RFAAP Section M Dec 2025.docx

Section M as of 18 Dec 2025

M01 – PROPOSAL EVALUATION

A. PROPOSAL EVALUATION

1. Proposals submitted in accordance with Section L of the solicitation will be evaluated by the U.S. Government (USG), and the USG will make an award determination utilizing the evaluation criteria outlined in this section.

2. The USG intends to award one (1) contract to a single Offeror as a result of the solicitation. The USG’s award determination will be based on the following non-price and price factors:

Volume 1 - Production (Oral Presentation and Written Workload Plan) Subfactor 1 - Technical Processes (Oral Presentation) Subfactor 2 - Technical Experience and Production Capability (Oral Presentation and Written Workload Plan)

Volume 2 – Operations (Oral Presentation and Written Reset and Modernization Plan) Subfactor 1 - Facility Reset and Modernization (Oral Presentation and Written Reset and Modernization Plan) Subfactor 2 - Maintenance, Utilities and Safety Approach (Oral Presentation)

Volume 3 - Past Performance

Volume 4 - Price

Volume 5 - Small Business Participation (Oral Presentation)

3. Best Value Factor Relative Order of Importance:

i. Production is more important than Operations.

· Production Subfactor 2 is significantly more important than Production Subfactor 1.

ii. Operations is more important than Past Performance.

· Operations Subfactor 1 is significantly more important than Operations Subfactor 2.

iii. Past Performance is more important than Price.

iv. Price is significantly more important than Small Business.

v. All non-price evaluation factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

4. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for all non-Price factors (including subfactors). Additionally, any Other than Small Business Offeror must have an acceptable Small Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a).

5. The Production, Operations, Past Performance, and Small Business Participation factors will be rated in an adjectival and narrative manner. The following definitions apply.

i. Production Factor and Operations Factor: The ratings given for the Production Factor and the Operations Factor will reflect the degree to which the proposed approach meets or does not meet the requirements as identified under the Production Factor and Operations Factor through an assessment of the strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies as defined below. Accordingly, Volume 1 – Productions and Volume 2 – Operations will be evaluated utilizing the following adjectival ratings:

(A) The adjectival and color rating from the table above has an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased USG oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation will not assign separate risk ratings; however, the definitions for risk are below for informational purposes.

Low Risk - Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal USG monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

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 USG monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Risk - Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close USG monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Risk - Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that cause an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

(B) The following definitions apply:

Strength - 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 USG during contract performance.

Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the USG during contract performance.

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

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

Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a USG requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Uncertainty - any aspect of a non-cost/price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

(C) Each Subfactor within Volume 1 – Production and Volume 2 - Operations will be evaluated utilizing the same adjectival ratings and then combined to result in one overall factor rating based upon the order of importance.

ii. Past Performance - Past Performance will be evaluated to assess an overall confidence rating for each Offeror utilizing the rating criteria identified in Volume 3 – Past Performance below.

iv. Price - Price will be evaluated but not rated. See Volume 4 - Price below, and corresponding price matrices, for details on how the USG will determine the total evaluated price of each proposal.

iii. Small Business – Small Business Participation will be evaluated to develop one overall rating for each Offeror utilizing the adjectival ratings identified in Volume 5 – Small Business below.

6. The USG reserves the right to make award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest-rated Offeror for any non-price factor.

7. The USG will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with its content and will not assume that performance will include areas not specified in the Offeror's proposal.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in Proposal Evaluation

a. Use of AI tools in Support of Evaluations: The USG will employ AI as a tool to assist in the analysis and review of Offeror proposals. AI tools may be used to support tasks such as summarizing proposal content, identifying compliance with request for task order proposal / solicitation requirements, and highlighting areas of potential strength, weakness, or risk.

b. Maintaining Inherently Governmental Functions: Notwithstanding the use of AI tools to support the evaluation process, all final evaluation judgements, including the assignment or assessment of adjectival ratings, best value determinations, and source selection decisions, will be made exclusively by duly appointed USG personnel. The USG retains sole responsibility for all inherently Governmental functions and will not delegate decision making authority to any AI tool.

c. Offeror Confidentiality and Data Protection: The AI tools utilized by the USG will be employed in a manner consistent with applicable regulations that govern the protection of proprietary and source selection sensitive information. The AI tool will be an output-only system. Any generated report data is not saved. No proposal data will be transmitted to or processed by external, non-USG systems without appropriate safeguards and authorizations in place.

