Accelerator_X-Ray_Imaging_and_Control_System_-_SSP_rev_1_Filled_in_LPTA.docx

Source Selection Plan for Accelerator X-Ray Imaging and Control System

A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

This Source Selection Plan (SSP) sets forth policies and procedures governing the source selection process for solicitation/Request for Proposal (RFQ) N00174-19-R-0167XXXX.

The purpose of this acquisition is to determine the “Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA)” Offeror to provide Accelerator X-Ray Imaging and Control System required by NSWC IHEODTD, Indian Head, MD.

B. ACQUISITION STRATEGY AND SCHEDULE

The procurement is being conducted on a best value basis utilizing lowest price technically acceptable (LPTA) process. As a result of this solicitation, the Government intends to award a firm fixed priced contract on initial offers and without holding discussions, but reserves the right to hold discussions at the Government's discretion. Offerors are required to follow the specific instructions in submitting their information. Failure to do so may result in the Offeror's submission determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Each Offeror's submission shall be screened by the Contracting Officer or a designee upon receipt to ensure compliance with the instructions contained in the RFQ. Elimination of an Offeror is at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

The purpose of this SSP is to clearly identify the manner in which this evaluation will be conducted, the Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) Chairperson and the Request for Proposal (RFQ) evaluation criteria and procedures. The SSP also defines how the SSEB Chairperson interacts with the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and other members of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Indian Head Division (NSWC IHD) Procurement Division (hereafter referred to as Code 02). The evaluation of proposals will be conducted in accordance with the RFQ.

In accordance with DFAR PGI 215.303(c)(4), a milestones checklist is attached.

C. IDENTIFICATION AND DUTIES OF SOURCE SELECTION TEAM (SST)

The Source Selection Team will consist of the following:

C.1 SOURCE SELECTION AUTHORITY

The PCO will serve as the Source Selection Authority.

C.2 EVALUATION PANEL CHAIRPERSON

The duties and responsibilities of the SSEB Chairperson are to oversee and coordinate the evaluation of the offer/quote, ensure the SSEB follows the guidelines established in this SSP, and ensure the evaluation is conducted in a fair manner. Specifically, the SSEB Chairperson will do the following:

a. Immediately notify the PCO of any relationships (family, business, etc.), between any member of the SSEB and an employee of an Offeror (prime or subcontractor), which may present an actual or apparent conflict of interest.

b. Ensure SSEB members perform the evaluation in accordance with the procedures contained herein.

c. Ensure individual SSEB members support the ratings assigned with concise narratives.

d. Promptly notify the PCO of any requirements for clarifications from Offerors.

e. Refer any inquiry concerning the evaluation by persons outside the source selection process to the PCO.

f. Provide a consolidated technical evaluation report that clearly and concisely describes the results of the evaluation of each Offeror's technical quote. The technical evaluation report must include a detailed analysis of each technical sub factor for each Offeror's quote. If the PCO requires a recommendation, the SSEB Chairperson shall provide a written award recommendation to the PCO summarizing the Technical, Past Performance and Price evaluations that lead to the recommendation.

g. Participate in debriefing of Offerors if requested by the PCO.

C.3 SOURCE SELECTION EVALUATION BOARD (SSEB) MEMBERS

The duties and responsibilities of the members of the SSEB are as follows:

a. Perform the evaluation in accordance with the RFQ.

b. Ensure that the offers/quotes are safeguarded against unauthorized disclosure.

c. Evaluate the offer/quote using the evaluation criteria established in the RFQ. Each offer/quote must be individually evaluated against each evaluation criteria discussed in the RFQ.

d. There shall be no communication with the Offerors. All questions shall be directed to the SSEB Chairperson, who should direct the questions to the PCO, as applicable.

e. Ensure consistency in the rating methodology to assure a thorough and fair evaluation by adhering to the following:

· Support the ratings assigned with a detailed narrative that fully supports the rating assigned. Each subfactor must be addressed in the narrative.

f. All final ratings and supporting narratives shall be delivered to the SSEB Chairperson and any proprietary information that is printed out shall be destroyed at the conclusion of the evaluation

C.4 OTHER

a. The PCO is Jodi Fields, INSERT CONTRACT SPECIALIST NAME Code 024. In addition, the Contract Specialist, Jodi FieldsINSERT CONTRACT SPECIALIST NAME, Code 024, will serve the PCO in an advisory capacity and will perform the Past Performance and Price evaluations.

b. The Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technology Division (NSWC IHEODTD) Peer Review Board (PRB), when applicable shall review information from the final evaluation report that is included in the business clearance and may recommend revisions to the SSEB Chairperson and the SSA.

