Draft_Sec_M_N0002419R5519.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government intends 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(s) in response to the requirement. The offeror is advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest 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 price.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

2.1 The Government intends to award a contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value after evaluation, in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to hold discussions; however, award is intended to be based upon the initial offer. Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them necessary. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer 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.

2.2 All proposals will be evaluated for compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in the solicitation. Failure to address each of the areas identified in Section L in the proposal may impact the resulting evaluation ratings and risk assessment. Best value tradeoff analysis will not be performed for any offeror who receives an unacceptable rating for any factor and award will not be made to any offeror whose proposal is deemed unacceptable in any factor. Subjective judgment on the part of the Government evaluators is implicit in the entire process.

2.3 FAR Part 9.103(a) states that purchases shall be made from, and contracts shall be awarded to, responsible contractors only. FAR Part 9.103(b) stipulates that no purchase or award shall be made unless the contracting officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. In making a responsibility determination, the standards at FAR 9.104-1 will be considered. The Contracting Officer reserves the right to request adequate evidence of responsibility on the part of the offeror or any proposed subcontractor; communications with offerors regarding responsibility issues may take place at any time during the proposal evaluation process.

2.4 If an offeror identifies a conflict of interest in accordance with Clause L-209-H009, Organizational Conflict of Interest, mitigation plans shall be submitted as Annex 1 and will be evaluated by the Government. If the proposed mitigation plans are ultimately deemed unacceptable, the offeror will be ineligible for award.

3.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

3.1 The Government intends to award one (1) contract to the responsive and responsible offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government based on consideration of the factors in Section M of this Solicitation.

3.2 The Government intends to select one offeror on the basis of its proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. The award decision will be determined based on the Government’s evaluation of each offeror’ s complete proposal against the evaluation factors identified below. A single award will be made to the offeror whose proposal demonstrates the best overall value to the Government based on the factors described herein. 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 (FAR 2.101).

3.3 The offeror is advised that the proposal meeting the solicitation requirements with the lowest 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 price.

3.4 In making the award determination, the Government is more concerned with superior technical merit based on the non-cost factors at a reasonable cost or price than with making an award to the offeror with the lowest proposed cost/price. Accordingly, the Government may be willing to pay a reasonable premium for a contract offering superior technical merit.

3.5 In order to select the successful offeror, the Government will compare offeror’s proposals. The comparison will trade off differences in technical merit based on the non-cost factors and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). If one offeror has both the better technical merit or capability and the lower TEP, then that offeror will be the better value. If one offeror has the better technical merit or capability and a higher TEP, the Government will decide whether the difference in technical merit/capability is worth the difference in TEP. If it is determined that the difference in technical merit/capability is worth the difference in TEP, then the more capable, higher-priced offeror will be the better value. If not, then the less capable, lower-priced offeror will be the better value. A TEP will not be developed and best value analysis will not be performed for any offerors who are unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any factor and award will not be made to any offeror who is unacceptable or unsatisfactory in any factor.

3.6 In making its best value determination, the Government will consider the relative importance of the factors, as set forth below:

Factor 1: Technical Discriminators (Volumes I and IA) Factor 2: Data Rights (Volume II) Factor 3: Past Performance (Volume III) Factor 4: Technical Approach (Volume I and IA) Factor 5: Management Approach (Volume IV) Factor 6: Total Evaluated Price (Volume V)

Factors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and each is more important than Factor 3. Factors 4 and 5 are rated Acceptable/Unacceptable. When combined, Factors 1-5 are more important than Factor 6: TEP, but, as competing proposals approach equality in the non-cost factors, TEP will increase in importance.

4.1 FACTOR 1: TECHICAL DISCRIMINATORS (Volumes I and IA)

The Navy will evaluate the merits of the offeror’s proposed technical approach in the following discrete areas on an adjectival basis, while evaluating the majority of the offeror’s proposed technical approach under Factor 4, which is rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis.

4.1.1 Antenna Manufacturing Process

Although the Navy will evaluate the rest of the offeror’s proposed manufacturing processes and production experience under Factor 4, the Navy will use Factor 1 to evaluate the merits of the offeror’s proposed solid-state manufacturing processes and its demonstrated experience using these proposed solid-state manufacturing processes in programs with antennas of similar scope and complexity to the AN/SLQ-32(V)7.