9. The Offeror's proposal should contain its best terms. The USG intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without conducting discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1; however, the USG reserves the right to conduct discussions with Offerors whose proposals have been determined to be within the competitive range, if necessary. If the PCO 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 PCO 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. If the PCO determines discussions are necessary, they will be held IAW FAR 15.306.

10. When rating a subfactor, the USG will only evaluate the information provided in the section of the proposal addressing that particular subfactor. When rating a factor that does not have subfactors, the USG will only evaluate the information provided in that volume. The USG will not supplement the information found in one subfactor or volume with information found in another as part of its evaluation; however, any inconsistencies found in the proposed approach under one volume or subsection which call into question the veracity, credibility, or reliability of statements made in other sections or volumes may be taken into consideration.

11. If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offer may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

12. Pursuant to FAR 9.103, a contract will only be awarded to an Offeror that the PCO determines to be responsible. Separate from the source selection criteria, the Offeror must be able to demonstrate that it meets the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The USG may conduct a pre-award survey on any Offerors considered for award, to assist in the PCO's determination of Contractor Responsibility.

13. Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of any of the non-price factors or contain unbalanced prices that pose an unacceptable risk to the USG may be considered an indication of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in the contract requirements and may be determined unacceptable.

B. VOLUME 1 – PRODUCTION

The USG will evaluate the Production Factor based on the following:

Subfactor 1: Technical Processes (Oral Presentation)

1. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal focusing on the technical merits of the Offeror’s production methodology, adherence to safety standards, and compliance to military specifications.

a. Technical Approach and Production Process Description

i. Evaluation of Unit Operations: The Offeror adequately provided a detailed description of the unit operations involved in the production of each product, including but not limited to:

1. Single Base (AFP001): Outlined the specific processes for the production of single-base propellants, including mixing, granulation, and drying. Any NC-specific details can be addressed with 4. below.

2. Double Base (RPD 596): Described the unique steps involved in producing double-base propellants and how they differ from single-base processes. Any NC and NG-specific details can be addressed with 4. and 6. below.

3. Triple Base (M31A2 or alternate): Detailed the additional complexities involved in producing triple-base propellants, including the integration of nitrocellulose, nitroglycerin, and stabilizers. Any NC and NG-specific details can be addressed with 4. and 6. below.

4. Nitrocellulose (NC) (Grade C and Grade D): Provided a comprehensive overview of the manufacturing processes for nitrocellulose, including the nitration process, purification, and drying stages.

5. Solventless (MK90): Explained the solventless production techniques, emphasizing any unique equipment or methodologies used to ensure product integrity without solvents. Any NC and NG-specific details can be addressed with 4. above and 6. below.

6. Nitroglycerin (NG): Outlined the synthesis of nitroglycerin, focusing on the nitration process, safety measures, and the handling of reactive chemicals.

b. Key Process Parameters and Conditions

i. The Offeror adequately identified and described critical process parameters (e.g., temperature, pressure, humidity) for each product. The evaluation will consider:

1. The adequacy of monitoring and control systems in place to maintain these parameters.

2. The rationale behind the selection of specific conditions to ensure product quality and safety.

c. Process Safety Information

i. The Offeror provided comprehensive safety information relevant to each production process, including:

1. Hazard analysis and risk assessments conducted for each product.

2. Safety protocols for handling hazardous materials and emergency response plans.

3. Description of safety equipment and measures implemented during the production process.

d. Process and Quality Control

i. The Offeror adequately identified and detailed quality control measures, focusing on:

1. Methods for monitoring process stability and product quality throughout production.

2. Procedures for ensuring compliance with MIL SPEC requirements.

3. Documentation and traceability of quality control activities.

e. Inspection and Testing Protocols

i. The Offeror outlined its in-process and final inspection and testing procedures, including:

1. Description of in-process checks and criteria for product acceptance.

2. Final product testing methodologies and compliance verification with specifications.

3. Any certifications or third-party validations obtained to ensure quality and safety.

Subfactor 2: Technical Experience and Production Capability (Oral Presentation and Written Workload Plan)