D. PROCEDURES

D.1 PHYSICAL RESOURCES

The efforts of the SSEB members (technical, price and past performance team) will be conducted concurrently. In determining Past Performance Relevancy, the Specialist shall consult with the other members of the SSEB. The PCO may consult the technical evaluation team to assist in determining the past performance relevancy. The PCO will make the determination of the rating each Offeror receives for Past Performance. The evaluation groups shall not discuss any information related to the price quote and its evaluation until technical evaluations are complete. The SSEB Chairperson shall assist the Specialist in the examination of Price quotes to determine if the price is fair and reasonable, IF requested by the PCO.

D.2 UNAUTHORIZED DISCLOSURE

All members of the Source Selection Team shall be briefed regarding unauthorized disclosure of contractor bid and quote information, as well as source selection information. All team members must comply with applicable standards of conduct and execute a “Conflict of Interest Statement and Non-Disclosure Statement” and return it to the PCO prior to the start of the quote evaluation. If at any time during the evaluation process it should be found that there has been an unauthorized disclosure or release of source selection information, privileged or proprietary information, the matter will be brought to the attention of the PCO and a full investigation will be conducted by proper authorities.

D.3 COMMUNICATIONS

The technical evaluation team, past performance team and price evaluations shall be conducted separately. Communications are allowed between the past performance and technical teams to determine past performance relevancy. The price quote information shall not be disclosed to the technical evaluators or the Chairperson until after the PCO has reviewed the final technical evaluations. All documents generated including emails as a result of the source selection evaluation shall be marked as “Source Selection Information - See FAR 2.101 and 3.104” to ensure the information is protected.

D.4. REVIEW

All evaluation records and narratives shall be reviewed by the SSA/PCO, Legal Counsel and the SSEB chair for completeness and compliance with the RFQ.

E. SOURCE SELECTION METHODOLOGY

E.1 SECTION L – PROPOSAL REQUESTS/INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS (Offerors are required to submit proposals in accordance with Section L of this RFQ. Section L is Attachment (1)).

E.2 SECTION M - EVALUATION AND BASIS FOR AWARD (The source selection methodology shall be in accordance with Section M of the RFQ. Section M is Attachment (2)).

The following format shall be used to document the Offeror’s submission’s compliance with the RFQ Instructions and Requirements.

OFFEROR SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE FORM

SOLICITATION INFORMATION CHECKLIST

SOLICITATION #: N00174-19-R-0167Q-XXXX

OFFEROR SUBMISSION

Cover Letter

Compliant:________________

Non-Compliant:____________

_____ A statement that the Offeror consents, meets and agrees with all terms, conditions, and special requirements and provisions included in the solicitation.

NOTE: Offerors must meet all of the following requirements at time of proposal submission; or provide with its cover letter an acceptable plan to meet the requirements by the start date of contract performance.

Comments:

OFFEROR SUBMISSION COMPLIANCE

E. 3 PAST PERFORMANCE

PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION FORM

SOLICITATION #: __N00174-19-R-0167Q-XXXX

OFFEROR:__________________________ EVALUATOR:____________________________

In the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance, the Government reserves the right to use relevant performance only within the past five years. Relevant and timely past performance information in PDREP and Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (http://www.ppirs.gov/ including the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) will be considered during the evaluation of an Offeror’s past performance. The ratings received from these sources will be recorded for each Offeror and then the Past Performance Team will determine the relevancy of the work and assign a relevancy rating for each past performance reference. The following chart shall be used to record the contract/task order numbers; the past performance rating for each of these contracts/task orders; and the relevancy rating for each contract/task order.

(Acceptable / Unacceptable)

PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS:

The following ratings shall be used for past performance evaluations and detailed instructions of how to apply these ratings are provided on the Past Performance Evaluation Form.

RELEVANCY EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used to assign the Offeror’s Past Performance Relevancy rating only for Past Performance performed within the past five (5) years of the date of issuance of this RFQ. Any information beyond the five years will not be evaluated.

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar 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.

Notes: Relevancy includes similarity of performance effort in regards to Scope (overall project description and type of work) magnitude of effort (dollar value) and complexity (level of effort required and variety of skill type involved in the project) compared to the requirements of this solicitation.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT EVALUATION CRITERIA:

The following adjectival ratings/definitions shall be used to assign the Offeror’s Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

Acceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable: Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Notes: Provide a narrative of how the Past Performance rating was determined based on the Acceptable/Unacceptable definitions above.

Question: Did the Offeror provide up to three references for federal government contracts for supplies performed in the last five years from the date of issuance of the solicitation that are the same or similar to those required under this procurement? If so did the Offeror receive an acceptable past performance rating based on past performance, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) (http://www.ppirs.gov/), the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) and the Product Data Reporting and Evaluation Program (PDREP)?

