N00421-17-R-0028_Amendment_3.docx

N0042118R0008

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

Amendment 3 to Solicitation N00421-18-R-0008 modifies the following:

1. M-1, PART B, Section 5.1 has been updated to remove the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph.

Additionally, Amendment 3 revises the following Section L Attachments:

· Attachment L-8, Section F updates the Period of Performance Items

· Attachment L-8, Volume 2: Cost/Price, Task Order Information, Table B updates the column totals

· Attachment L-8, Volume 2: Cost/Price, Task Order Information, Section C Place of Performance matrix heading has been revised from Red Hill, TX to Contractor Red Oak Facilities

· Attachment L-9, Section 3.1.2.1 has been updated to include Patuxent River Naval Base, Patuxent River, MD as a Contractor site location in addition to Red Oak, TX

M-1 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD (SERVICES)(MAR 2013)(05 September 2017)

PART A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1.0 GENERAL

The Government expects to select four (4) Offerors for the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC and four (4) Offerors for the Weapons IDIQ/MAC on the basis of their proposal providing the “best value” to the Government, all factors considered. The Government reserves the right to award more than four (4) IDIQ contracts should a tie exist at the 4th position. Within the best value continuum, FAR 15.101 defines best value as using any one or a combination of source selection approaches. The source selection process will neither be based on Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) nor Tradeoffs. The best value basis for awards will be determined by the Highest Technically Rated Offeror’s with a Fair and Reasonable Price.

An Offeror may propose to the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC, the Weapons IDIQ/MAC, or both. The Government will evaluate Technical and Price/Cost for each IDIQ/MAC separately. For each of the IDIQ/MACs, the Government will award MACs to the Offerors that propose the most highly rated proposals that provide the best value to the Government. An Offeror may be awarded an IDIQ to perform under the Unmanned Systems MAC, Weapons MAC, or both. This will allow these Offerors to compete for the future task orders related to the IDIQ MAC for which they were awarded.

Through this source selection, the Government will also award two (2) Unmanned Systems Task Orders (T.O.s) under the Unmanned Systems IDIQ/MAC. The Government will award each T.O. to the Offeror that provides the best value to the Government. Additionally, the Government will award a T.O. for $1,000, which will satisfy the minimum guarantee price, to each Offeror selected for an IDIQ award under the (U) MAC and (W) MAC that does not receive an award for the PMA 262/266 or PMA 263 T.O.

2.0 EVALUATION PROCESS

After the screening process in Section 2.1, the Government intends to evaluate the top four (4) (U) and top four (4) (W) proposals and award IDIQ contracts without discussions to the responsible Offerors whose offers, conforming to the solicitation and are the Highest Technically Rated with a Fair and Reasonable Price.

Offerors are cautioned that their initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical 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. If a competitive range is established, the Government may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to those with a reasonable chance for award.

The evaluation team will perform a two-part Screening and Evaluation process for all offers received.

2.1 Screening Review

The evaluation team will initially order Offerors from highest score to lowest score solely using the Offeror’s Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet (Section L, Attachment L-1 and/or L-2) for each MAC. This will establish the preliminary Top four (4) awards for the Unmanned Systems MAC and the Top four (4) awards for the Weapons MAC, hereafter referred to as Top four (4) (U) and Top four (4) (W).

In the event of a tie at the 4th position in the initial screening review, those Offerors that are tied shall be placed into the evaluation pool.

2.2 Evaluation

For each Offeror in the preliminary Top four (4) (U) and Top four (4) (W), the evaluation team will evaluate and verify that each Offeror’s proposal submission information, support documents, and Relevant Experience Projects are in compliance with the terms, conditions, and requirements set forth in Section L of the solicitation. The Government intends to strictly enforce all of the proposal submission requirements outlined in Section L. Non-compliance with the terms, conditions, or requirements set forth in the solicitation will be considered a deficiency. A proposal assessed with a deficiency will make the offer ineligible for award.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

MAC proposals shall be evaluated using the factors, which are listed below, in descending order of importance: 1) Technical, 2) Price/Cost. Technical and Cost are in descending order of importance: Technical is significantly more important than Price/Cost.

· TECHNICAL

· Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet

· PRICE/COST

Proposal information provided for one factor may be used to assess other factors if the Government deems it appropriate.

For the Technical factor, a combined Technical/Risk rating will be assigned. This method reflects whether the proposal meets or does not meet the minimum requirements along with an assessment of the weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the proposal to determine the combined Technical/Risk rating. For this solicitation there is no benefit to the Government of exceeding a requirement or by providing merit that enhances performance or operations. Therefore, no strengths will be assigned and only the combined Technical/Risk rating definitions of Acceptable and Unacceptable will be used to relate the results of the evaluation. 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. Offerors are advised that during the evaluation process, a technical factor with an “Unacceptable” Technical/Risk Rating may result in the entire proposal being found unacceptable and eliminated from the competition.

Failure to address a scoring element of the technical factor 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.

PART B: SPECIFIC INFORMATION

4.0 TECHNICAL

Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet

The support documentation will be evaluated and verified for each and every evaluation element that the Top four (4) (U) and Top four (4) (W) Offerors have stated in the Offeror’s Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet (Attachment L-1 and L-2). The evaluation team will validate that the submitted documentation meets the scoring elements under Section 9.1 in Section L and if applicable, a submitted L-3 Attachment that has been signed by the cognizant PCO, COR or PDPM. The Government reserves the right to request supporting documentation for any signed L-3 Attachments.