1. Technical Experience: The Offeror adequately demonstrated relevant technical experience and capabilities based on actual production experience at a major industrial chemical plant and/or energetic production facility. This experience must be clearly linked to the operational context of RFAAP and must include the following elements:

a. Relevant Experience Examples: The Offeror provided specific examples of prime and/or subcontractor experience that demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and challenges of operating a major industrial chemical plant or energetic production facility. The Offeror’s response included:

i. Operational Strategy Development:

1. Innovation in Strategy: Evidence of unique or innovative strategies developed to overcome operational challenges.

2. Stakeholder Engagement: Degree of involvement from various stakeholders in the strategy formulation process

ii. Resource Determination:

1. Methodology Rigor: Complexity and effectiveness of the resource allocation methodology used (e.g., advance analytics, simulation models).

2. Resource Optimization: Demonstrated success in optimizing resource use (e.g. labor efficiency, material usage).

iii. Goal Establishment and Achievement:

1. Quantitative Impact: Magnitude of improvements achieved (e.g., percentage increases or decreases in key metrics).

2. Sustainability of Results: Evidence that improvements were sustained over time (e.g., long-term trends in performance metrics).

3. Alignment with Industry Standards: Comparison of achievements against industry benchmarks or standards.

b. Implementation and Measurement: The Offeror adequately described how its experience will be implemented at RFAAP and quantitatively measured to drive improvement, including:

i. Implementation Strategy:

1. Clarity and Specificity: Level of detail in the implementation plan (e.g., specific timelines, milestones).

2. Feasibility: Assessment of the practicality of the proposed strategies based on past experiences.

ii. Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):

1. Relevance: Alignment of KPIs with RFAAP's operational goals and objectives.

2. Measurability: Clarity and specificity of how each KPI will be measured and reported.

3. Historical Performance: Evidence of the Offeror's past success in achieving similar KPIs in previous projects.

iii. Monitoring and Reporting:

1. Frequency and Transparency: Proposed frequency of reporting and clarity of the reporting process.

2. Data Integrity: Methods for ensuring data accuracy and reliability in reporting progress.

c. Management Approach: The Offeror provided a comprehensive plan detailing its overall management approach to RFAAP production and support operations. The plan included:

i. Integration of Performance Work Statements:

1. Alignment with Goals: Clarity on how performance work statements align with operational goals.

2. Performance Metrics: Specificity of performance metrics that will be integrated into daily operations.

ii. Management Structure:

1. Organizational Clarity: Clarity and transparency of the proposed organizational structure.

2. Role Definition: Specificity of roles and responsibilities, including decision-making authority.

3. Experience of Key Personnel: Qualifications and relevant experience of key management personnel.

iii. Integration of Subcontractors:

1. Subcontractor Selection: Rigor of the subcontractor selection process (e.g., criteria used for selection).

2. Management Strategy: Clarity of the management strategy for integrating subcontractors into the overall operation.

iv. Risk Management Plan:

1. Proactivity: Evidence of proactive risk identification and mitigation strategies.

2. Comprehensiveness: Scope of the risk management plan (e.g., financial, operational, safety risks).

2. Production Capability (Written Plan and Oral Presentation): The evaluation of the Offeror’s submissions will be based on the following criteria, which are designed to assess the completeness, feasibility, and effectiveness of the proposed plans related to Production Capability, Supply Chain Management, Material Control, and Waste Stream Management. Each criterion will be evaluated based on specific differentiating factors that will contribute to the overall scoring.

a. Production Capability (Written Plan and Oral Presentation)

i. Comprehensiveness of Workload Plan:

1. Clarity and detail in addressing the entirety of the energetics market, including USG direct and indirect requirements.

