Draft_LEP_Section_M_-_Final_Draft.docx

SECTION M – Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1 EVALUATIONFACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

The Government expects to select one Offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. "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. Offerors are advised that proposals meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest cost/price may not be selected for an award if award to a higher-priced Offeror is determined to be more beneficial to the Government. However, the perceived benefits of the higher-priced proposal must merit the additional cost/price.

1.1 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Government intends to evaluate each proposal and award a contract without discussions to the responsible Offeror whose offer, conforming to the solicitation, provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government, all factors considered. Therefore, the Offerors is cautioned that its initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical, past performance, and cost/price standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. When a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. The Government may use information other than that provided by the Offeror in its evaluation, including past performance information and the results of questionnaires or site surveys.

All proposals 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. The Government may consider any exception or deviation to any term or condition of the RFP that is not expressly authorized by the RFP to be a deficiency, as defined in FAR 15.001. Additionally, any approach that relies on Government resources or operations (e.g. Government Furnished Property, Government Furnished Equipment, Government personnel/actions, Government Concept of Operation changes, etc) in order to comply with a requirement, unless otherwise allowed, may be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

1.2 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors, which are listed below. The factors listed below are in descending order of importance. All evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Technical Past Performance Cost/Price The proposal must demonstrate to the Government’s satisfaction that the Offeror will provide a program that will ensure the successful accomplishment of the solicitation requirements and overall program objectives. Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate. In addition, the Offeror’s technical proposal will be reviewed to determine if it is consistent with the cost/price proposal where applicable, and reflects a clear understanding of the scope of work necessary to meet the solicitation requirements.

For the Technical factor, a Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating will be assigned. The Technical Rating and Risk Rating relate the assessment of the Offeror’s technical solution.

The Technical Rating is an assessment of compliance with the solicitation requirements and merit which considers the benefits and detriments related to program performance and operations. The degree of benefit to the Government associated with a strength(s) will be considered in determining whether the Offeror’s approach and understanding of requirements rises to a level of being thorough or exceptional. The Technical Risk Rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increase in costs, degradation of performance, the need to increase Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Appreciably exceeding requirements that are expressed as a minimum or threshold requirement can potentially produce performance or operational benefits. Beyond the point where there is no additional performance or operational benefit, risk reduction may be assessed. Additionally, a proposal that provides the Government with a capability, service or resource that is not specifically required, but benefits the Government can have merit if it appreciably enhances performance and/or operations to benefit the Government.

Failure to address part or parts of the technical factor caused by a lack of information may be assessed as a significant weakness or multiple significant weaknesses. A combination of significant weaknesses that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level may be considered a deficiency.

A technical sub-factor assessed to have a “Marginal” or “Unacceptable” Technical Rating or “High” Technical Risk Rating may have a disproportionate impact on the overall Technical Rating or Technical Risk Rating even if it is the least important sub-factor. Any sub-factor that contains a deficiency, resulting in an “Unacceptable” Technical Rating, or that has a “High” Technical Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

For the Past Performance factor, a separate Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will be assigned. This assessment will address the Government’s level of confidence in the Offeror’s ability to successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s (including subcontractors’ and/or JV team members’) relevant past performance and systemic improvement. In the case of an Offeror without a record of past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror will receive a rating of “Neutral Confidence”. Under Past Performance, the Government will evaluate how well an Offeror has performed similar work before. As such, the term “performance record” in the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating definition is referring to the records that indicate how well the Offeror has performed on relevant work (e.g., CPARs, and questionnaires). When proposals are received from contractor entities specifically formed to propose on a particular acquisition (e.g. teams, joint ventures), the past performance evaluation will consider each individual team member.

The Government will evaluate the proposal to determine the Offeror's understanding of, approach to and ability to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess the Offeror’s Technical Proposal with respect to its compliance with the solicitation requirements and the risk associated with the Offerors approach.

The following Subfactors are in descending order of importance.

1) Design Approach - The Government will evaluate and assess the Offeror’s overall technical ability to meet the requirements of this solicitation (i.e., e Performance Specification), as well as its approach to weight, threat- protection, self-protection, physical compatibility, visual compatibility, photopic luminous transmission (PLT) and chromaticity requirements. The Government will also evaluate and asses the Offeror’s ability to meet the technology maturity requirements defined in the SOW using the Offeror’s technology maturity self-assessment.