4.1.2 Proposed Changes to the Technical Data Package for the Hemisphere Configuration Although the Navy will evaluate the offeror’s TDP compliance under Factor 4, the Navy will evaluate any proposed changes to the TDP (Attachment J2) for the Hemisphere Configuration under Factor 1. Specifically, for CLINs [2000 series non-2X50s], the Navy will evaluate all proposed items not currently listed in the TDP by specific part number to confirm that they meet or exceed the form, fit, and function requirements of the TDP. The offeror alone bears the burden of submitting sufficient measured data to demonstrate that its proposed non-TDP item(s) meet(s) or exceeds the form, fit, and function requirements of the TDP. Failure to provide sufficient measured data to demonstrate that a proposed non-TDP item meets the form, fit, and function requirements of the TDP may result in an unfavorable evaluation finding.

The Navy desires to minimize the amount of hardware changes to the current TDP for the Hemisphere Configuration.

4.1.3 System Integration

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its demonstrated experience integrating complex RF systems, including updating integration processes and procedures. The Government strongly desires live RF testing of the fully-integrated AN/SLQ-32(V)7 system prior to delivery. Note: With the exception of the level of testing the offeror proposes for the fully-integrated system, the Government intends to evaluate the offeror’s proposed integration approach and processes under Factor 4.

4.1.4 Quadrant Configuration Design Hardware Modification

The Navy will evaluate the merits of the offeror’s proposed Quadrant Configuration hardware modification design and development approach under CLIN 2040. The Navy will evaluate whether the offeror has demonstrated that its proposed design meets or exceeds the existing system requirements in the Government’s System Scope Document (SSD) provided as GFI in Attachment J-2. The Navy will evaluate whether the offeror has demonstrated an accurate and complete understanding of the operational performance and support requirements in the Government’s System Scope Document (SSD). The Navy will also evaluate the offeror’s proposed interface requirements with respect to system external interfaces and platform constraints. The Navy will also evaluate the degree to which the offeror’s proposed design would use common hardware with the current TDP. The Navy strongly desires a Quadrant Configuration design that shares common hardware with the current TDP to the maximum extent practicable.

4.2 FACTOR 2: DATA RIGHTS (Volume II)

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated and rated on an adjectival basis using the Data Rights Adjectival Rating.

4.2.1 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the offeror’s and subcontractor’s approach to provide sufficient data rights to all technical data and intellectual property deliverables. This includes hardware and hardware interfaces in order to support an open architecture for the system. The Government will utilize the offeror’s Data Rights assertion to evaluate the degree to which the Government can adequately sustain the end item deliverables over their lifecycle. Hardware items, including LRUs and lower level maintenance significant items with limitations on Government use may result in an evaluation finding of increased technical risk.

4.3 FACTOR 3: PAST PERFORMANCE (Volume III)

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated and rated on an adjectival basis using the Past Performance Relevancy Rating and Performance Confidence Assessments Rating.

4.3.1 The Government will evaluate offeror's past performance over the past five (5) years for relevance, which is considered to be whether the prior contracting effort cited is similar to the size, scope, and technical complexity of this effort. It is the responsibility of the offeror to relate past performance to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Government will consider the relevance of past performance information obtained in relation to the scope of this procurement. Past performance, either positive or negative, which is considered by the Government to be more closely related to the scope of this effort, will be given additional weight in the evaluation process.

4.3.2 Offerors are advised that 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 including, but not limited to, Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) and Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government may research offeror performance on any Federal, State, local, and commercial procurement that is known to the Government, but not included on a submitted reference.

4.3.3 In evaluating the Past Performance, the Government evaluation will include:

Quality of Product or Service. The degree to which the products or services provided met the requirements of the contract and the degree to which they were similar to this solicitation.

Delivery/Completion Schedule. The extent to which the offeror satisfied customer requirement for contract completion in accordance with agreed upon schedule.

Cost Control. The extent to which the offeror provided contract services at or below their initially proposed costs while maintaining customer desired level of quality and delivery, and limit direct and indirect cost growth.

Any other information pertaining to the offeror’s past performance, including customer questionnaires.

4.3.4 The past performance evaluation results in a confidence assessment rating of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance.