2. Inclusion of a risk mitigation strategy for fluctuations in USG workload.

3. Integration of the most current publicly available Program Objective Memorandum (POM) forecast.

ii. Maximization of Facility Utilization:

1. Description of strategies to enhance facility utilization and capture new products/business.

2. Identification of specific benefits to RFAAP operations from proposed additional production.

iii. Self-Investment and Modernization Projects:

1. Identification of planned self-investment and modernization projects.

2. Rationale for these investments and expected return on investment.

iv. Performance Measurement and Evaluation:

1. Clarity in how the USG can evaluate the implementation of the workload plan through performance metrics.

2. Proposed Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) that are relevant, measurable, and aligned with operational goals.

b. Supply Chain Management Plan (Oral Presentation Only)

i. Detailed Supplier Qualification Procedures:

1. Clarity and thoroughness of supplier qualification processes, including management of single and multiple sources of supply.

ii. Contract Quality and Performance Requirements:

1. Effectiveness in managing the flow down of contract quality and performance requirements to suppliers and subcontractors.

iii. Subcontractor Management Activities:

1. Description of subcontractor management activities necessary to meet production and delivery requirements.

iv. Quantitative Measurement of Supply Chain Performance:

1. Proposed KPIs that can quantitatively measure supply chain performance and drive continuous improvement at RFAAP.

c. Material Control (Oral Presentation Only)

i. Comprehensiveness of Material Control Plan:

1. Detail in managing a material control system through all stages of production and acceptance.

2. Clarity in the flow down of requirements to suppliers and subcontractors.

ii. Management of Non-Conforming Material (NCM):

1. Effectiveness of the approach for segregation, control, transportation, storage, and disposition of non-conforming material.

2. Inclusion of rework procedures and documentation processes for non-conforming materials.

iii. Analytical Testing and Quality Assurance:

1. Description of analytical testing equipment and methods used to assess key parameters of materials.

iv. Quantitative Measurement of Material Control Performance:

1. Proposed KPIs that can quantitatively measure material control effectiveness and drive continuous improvement at RFAAP.

d. Waste Stream Management Plan (Oral Presentation Only)

i. Comprehensiveness of Waste Stream Management Plan

1. Clarity in the approach to managing hazardous and non-hazardous production waste streams and byproducts.

2. Integration of waste stream management across the entire plant.

ii. Minimization of Waste Generation

1. Description of strategies for minimizing waste generation through process optimization and reuse of byproducts.

iii. Commercial Outlets for Byproducts

1. Identification of commercial outlets for the sale of production by-products and out-of-specification products.

iv. Quantitative Measurement of Waste Management Performance

1. Proposed KPIs that can quantitatively measure the effectiveness of the Waste Stream Management Plan and drive continuous improvement at RFAAP.

C. VOLUME 2 – OPERATIONS

Subfactor 1: Facility Reset and Modernization (Oral Presentation and Written Rest and Modernization Plan)

1. The USG will evaluate Offeror proposal(s) to reset RFAAP according to the following:

a. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to manage execution of the proposed reset plan. Favorable consideration given for the formation of a world class multidisciplinary team to achieve the broad reset scope defined by the USG. The USG will evaluate the overall scope presented in the Reset Plan and the milestones to accomplish it.

b. The USG will evaluate how the Offeror balances its proposal to meet the requirements identified in Section L. C.2. It is understood that not all elements and examples given in Section L, C.2. can be fully completed and executed in the three (3) year timeframe. The USG aims to evaluate the extent to which the Offeror can quickly provide the most effective improvement to RFAAP at a reasonable cost.

c. The USG will not evaluate the merit of each individual project selected for the reset plan but will evaluate the overall benefits proposed by the total Reset Plan. Section L, C.2. illustrates the areas where benefits are expected and, if proposed, will be evaluated. However, evaluating the overall benefit of the Offeror’s Reset Plan is not limited to the scope of Section L, C.2. The Offeror is encouraged to present benefits the USG has not contemplated in Section L, C.2.

d. Strongly favorable consideration will be given for a Reset Plan that will grow RFAAP’s product portfolio and volume near and long term. This should be consistent with Offeror’s Workload Plan goals.

e. Favorable consideration will be given for Reset Plan data-based targets and milestones that support and integrate with the Offeror’s overall 10-year modernization vision.

f. Favorable consideration will be given for Reset Plan investment returns applied toward future improvement of RFAAP.

g. Favorable consideration will be given for Reset Plan that identifies KPIs for measurement of success of the Reset Plan and the rate at which those KPIs will improve with implementation of the Plan.

h. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to balance current production demands with reset activities. The USG is open to alternatives that include temporary production stoppages necessary to properly accomplish reset activities.

