source Selection Samples

M.2 BASIS FOR AWARD

This acquisition uses best value tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1. The Marine Corps System Command (MARCORSYSCOM) will award one, 60-month (consisting of one five-year ordering period), FFP, IDIQ contract for the PC Gen III Soft Armor to an Offeror whose proposal (1) complies with the solicitation’s terms and conditions, (2) meets or exceeds the solicitation’s requirements, and (3) is the most advantageous to the Government based upon the Government’s assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors. When making the best value determination, the Government will evaluate offers using the following factors and subfactors:

Table 2: Evaluation Factors

The Government will evaluate requirements without a monetized or defined value based on the relative importance to other factors. The Subfactors under Factor 1 are listed in descending order of importance. Technical Performance is equal to price. The importance of price as a factor in the final award determination will increase with the degree of equality in the non-price factors of the proposal. The Government will evaluate Past Performance and Small Business Participation as either “acceptable” or “unacceptable.”

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award on an “initial offer” without discussions. If discussions are necessary, the Government will establish a competitive range and notify all Offerors of their inclusion or exclusion. The Government will hold discussions with Offerors in the competitive range and also notify Offerors eliminated from the competitive range in writing in accordance with FAR 15.503.

The Government will use the following tables in the evaluation of Factor 1 and assess deficiencies, strengths, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses for the Subfactors under Factor 1. The Government will not rate the Subfactors. The Government will render a consensus rating at the factor level (i.e., Technical Performance). Subfactors under Factor 1 will not be separately rated but strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies will be assessed.

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Description

DEFINITIONS

1. Deficiency: 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.

2. Strength: Any aspect of a proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

3. Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

4. Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

M.3 EVALUATION FACTORS

M.3.1 Factor 1: Technical Performance This factor consists of four subfactors, which are listed below:

M.3.1.1 Subfactor 1: Fragment Ballistic Performance The Government will test Source Selection Sample shoot packs at a National Institute of Justice certified test facility to determine the Offeror’s ability to meet the following fragment ballistic PC Gen III Soft Armor Performance Specification (PRF-19001A0004) requirements:

Table 4: Ballistic Tests

The extent of testing may depend on available funding. Although the Government intends to test all of the above requirements, it reserves the right to cancel any or all of the above tests.

Ballistic testing will be performed at the following NIJ certified test facility:

TBD

M.3.1.2 Subfactor 2: Design and Workmanship The Government will evaluate two soft armor inserts of each type and size (16 base vest inserts, 4 side plate pocket inserts, and 6 cummerbund inserts) using Table X in Paragraph 4.6.3 and the criteria described in paragraphs 4.6.1, 4.6.2, 4.7.4 and 4.7.5 of the PC Gen III Soft Armor Performance Specification (PRF-19001A0004) assessing whether any of the defects outlined in the aforementioned table or paragraphs exist for each individual insert and calculating a defect rate for each defect.

Table 5: Design Criteria

M.3.1.3 Subfactor 3: Pistol Ballistic Performance The Government will test Source Selection Sample shoot packs at a National Institute of Justice certified test facility to determine the Offeror’s ability to meet the following pistol ballistic PC Gen III Soft Armor Performance Specification (PRF-19001A0004) requirements:

The extent of testing may depend on available funding. Although the Government intends to test all of the above requirements, it reserves the right to cancel any or all of the above tests.

Ballistic testing will be performed at the following NIJ certified test facility:

TBD

M.3.1.4 Subfactor 4: Areal Density The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s source selection samples meet the Government’s areal density requirements. The proposal shall include five unsewn 15”x15” shoot packs representative of the finished soft armor design. The shoot packs will be examined by technical representatives and the areal density calculated in accordance with Paragraph 4.7.1 of the PC Gen III Soft Armor Performance Specification (PRF-19001A0004).

Table 7: Areal Density Requirement and Verification

M.3.1.5 Subfactor 5: Manufacturing The Government will use the information Offerors submit in response to Section L, Paragraph 3.2.2.4. to evaluate the Offeror’s capability to manufacture quality, Berry Amendment compliant products at a rate of at least 6,000 base vest inserts, 6,000 side plate pocket inserts, and 600 cummerbund inserts 120 days after FAT approval. Offerors may assume FAT approval 150 days after contract award. The Government may visit the Offeror’s manufacturing facility to validate Offeror-provided information.