4.4 FACTOR 4: TECHNICAL APPROACH (Volumes I & IA)

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated and rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis using the Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating method.

Under this factor, the Navy will evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal will satisfy the production requirements of this solicitation. The Navy will evaluate the offeror’s ability to produce and make on-time deliveries of systems in accordance with the Technical Data Package (TDP). As such, the Navy will evaluate the offeror’s proposed manufacturing processes, inspection, component level testing, and production acceptance testing. The Navy will also evaluate whether the offeror’s proposal demonstrated understanding of all aspects of the technical data contained in the solicitation and an ability to apply that understanding to meet the production requirements.

The Navy will evaluate the offeror’s approach to acquisition of system material, material control, and approach to monitoring delivery status of material previously ordered. The Navy will evaluate the offeror’s plans and processes to ensure complete compliance with the specifications and data contained in this solicitation, including the TDP provided as GFI, prior to acquiring material and prior to release of material for manufacturing.

The Navy will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated ability to perform configuration management, including engineering changes and variances. The Navy will also evaluate the offeror’s ability to understand and solve technical issues related to this effort and the offeror’s ability to modify the TDP to produce additional configurations of the Block 3 EA Subsystem.

The Navy will evaluate whether the offeror has demonstrated substantial experience in the production of systems of similar or greater complexity than the Block 3 EA Subsystem, including the technologies listed in Section L 2.7.1.1.3.

The Navy will evaluate the offeror’s ability to execute First Article Qualification Testing (FAQT) and Factory Acceptance Testing (FAT) in accordance with the Government furnished testing plans and procedures to ensure production units comply with the configuration and functional requirements specified in the solicitation. The Navy will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of all aspects of associated plans and procedures as set forth in its proposal.

The Navy will also evaluate whether the offeror has proposed an adequate technical approach to the integration requirements under SOW 1.4. The Navy also will evaluate whether the offeror has demonstrated an adequate understanding that under the Integration CLINs [4200, 4300, 4350, 4400, 4450, 4500, 4550, 4600, and 4650], the awardee must integrating EA Subsystem components produced under this contract with GFM AN/SLQ-32(V)6 components to deliver a complete and fully-integrated AN/SLQ-32(V)7 system.

The Navy will evaluate whether the offeror has adequate physical asset capacity and capability to produce, integrate, and test within the total quantity limits identified in Section B of this solicitation. As such, the Navy will evaluate the offeror’s demonstrated ability to provide facilities to adequately fulfill production throughput and schedule requirements in accordance with Section F of this solicitation. Production and schedule requirements shall assume maximum quantities per year. The Navy will also evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to updating the production line and processes for feasibility and schedule impact.

Pre-award site surveys may be used to help evaluate this factor. offerors will be evaluated on availability of adequate space for production, manufacturing, testing, and delivery of EA Subsystems in accordance with this solicitation.

offerors will be evaluated on physical assets, production equipment, and test equipment to determine whether the offeror has the capacity to meet the requirements of the solicitation.

4.5 FACTOR 5: MANAGEMENT APPROACH (Volume IV)

The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated and rated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable basis using the Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating method.

4.5.1 The proposal will be evaluated on its ability to demonstrate successful management of a production program of similar scope and complexity. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its approach to: maintaining project schedule, operating within approved budgets, meeting project milestones, early notification of potential problems, utilizing management metrics to track progress and trends, providing deliverables on-time, and maintaining ongoing operations in an effective manner. Lack of a proposed Program Manager will deem the offeror’s proposal as unacceptable.

4.5.1.1 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its ability to ensure schedule delivery requirements of the solicitation are met per Section F of the solicitation, as well as First Article Qualification Testing (FAQT) requirements as defined in the Statement of Work. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated through review of a proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS)—on its ability to meet schedule, management activities, and delivery requirements. A direct and traceable correlation should exist between events in the IMS, SOW, and WBS. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its ability to demonstrate within its Project Management Plan the production and manufacturing capabilities necessary to meet the Government quality and schedule requirements.

4.5.1.2 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its ability to successfully manage the Quadrant hardware design modification efforts and successful execution of the required SETR events are achieved per Section 1.1.2.2. The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its ability to demonstrate the requirements and design updates necessary to meet all the SSD requirements for a Quadrant configuration solution.