i. The USG will evaluate the proposed Reset Plan schedule and milestones from kick off to completion. Milestones should include KPIs that indicate successful and effective milestone completion.

j. The USG will evaluate the risk associated with the execution of the Reset Plan. Higher risk by itself will not equate to weaknesses in the proposal if the Offeror sufficiently defines the risks and proposes appropriate risk mitigation. The USG will evaluate the degree to which a proposed risk mitigation approach transfers risk to the USG. The USG will evaluate the risk of the Offeror’s proposed approach (which does not have to align with the Offeror’s own risk assessment) against the proposed return of that approach.

k. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach and documentation provided in the proposal to assess the Offeror’s knowledge and understanding of the technical requirements proposed.

l. The USG will evaluate the rigor and process used to develop the reset plan and to ensure the cost estimating is accurate given the knowns/unknowns of the task.

m. The USG will evaluate Offeror performance guarantees (as aligned to the Offeror’s performance requirements identified in its reset proposal), not to exceed (NTE) cost guarantees, delivered improvements to RFAAP, and terms and conditions proposed to determine the overall USG risk.

n. Disposition of Existing Non-Conformance Issues: The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for disposition of existing NC fines and other non-conforming materials to be completed at RFAAP within three (3) years of the award of the contract.

2. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed private investment to reset RFAAP according to the following:

a. Extent to which the Offeror leverages private investment to accelerate schedules, reduce technical risk, insert needed technologies, or otherwise enhance the proposed Reset Plan outcome.

b. Strong favorable consideration given to private investments that do not require USG matching funds.

c. Level of USG intellectual property rights imparted with private investment.

3. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed RFAAP Modernization Roadmap according to the following:

a. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s 10-year vision of RFAAP and its roadmap to achieve it. The USG will evaluate how the roadmap aligns with one or more Army goals (these are not listed in an order of priority): manufacturing safety and readiness to meet current and future requirements; isolate energetic mass materials from people; ensure graceful degradation and resilient operations; improve flexibility, maintainability, and sustainability; reduce cost of operations, and secure supply chains. The USG will also evaluate the benefits to RFAAP of Offeror goals that may be independent of Army goals. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s approach for determining the prioritization, sequencing, dependencies and period of performance of projects, along with the reasonableness of the rough order of magnitude (ROM) development, and how the notional $3.5-$4.5B cumulative budget over the 10-year contract length is planned. If technology maturity is deemed necessary by the Offeror, the USG will evaluate the Offeror’s rationale for such efforts and how the research and development (R&D) will enable its proposed modernization roadmap. The USG will evaluate the cost, schedule and performance reasonableness of all projects, including R&D. Given that modernization planning must be driven by a thorough characterization of the RFAAP, the USG will evaluate the Offeror’s roadmap based on the data and the rationale presented within the Offeror’s proposal. Offerors will be expected to use information available within the Virtual Library.

Subfactor 2: Maintenance, Utilities and Safety Approach (Oral Presentation Only)

1. Maintenance:

a. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to maintaining the highly complex RFAAP facility given current assets’ condition. The USG will assess the approach for preventive, predictive and corrective maintenance approaches, along with additional approaches proposed. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to define and achieve goals for KPIs identified in PWS 7, and its proposed process to implement continuous improvement against the KPIs. The USG will evaluate the methods the Offeror proposes considering the current condition and reliability of RFAAP, along with the Offeror’s approach to optimize maintenance. The USG will also evaluate the Offeror’s proposed tools and techniques – including but not limited to, spare parts strategy, modeling, qualitative and quantitative data inputs and intelligent business systems.

b. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to implementation of a Resource Planning and Allocation System at RFAAP. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s System capability to coordinate and integrate maintenance efforts between facilities, production, engineering, safety, environmental, and procurement. The USG will also evaluate the Offeror’s approach to how it will manage maintenance work orders, to include complex repairs of production equipment to prevent backlog of work orders and further deterioration of buildings and equipment while also meeting production delivery schedules and reducing maintenance costs going forward.