Based on the ratings assigned above the Past Performance Evaluation Team will assign an Overall Past Performance Confidence Assessment rating for each Offeror.

PAST PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

E.4 TECHNICAL EVALUATION INSTRUCTIONS

SSEB Technical Evaluation members must address the Technical factor specified in the RFQ. Ratings will be based solely on the evaluation criteria cited in this plan. The SSEB Technical Evaluation members shall assess each Offeror’s Technical proposal against the Technical factor by documenting the evaluation used to support an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” rating. Based on their assessment, the SSEB Technical Evaluation members will individually assign a Technical rating per Offeror.

The following are some good Do’s to be followed during the evaluation process:

a. DO remain objective when evaluating offers and other information (i.e., be consistent in your evaluation for everyone).

b. DO follow the evaluation criteria established in the RFQ.

c. DO write detailed and substantiated evaluations of the factors, incorporating the definitions for the Ratings into the write-ups. When addressing the areas identified in the Technical Evaluation Worksheet ensure that the evaluation ratings are supported with the appropriate rating language: Acceptable – “adequate approach and understanding” or; Unacceptable – “does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies”.

d. DO identify questions, if necessary, for clarification of an Offeror’s information. If there is an area in which you believe an Offeror is providing “faulty” or misleading information draft a question seeking clarification.

Technical Factors. Assign a rating to each technical factor based on the definitions below for “Acceptable” and “Unacceptable”.

Technical Factor Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

The weaknesses and/or deficiencies (as defined below) of each proposal for each non-price evaluation factor which influenced the assigned adjectival rating shall be identified.

Definitions

E.5 EVALUATION REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

E.5.1. SSEB Report

Upon completion of the technical evaluation, the SSEB Chairperson will provide the PCO with the EP report. The SSEB report shall be signed by all SSEB members. If approval is not unanimous, a minority opinion shall be included in the report.

Once the SSEB report has been accepted by the PCO, the PCO may share Past Performance Information with the SSEB Chairperson to assist in determining the past performance relevancy.

E.5.2 Past Performance Assessment Rating Documentation

The Past Performance Rating will be developed based on relevant and timely past performance ratings. All of the past performance information is documented by the Contract Specialist and SSEB Past Performance Evaluator.

E.5.3 Source Selection Decision

If the PCO requires a recommendation the SSEB Chairperson shall provide a written award recommendation to the PCO summarizing the Technical, Past Performance and Cost evaluations that lead to the recommendation. The PCO as the SSA has final selection authority. The PCO’s source selection decision shall be documented in the business clearance.

E.6 TECHNICAL EVALUATION WORKSHEETS

The following worksheet will be used by the Government SSEB Technical Evaluation members when conducting the technical evaluations for this solicitation.

TECHNICAL EVALUATION

Technical Evaluation

Technical Factor 1 Technical Capability (not to exceed 20 pages)

Did the Offeror demonstrate an adequate understanding of the requirements contained in the Statement of Work (SOW)? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror demonstrate an adequate understanding of the Government requirements regarding the specified deliverable? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrate adequate skills, knowledge, and capabilities to successfully perform tasks listed in the SOW? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror adequately demonstrate the ability of their software to transfer images to DICONDE image viewing and archival systems including GEIT Rhythm, Yxlon Image 3000 and Carestream? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror adequately demonstrate the ability of their synchronizer to operate with the Varian M3A and M6A linear accelerators? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror adequately demonstrate the ability of their synchronizer to operate with Varex 4343HE and Perkin Elmer 1621 digital detector arrays? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror adequately demonstrate the ability of their synchronizer to correct for all artifacts caused by the pulsed nature of the linear accelerator x-ray generation and be connected to and controlled by the computer as required by the SoW? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror adequately demonstrate the ability of their software to work with EtherCAT motion control drives and supports handheld controllers with buttons and joysticks to provide simultaneous control of multiple motion control drives.? If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

Did the Offeror provide a complete provide a schedule for delivery and installation of the Accelerator X-Ray Imaging and Control System required by the solicitation indicating at a minimum:

a. Delivery of the Image Capture Workstation and Synchronizer;

b. Installation of the Image Capture Workstation and Synchronizer;

c. Delivery of the Digital Detector Array If so, please discuss “in detail” the acceptable items identified in the proposal. If not, please discuss “in detail” the unacceptable items identified in the proposal.

DECISION FORM

______________________________________ Date:_____________________ Contracting Officer

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION

SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104