Sec_M_F16_Harness_Final_15Jan21.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Program Objectives

1.1 Basis of Contract Award

This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedures conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov. The Government intends to select up to five (5) Offerors whose proposals represent the lowest evaluated prices from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding acceptability requirements.

Contract(s) may be awarded to Offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with FAR

Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by

Section L of this solicitation) and are determined, based on the evaluation factors and sub-factors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposals. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award up to five (5) Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (IDIQ) contracts for the F-16 Harnesses Parts and Kit Assemblies competitive effort. However, the

Government reserves the right to award fewer than five (5) contracts, or no contracts at all, depending on the quality of the proposals, prices submitted, and the availability of funds.

2.1 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any proposal uncertainty. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of a proposal not meeting Government requirements is not considered correctable, the proposal may be eliminated from competition.

2.2 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions if discussions are determined to be unnecessary. Discussions, if held, will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306, to include the establishment of a competitive range. 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, with the concurrence of the Source Selection

Authority, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

The Government will evaluate, for acceptability, the factors and sub-factors defined below. An

Unacceptable rating in one or more factors/sub-factors will result in the proposal being determined to be ineligible for award.

3.1 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical factor is divided into the following sub-factors: Sub-Factor 1 Facilities and

Experience; Sub-Factor 2 Production and Management Capabilities; and Sub-Factor 3 Sample

Task/Delivery Order (DO). Each sub-factor will be evaluated and receive a rating of Acceptable or unacceptable as defined in Table 1.

The rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical sub-factor requirements.

Proposals with all sub-factors rated Acceptable will be considered to have satisfied the Technical factor. A proposal must satisfy all items under each sub-factor of the Technical factor to be considered for award.

Table 1 – Technical Acceptability Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.1 Sub-Factor 1: Facilities and Processes

Facilities and experience will be evaluated and rated based on demonstration of the following:

Acceptable inspection and test cable plan that includes visual inspection using a Fiber Optics Viewer tool and an insertion loss test processes using a Laser

Source and Power Meter equivalent

Ability to procure the following:

o Fiber Optics connector(s) (SPEC G719014, G719009) o Spool material o Specialized braiding material, including metal braiding o TKT Insulation material

Have the required machinery and tooling in house or used by the Offeror’s sub-contractors for braiding machinery that complies with requirements in

16PR106.

Have the required machinery and tooling in house listed below:

o Cutting and crimping tools o Cannon plug insertion/extraction tools o Specialized technology (machining, soldering, test equipment) o Wire/harness marking tools (Sleeve, Sticker, Laser)

Have an acceptable plan that describes the harness kitting process

3.1.2 Sub-Factor 2: Production and Management Capabilities

The Production and Management Capabilities sub-factor will be evaluated according to the

Offeror’s capabilities to accomplish the following either in house or by subcontract:

Perform and document test and inspections results on each harness assembly per 16PR145, RF coax cables per 16VE752 and Fiber Optic cable per 16PR145

How procurement of required materials and parts, including proprietary and long-lead items will be accomplished

Compliance with 16PR145 for harness assembly, including installation of connectors, wire termination, application of sheathing, braiding and marking

How Quality Assurance pertaining to harness assembly processes are in compliance with:

o SAE AS9100 o SAE AS9102

The Offeror’s and subcontractor’s manufacturing/production facilities are sufficient in maturity to produce (Sample Task/DO identified in sub-factor 3) harness assembly quantities up to 300 Kits, over a 2 year period

3.1.3 Sub-Factor 3: Sample Task/ DO (Attachment 1)

The Offeror’s proposal/response to this sub-factor will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s ability to meet the requirements listed in the Sample Task/DO, per the key elements listed below.

Key Elements:

Understanding of the Sample Task/DO through a Work Breakdown Structure

(WBS)

Capability to plan and produce the Sample Task/DO to the provided specifications

Knowledge, expertise, and relationships with subcontractors/suppliers for the capability to meet the requirements of the Sample Task/DO per the requested delivery schedule

Identification of all significant risks and mitigation strategies associated with the Production Sample Task/DO requirements and the Offeror's approach for fulfilling these requirements

Roles and responsibilities of prime Contractor and subcontractors/suppliers

The Government reserves the right to award the Sample Task/DO as proposed by the Offeror. The Offeror shall propose to the requested delivery schedule.

3.2 Factor 2: Cost/Price

3.2.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP for the Sample Task/DO will be the TEP utilized by the Source Selection Authority in making the best-value award decision. The TEP for the Sample Task/DO will be calculated by adding the proposed unit prices for each priced CLIN on the Sample Task/DO, multiplying each

CLIN’s unit price by the quantity for the respective CLIN to calculate each CLIN’s total price, and adding the total prices for each CLIN to calculate a total proposed price for the Sample

Task/DO.

3.2.2 Price Reasonableness and Unbalanced Pricing

The Offeror’s proposed unit prices will be evaluated for price reasonableness in accordance with the proposal analysis techniques detailed in FAR Part 15.404-1. The Offeror’s proposed unit prices will also be evaluated for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

4.0 Contract Documentation

4.1 Small Business Status

Offeror Small Business Status information provided as per Section L, paragraph 5.1 is required.

Offerors that meet the small business size standard under NAICS 336413 are eligible for award.

If an Offeror does not meet the small business size standard, that Offeror will be ineligible for award.

4.2 Exceptions to Terms and Conditions

By submission of a proposal, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub factors. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

4.3 Approval of Accounting System

As this contract will offer progress payments based on costs, the Government will evaluate whether the Offeror has a Government approved accounting system IAW DFARS 242.7502(b).

Failure to possess or obtain government approval of the accounting system may result in ineligibility for award. If Offerors do not currently have Government approval of their accounting system, they may be subject to a Pre-Award Accounting System Audit.

5.0 Additional Information

5.1 Plant Visits

If plant visits are conducted, plant visits will be used during the evaluation phase to gather information for assessing the Offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the

Offeror’s proposal. The results will be utilized to support the evaluation of applicable factors/sub factors.