2. Utilities

a. The USG will evaluate the degree to which the Offeror’s approach to utilities management will yield improvements at RFAAP. Specifically, the Offeror’s implementation plan/approach, including but not limited to: management responsibility, energy policy, legal and other requirements, and energy review, as they pertain to onsite utilities, e.g., package boilers, powerhouse, water intake, water treatment, wastewater treatment, compressed air, receiving offsite utilities or energy (natural gas, diesel, electricity) and minimizing the downtime to production operations. If the Offeror intends to self-invest and/or plan for modernization.

b. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s KPI based evaluation system and its ability to measure success of the utilities program. Favorable consideration will be given for demonstrated KPI alignment with leading benchmark industries.

3. Safety

a. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to implement the 14 elements of Process Safety Management (PSM) (Employee participation, Process safety information, Process hazard analysis, Operating procedures, Training, Contractors, Pre-startup safety review, Mechanical integrity, Hot work permit, Management of change, Incident investigation, Emergency planning and response, Compliance audits, Trade secrets) at RFAAP, including the Offeror’s approach to ensuring safety associated with the aged infrastructure and equipment at RFAAP that currently does not meet OSHA regulatory requirements (examples include but are not limited to: lightning protection, arc flash, and surge protection).

b. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s strategy for achieving world class safety performance at RFAAP beyond the compliance standards of PSM and applicable regulations, including the KPIs that the Offeror will monitor for daily safety management at the facility.

c. The USG will evaluate the Offeror’s KPI based evaluation system and its ability to measure success of the safety program. Favorable consideration will be given for demonstrated KPI alignment with leading benchmark industries.

D. VOLUME 3 – PAST PERFORMANCE

1. The USG evaluates past performance information as a predictor of future contract performance. The USG will assess the degree of confidence it has in the expectation that the Offeror will successfully complete the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s past performance, inclusive of JV partners, New Corporate Entities, Parent or Affiliated Companies, and Major Subcontractors’ demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

2. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required by Section L. The USG may use any of the following information as it evaluates an Offeror’s past performance:

a. Past performance information provided by the Offeror in its proposal for all companies identified in Section A – Contract References;

b. Past performance information obtained from Past Performance Questionnaires; and

c. Past performance information obtained from any other sources available to the USG for all companies identified in Section A – Contract References, to include, but not limited to, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Award Fee/Award Term Determining Officials.

3. The USG is not obligated to interview all points of contact identified by an Offeror nor is the USG limited to the points of contact provided.

4. The USG will first evaluate each reference to determine whether or not it is recent. Recency is defined as any supply contract under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within 10 years of this final solicitation issuance, any services contract for operations and maintenance under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within 10 years of this final solicitation issuance, and any services contract for modernization under which any performance, delivery, or corrective action has occurred within 10 years of this final solicitation issuance . The USG reserves the right to consider any past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

4. The USG will evaluate each recent reference to determine the level of relevancy. Relevancy, as it pertains to past performance information, is a measure of the extent of similarity between the past performance reference and the solicitation requirements. If a contract reference contains both supply and service elements, such a reference will receive relevancy ratings for the service elements and a relevancy rating for supply elements based on the criteria below.

a. Determining relevancy for the Offeror service past performance reference: The USG will consider the similarity of the services provided to the services required. Service references with a maximum contract value of less than $15M will not be considered relevant. Relevant service contracts are defined as contracts that demonstrate:

i. The Offeror has provided facility support services associated with operation and maintenance of a chemical and/or energetic production facility.

ii. The Offeror has provided facility services associated with modernization.

b. Determining relevancy for the Offeror supply past performance reference: The USG will consider the degree to which the reference is comparable with regard to the complexity of the processes, the variability of products, and the volume of products to the solicitation requirements. The USG will consider whether the Offeror manufactured or performed chemical and/or energetic manufacturing. Supply references with a maximum contract value of less than $5M will not be considered relevant.