Emphasis will be placed on PLT, chromaticity and weight. PLT is more important than weight. Chromaticity is more important than weight. PLT and chromaticity are equally important.

a. The Government will assign a strength for proposals with PLT greater than or equal to 55%.

b. The Government will assign a strength for proposals with chromaticity coordinates distance from neutral less than or equal to 0.083.

c. The Government will assign a strength for proposals with spectacle weights less than or equal to 28.0 grams.

2) Schedule – The Government will perform an independent assessment of the Offeror’s Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and supporting data. The IMS will be assessed to determine the extent to which it can perform the work required by the solicitation on schedule and within proposed cost.

The evaluation will include an assessment of the Offeror’s schedule and manpower resources to perform this effort and the realism of the Offeror’s schedule to achieve Initial Operational Capability (IOC) by 1st Quarter FY2022.

The Offeror's strategy for utilizing Small Business, Veteran-Owned Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business and Women-Owned Small Business as well as its consistency with the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated. Additionally, any proposed small disadvantaged business goals will be evaluated.

2.2 PAST PERFORMANCE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s, and (if applicable) its principal and critical subcontractors’ and JV team members’ demonstrated past performance in delivering quality products and services similar to the solicitation requirements for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) and Full Rate Production (FRP) in each of the following areas: 1) meeting technical requirements, 2) meeting schedule requirements, 3) controlling contract cost, 4) managing the contracted effort on similar programs, and 5) Small Business Utilization. The relevance (which includes recency) of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in the Offeror’s performance will be considered.

Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems will be evaluated.

2.3 COST/PRICE

Each Offeror’s proposal for the LEP contract costs shall be evaluated to determine if it is consistent with respect to the Offeror’s technical approach, reflects a clear understanding of the solicitation requirements and contains no material imbalances.

The CPFF CLIN (0001) for the LEP contract will be evaluated for realism and completeness. For CPFF CLINs, costs (i.e., labor, material, rates, escalation, and any other predictable costs of performance) which do not reflect the most probable cost at contract completion will be adjusted. A proposal that is neither realistic nor justified may result in a higher most probable cost. The Offeror’s proposed NRE costs may be adjusted for the purpose of the evaluation based on the results of the technical evaluation to include program schedule analysis.

The FFP CLINs/SLINs (0002, 0002AA, 0002AB, 0003, 0004, 0004AA, 0004AB, 0005, 0006, 0101-0106, 0106AA, 0106AB, 0201-0203) will be evaluated for reasonableness. Also, the FFP CLINs/SLINs (0002, 0002AA, 0002AB, 0003, 0004, 0004AA, 0004AB, 0005, 0006, 0101-0106, 0106AA, 0106AB, and 0201-0203) will be evaluated for realism by determining consistency between the Technical and Cost/Price proposals and the proposed prices will not be adjusted.

The proposed Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) will be used to identify all program costs in the LEP contract proposal. For evaluation purposes, the Government will upwardly adjust the Offeror’s cost/price to include all Government incurred costs associated with accomplishing the Offeror’s proposed program, including the use of Government Furnished Equipment / Property / Facilities / Information (GFE/P/F/I), except where costs are equal among Offerors.

The Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEC/P) is defined as the sum of the following:

Reasonableness (excerpted from FAR 31.201-3) Comment by Smith, Monica A CIV NAVAIR 4.2.1: These definitions are for the “Other Evaluations Definition” Table in Section M.

Make sure this title is NOT “Cost Reasonableness” A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. What is reasonable depends upon a variety of considerations and circumstances, including:

(1) Whether it is the type of cost generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the work to be performed;

(2) The contractor's responsibilities to the Government.

(1) Are realistic for the work to be performed;

(2) Reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and

(3) Are consistent with the various elements of the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The Technical rating assignments reflect the Government's assessment of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

3.1.2 Risk Assessment Definitions

The risk assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

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.

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.

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.

weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

3.2 Relevancy Ratings

Past Performance Relevancy Rating: Rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of what is recent and relevant for this acquisition based on the Offeror’s contract history.

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.

Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

For the Past Performance factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment rating assignments reflect the Government’s confidence that the Offeror will successfully perform the solicitation’s requirements based on the Offeror’s relevant past performance and systemic improvement.

***Source Selection Information – See FAR 2.101 and 3.104*** Draft for official use only-Source Selection Information-See FAR 2.101 and 3.104. This information may not be cited, reproduced or distributed without permission from NAVAIR PMA202.