In the event that any element per project in the self-scoring worksheet is unsubstantiated, the Offeror’s preliminary score shall have the point value of the unsubstantiated evaluation element deducted and the Offeror will be re-sorted based upon the revised score. If the Offeror remains in the Top four (4) (U) and/or Top four (4) (W) the evaluation of the offer shall continue. If the Offeror does not remain in the Top four (4) (U) and/or Top four (4) (W), the next highest rated Offeror (preliminary score) shall be added to the Top four (4) (U) and/or Top four (4) (W) and evaluation shall begin on that offer.

The evaluation process shall continue until the Top four (4) (U) and/or Top four (4) (W) apparent successful Offerors are identified in each MAC. Any Offeror(s) that were removed from the Top four (4) (U) and/or Top four (4) (W) shall be eliminated from further consideration for award unless discussions are conducted. However, the Government intends to award on initial proposals.

In the event of a tie at the 4th position, all Offerors shall have only the designated critical elements calculated from the Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheets. The Offeror with the highest evaluated score for the elements identified as critical (i.e. those identified by asterisks on the Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheets) will be placed into the pool of MAC awardees. If a tie exists at the 4th position after the evaluation of the critical elements, all tied Offerors will be placed into the pool of MAC awardees.

Once the Top four (4) (U) and Top four (4) (W) highest scored Offers have been evaluated, the evaluation team will perform cost realism for those Top four (4) (U) and Top four (4) (W) Offerors.

5.0 PRICE/COST

5.1 Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs

The Contractor’s proposed rates will be evaluated for realism of the Offeror’s estimated cost. Attachment L-5 provides the labor categories and number of labor hours. The contractor will be required to propose direct and indirect rates in accordance with Attachment L-5 to be submitted within Volume 3.

The Government will perform a cost realism analysis to determine the most probable cost (MPC) for each applicable offeror’s proposal. In conducting its cost realism evaluation, the Government may review the prospective Offeror’s proposed labor rates and compare the proposed rates to the average labor rate in industry or other similar rates within the same demographic zone where the work is to be performed. Pertinent cost information, including but not limited to, DCAA-recommended rates for such costs as direct labor, overhead, G&A, etc., as necessary and appropriate, will be used to arrive at the Government determination of the MPC for the performance of this representative labor distribution.

In addition, adjustments to the cost portion of the offer may be made to include Government costs required to accomplish the Offeror’s proposed approach (e.g., additional Government-Furnished Property/Government-Furnished Information required by the Offeror to implement its approach) with the exception of those costs to the Government that are equal to all Offerors. The MPC is an Offeror’s total cost, including fee, and any adjustments the Government has determined necessary to make the proposed cost realistic. The Government will use the results of its cost realism analysis to determine the MPC of performance for each Offeror. The MPC may differ from the proposed cost. The higher of the MPC or proposed cost will be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value.

In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2), various price analysis techniques and procedures will be employed to ensure the prices being proposed for this requirement are fair and reasonable. To assist in the overall determination of price reasonableness, the Government will identify all instances where a proposed fully burdened labor cost exceeds $300K annually per employee. This also applies to a fully burdened subcontractor employee labor cost, inclusive of the prime contractor’s pass-through burden. An exceeded tripwire may ultimately be determined unreasonable absent justification.

5.2 Firm Fixed Price CLINs:

The FFP CLINs will be evaluated for price reasonableness. An Offeror’s proposed FFP will be incorporated into any contract that is awarded as a result of this solicitation. Offeror’s will have the opportunity to propose a lower FFP under a task order, but may not exceed what is incorporated in the basic IDIQ contract.

Each Offeror’s CLIN pricing will be evaluated to determine whether it is complete, reasonable, and whether it contains balanced unit pricing. In its evaluation, the Government will perform a price analysis to assess if the Offeror’s proposed price is fair and reasonable. The Government will use comparison of the Offeror’s proposed price to competing Offerors’ prices in response to this solicitation. The evaluation will not bind the Government to utilize any of the FFP Product CLINs.

5.3 Overall Summary

A total evaluated price will be determined by utilizing the results of cost realism with the addition of the FFP CLINs 0007 and 0008.

The Government will calculate the total evaluated price for each offeror by taking the summation of the following:

a. Attachment L-5 or MPC, whichever is higher

b. FFP CLINs 0007 and 0008

In limited situations, additional analysis may be required by the Government to determine reasonableness. 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.

PART C: EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

Evaluations in support of this source selection shall employ an adjectival rating method for rating contractor proposals against the Technical evaluation factor identified within Section M of the solicitation.

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing solicitation compliance and the expected results of the Offeror's relevant experience.

6.0 EVALUATION RATING AND RISK ASSESSMENT DEFINITIONS

The definitions below will be used by the Government when assessing the Offeror’s proposal. The appropriate adjectival rating will be assigned to each factor, as required. The Government will utilize a combined technical/risk rating for this effort.

COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

Document Verification and Self-Scoring Worksheet Technical Ratings: The technical rating assignments reflect the Government’s assessment of the technical quality of the Offeror’s Attachment L-1 and/or Attachment L-2 for meeting the Government’s requirement.

7.0 OTHER DEFINITIONS

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (FAR 15.001)

Deficiency: A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increase the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. (FAR 15.001)

Risk: as it pertains to source selection, is the potential for unsuccessful contract performance. The consideration of risk assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach to achieving the technical factor may involve risk of disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Moderate Risk: Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of 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.

(End of Summary of Changes) image1.wmf