c. The relevancy of the past performance information will be evaluated as follows:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

d. The USG will review past performance information collected on the recent and relevant contracts to determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance. The USG may consider the recency, relevancy, source, context of the past performance information it evaluates, general trends in performance, safety information, and demonstrated corrective actions. With respect to relevancy, past performance of greater relevancy will typically be a stronger predictor of future performance, or future inadequate performance, and have more influence on the past performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. If the Offeror is a new entity and has provided contract references for a predecessor company, the USG will determine whether documentation has been provided that sufficiently demonstrates that the predecessor company was acquired, absorbed, and replaced by the prime Offeror as its successor. If contract references for parent or affiliated companies of the prime Offeror, individual JV members or major subcontractors are provided, the USG will determine whether the information submitted adequately demonstrates that the resources of the parent or affiliate will be relied upon and will affect the contract performance and demonstrates that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. If an Offeror provided contract references for entities comprising of a JV, the USG will take into consideration how the effort required by the solicitation will be assigned to each entity comprising of the JV. Contracts for the JV itself may carry more weight than contracts references submitted for independent entities comprising the JV. In addition, the USG may give favorable consideration to JV relationships in the execution of the RFAAP contract as compared to Prime/Subcontractor relationships.

e. If an Offeror proposes the use of major subcontractors, the Offeror’s past performance record will be assessed in its totality to determine the Offeror’s overall past performance rating. The USG will take the type of work the Offeror proposes the major subcontractor(s) to perform into consideration when determining an Offeror's past performance confidence rating, as well as the resources parent or affiliated companies of major subcontractors that will be provided or relied upon which will affect the contract performance and demonstrates that the parent or affiliate will have meaningful involvement in contract performance. Relevancy for major subcontractors’ parent or affiliated companies will be reviewed only in relation to the specific area(s) the major subcontractor is proposed to perform. Recent and relevant contract references for parent or affiliated companies of the prime Offeror or JV members will be considered in the USG’s confidence rating based on an assessment of the resources that will be relied upon for contract performance and the parent or affiliate’s areas of meaningful involvement. The relevancy definitions from Section L, Volume 3 will be applied to this limited relevancy review. In evaluating performance history, the USG may review the Offeror’s and/or its major subcontractors’ current and prior performance record of complying with all aspects of its contractual agreement.

f. Performance Confidence Assessment: Based on an assessment of the recent and relevant past performance information identified, the USG will determine an overall confidence rating for the Offeror in accordance with the definitions below. In the tradeoff analysis, greater value may be given to past performance ratings that are higher and lower than neutral ratings.

Performance Confidence Assessment

E. VOLUME 4 – PRICE

1. The USG will evaluate the price proposal submitted in response to the solicitation, but a rating will not be assigned. The USG will derive the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) from the Offeror's price matrix as follows:

a. For the Product Price Matrix (Attachment 0019):

i. For each production item in the price matrix (Attachment 0019) there will be a proposed unit price. The unit price will be an Evaluated CLIN Price. The Evaluated CLIN prices and First Article Test prices for each ordering period will be summed to arrive at a Total Evaluated CLIN Price. Total evaluated CLIN prices will be summed and added to the Summary Evaluation Matrix and multiplied by the Facility Volume Weight to arrive at a weighted TEP. The weighted TEP for each range will be summed to arrive at a Total Production TEP.

ii. Given that indemnification cannot be assumed and the request for indemnification is at the Offeror’s discretion, Production Price Matrix – Indemnified (Attachment 0019) will not be included in the TEP, nor will failing to submit the indemnification matrix render the Offeror unacceptable. If the Awardee has submitted the Product Price Matrix – Indemnified (Attachment 0019), the PCO will determine if pursuing indemnification is in the USG’s best interest prior to contract award. If the PCO determines that pursuing indemnification is in the USG’s best interest, the Production Price Matrix – Indemnified (Attachment 0019) will be reviewed to determine whether it is fair and reasonable as well as for unbalanced pricing.

b. For the PWS Matrix (Attachment 0019):

i. For each PWS, the Price Matrix (Attachment 0019) will include the PWS’s that will be directly funded at the start of the contract. The Offeror shall propose PWS direct funded amounts for Ordering Periods 1 through 10 and shall determine what amount will be applied indirectly to the product prices, with the PWS direct funding showing $0 in Ordering Period 10. The PWS directed funded amounts for each Ordering Period will be summed to arrive at a Total Evaluated PWS TEP in Attachment 0019.