Subsection 27 of the Office of Procurement Policy Act as amended (41 U.S.C. § 423) (hereinafter "the Act"), as implemented in the FAR, protects proprietary information from unauthorized disclosure. For this procurement, the Government will use non-Government support services contractors from TBD to conduct ballistic and non-ballistic tests upon the Source Selection Samples Offerors submit to the Government. TBD contractor personnel are procurement officials within the meaning of the Act and, accordingly, enter into appropriate non-disclosure agreements with the Government. Contractual organizational conflict of interest and non-disclosure clauses also bind these support contractors to safeguard proprietary information in accordance with law and regulation. Additionally, Government personnel will receive the Source Selection Samples at the TBD delivery point to remove or obscure each offeror's identifying information, assign random identifiers to each offeror's samples, and independently verify the test results before submitting the results for technical evaluation. TBD support contractors will not analyze or evaluate any proposal. All Offerors may independently attempt to establish non-disclosure agreements with TBD in their discretion as appropriate.

M.3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance The Government will evaluate proposals to determine whether the Offeror has an acceptable past performance record (including compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and 52.219-9 Small Business Subcontracting Plan) using sources provided by the Offeror and other sources available to the Government. The Government will only evaluate the three most recent citations in cases where Offerors submit more than three past performance citations and will evaluate Government contract past performance citations before non-Government contract past performance citations. To evaluate past performance, the Government will first determine whether each Offeror’s recent efforts are relevant.

Relevant and Not Relevant efforts are defined as follows:

Relevant: Past/present performance efforts with similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities required by this solicitation. For example: helmets, head protective equipment, or protective equipment contracts in similar size or value.

Not Relevant: Past/present performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Contracts completed more than five (5) years prior to the release of the solicitation.

The Government will establish an overall rating per FAR 15.305(a)(2) for the Offeror’s ability to meet the solicitation’s requirements. Table 4 describes the ratings:

Table 8: Past Performance Ratings

The Government will initially evaluate past performance efforts to determine whether the Offeror’s present/past performance is recent, and relevant or not relevant to the solicitation requirements. Second, the Government will evaluation relevant present/past performance to determine how well the Offeror performed on the prior/current contracts.

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 so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance. Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or ‘neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability or unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable”.

M.3.3 Factor 3: SB Participation Plan The Government will evaluate each Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan against the Small Business goals in Section L.3.2.3.1 as follows:

1. Proposals meeting or exceeding the percentage goals in Section L.3.2.4 will receive an acceptable rating.

1. Proposals not meeting or exceeding the goals stated in Section L.3.2.4 will receive an unacceptable rating unless the proposal explains why and describes what the Offeror will do to increase the percentages for performance under contract. Justifications adequately describing valid actions toward increasing percentage goals will receive an acceptable rating.

Table 9: Small Business Participation Plan Ratings

M.3.4 Factor 4: Price

The Government will assess the Offeror for completeness and conduct a price analysis using one or more of the techniques specified in FAR 15.404-1(b) to determine price reasonableness and balanced pricing.

The proposed price for PC Gen III Soft Armor will include production quantities and associated reporting. The total proposed price is the sum of the evaluation quantities for CLINs 0001 through 0014 priced in accordance with Section B Pricing Instructions as follows:

First Article Test (FAT) Materials include:

- 104 15"×15" panels of the proposed ballistic package

- 8 15”x15” unsewn/unfinished panels of the proposed ballistic package

- 32 Finished Base Vest Inserts: 4 XS-S, 4 XS, 4 SM-S, 4 SM-L, 4 SM, 4 MD, 4 LG, 4 XLG,

- 8 Finished Side Plate Pocket Inserts: 4 6x6, 4 6x8

- 12 Cummerbund Inserts: 4 SM, 4 MD, 4 LG

- Twenty (20) feet of all raw non-ballistic materials

Total Proposed Price

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), Price Analysis, the Government will evaluate, but not rate, the price proposals by comparing solicitation prices among the proposals to establish price reasonableness. The Government will only award to an Offeror whose price is fair and reasonable.

A proposal may be unacceptable if the prices are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items and the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price analysis reveals that the Offeror significantly overstated or understated the price of one or more contract line items. Incomplete pricing may also render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.