4.5.1.3 The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on its approach and extent of meeting DOD’s subcontracting participation goals for Small Business, HUBZone Small Business, Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business and Women-Owned Small Business concerns.

4.6 FACTOR 6: TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE (Volume V)

If adequate competition is received, the Government will only perform a price analysis to the extent that it is required, in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(1). If, after receipt of a proposal, the PCO determines that adequate price competition does not exist and a determination is made that none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1(b) apply, the offeror may be required to provide certified cost and pricing data in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

4.6.1 Prospective offerors are forewarned that if there are discrepancies between Section B, the cost/price proposal, and the Volume I Narrative, Section B prevails.

4.6.2 The Government will not conduct any cost or price realism in this procurement. The Government will evaluate all FPIF CLINs at ceiling for the applicable evaluated stepladder quantities.

4.6.3 The Government will arrive at a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror by utilizing the methodology described below:

The Government will add together the price at the evaluated quantities for the following CLINs:

CLIN 2251 and 9800 are not utilized in calculating the TEP. For the purposes of calculating the TEP, no schedule incentive for CLIN 2040 will be assumed. The pricing for stepladder quantity CLINs will be the product of a randomly selected evaluated quantity for each CLIN and the unit price associated with the randomly selected quantity for that CLIN.

Example:

Evaluated Quantity = 2 Step-ladder Quantity * Price = Total

1 – 5 * $1,500 = $3,000 6 – 10 * $1,200 = $0

11 – 12 * $1,000 = $0 Total: $3,000

Offerors should note that price breaks given for each stepladder within a CLIN are to apply to all units within that and lower quantity stepladders.

4.6.4. RESERVED

4.6.5 RESERVED

4.6.6 FAR 52.215-1(f)(8) applies here, and states The Government may determine that a proposal is unacceptable if the prices proposed are materially unbalanced between line items or subline items. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.6.7 Evaluation of the options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option. Total evaluated price to the Government is an offeror's evaluated price only. This evaluated price will be used in making an award determination.

4.6.8 Offerors are hereby advised the evaluated quantity in no way restricts the Government as to the number of units it may order under each line item. It is used solely for evaluation purposes. The Government reserves the right to order any quantity within a stepladder subject to the 1) availability of funding at time of initial award or option exercise and 2) in accordance with the Section B Note A –Option Exercise.

4.7 RATINGS DEFINITIONS

4.7.1 The Government will use the following adjectival ratings/definitions for evaluating Factor 1: Technical Discriminators and Factor 2: Data Rights.

Table 1 Adjectival Rating Standards for Combined Technical/Risk Rating

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

Purple 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.

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

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

Red 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 not awardable.

i. Strengths – 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 performance.

ii. Significant Strength - an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance,

iii. Weaknesses – a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001).

iv. Significant Weakness – a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance (Per FAR part 15.001).

v. 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 (Per FAR part 15.001).

4.7.2 The Government will use the following adjectival ratings/definitions for evaluating Factor 3: Past Performance.

Table 2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

Table 3 Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.

4.7.3 The Government will use the following Acceptable/Unacceptable ratings/definitions for evaluating Factor 4:

Technical Approach and Factor 5: Management Approach.

Evaluation Determination Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY FULL TEXT

M-215-H003 EVALUATION OF PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE PROCESS INITIATIVE (NAVSEA)

(OCT 2018)

Previously approved Single Process Initiative (SPI) processes will be evaluated under the source selection criteria of the RFP. If the successful offeror has previously approved SPI processes in the proposal, those SPI processes will be incorporated into the contract upon award.

(End of provision)

M-215-H004 BASIS OF AWARD (NAVSEA) (DEC 2018)

ALL UNITS OF ALL ITEMS WILL BE AWARDED TO ONE OFFEROR. OFFERS, THEREFORE, MUST BE ON THE BASIS OF FURNISHING ALL UNITS OF ALL ITEMS TO THE SPECIFICATION(S) DETAILED IN

THIS SOLICITATION.

M-247-H001 F.O.B. EVALUATION CRITERIA (NAVSEA) (DEC 2018)

OFFERS SUBMITTED ON AN F.O.B. BASIS OTHER THAN THAT SPECIFIED IN SECTION F SHALL BE

REJECTED AS UNACCEPTABLE.