ii. Given that indemnification cannot be assumed and the request for indemnification is at the Offeror’s discretion, PWS Price Matrix – Indemnified (Attachment 0019) will not be included in the TEP, nor will failing to submit the indemnification matrix render the Offeror unacceptable. If the Awardee has submitted the PWS Price Matrix – Indemnified (Attachment 0019), the PCO will determine if pursuing indemnification is in the USG’s best interest prior to contract award. If the PCO determines that pursuing indemnification is in the USG’s best interest, the PWS Price Matrix – Indemnified (Attachment 0019) will be reviewed to determine whether it is fair and reasonable as well as for unbalanced pricing.

c. For the Modernization Price Matrix (Attachment 0019), (*Note to Industry: The USG is still reviewing this with regard to the TEP. The USG is accepting industry feedback on incorporation of Reset and Mod into the TEP.)

d. In the Price Matrix Summary Evaluation Matrix (Attachment 0019), the Grand TEP will be derived from the Total Production TEP, the Total PWS TEP, and the Total Reset and Modernization TEP. (The USG is accepting industry feedback on incorporation of Reset and Mod into the TEP.) These values will be summed, and the total will be the Grand TEP.

2. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b), the USG will use Price Analysis to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the PCO. These methods of evaluation may include the use of information/input from sources such as, but not limited to, other USG agencies and personnel.

3. As part of the evaluation, proposals shall be reviewed to identify any unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the PCO determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

4. The USG anticipates receiving adequate price competition under this solicitation; therefore, cost or pricing data is not required to be submitted with the proposal. However, in the event the PCO determines that adequate competition does not exist, the USG reserves the right to require certified cost or pricing data to be submitted. Additionally, the USG reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data in the event such data is necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price.

5. The PCO reserves the right to make no award as a result of the solicitation if, upon evaluation, the proposed price(s) cannot be determined fair and reasonable.

F. VOLUME 5 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION (Oral Presentation Only)

1. Small Business Participation Proposal Rating Methodology: The USG will assign an overall Small Business Participation Rating based on the level of small business participation. This requirement applies to Other Than Small Business Offerors (OTSB) only. Small Business Offerors will be given an Outstanding rating for this factor.

2. Small Business Participation Commitment: The USG will review the contents of solicitation Attachment 0035, Small Business Participation Commitment Document, integrated with the Small Business Participation Commitment methodology. The USG will consider the following aspects when evaluating the Offeror’s Small Business Participation:

a. Degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds the USG’s overall Small Business goal of 16.57%. The USG will also consider the proposed Small Business Participation Commitment methodology when evaluating the proposed socioeconomic goals.

b. The proposed Small Business Participation Commitment methodology is well-reasoned and thought out with reliable data and any risk is appropriately assessed and mitigated.

c. Degree to which the Offeror describes specific initiatives and how it directly supports industrial base growth and resiliency.

d. Degree to which the Offeror has binding agreements in place with small business teaming partners/subcontractors. Enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones.

e. If applicable, degree to which demonstrated small business history has met or exceeded its small business utilization on similar contract/efforts.

3. The USG will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above and assign an adjectival Small Business Participation Rating from the table below:

4. OTSB Offerors’ Small Business Subcontracting Plans will not be evaluated as part of the Small Business Participation Factor. The apparent awardee’s Plan will be reviewed as part of the responsibility determination; the Plan must be acceptable and address the elements set forth in FAR Clause 52.219-9(d)(1) through (15) and must reflect and be consistent with the commitments offered in the final revised SBPCD (Attachment 0035). OTSB Offerors shall submit acceptable subcontracting plans to be eligible for award. The awardee’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document (Attachment 0035) and the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be incorporated into any resultant contract.

G. VOLUME 6 – INDEMNIFICATION REQUEST PACKAGE itself will not be included in the evaluation.

1. The Product Price Matrix and/or the PWS Price Matrix– Indemnified will not be included in the TEP, nor will failing to submit the indemnification matrices render the Offeror unacceptable. However, if the PCO determines that pursuing indemnification is in the USG’s best interest, these prices will be evaluated to determine whether they are fair and reasonable as well as for unbalanced pricing. The prices are binding if indemnification approval is ultimately provided and approved by the Secretary of the Army and will be utilized in contract execution accordingly.

H. VOLUME 7 – SOLICITATION, OFFER AND AWARD DOCUMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS/REPRESENTATIONS

This Volume will be evaluated based on completeness of documents required to be included in this Volume.