Section_M_BBU369Jun21.pdf

Impulse Cartridge

BBU-36A/B

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Revision 9 June 2021

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1. This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 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, Appendix C, 01 April 2016 and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 2019 Edition. These regulations are available electronically at acquisition.gov.

The government will select the proposal(s) based upon three factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. Offers are required to meet standards for non-price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the offeror(s) who is/are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms 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 is judged, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror(s) who give the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the overall business approach and past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference.

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1. Number of contracts to be awarded - The government intends to award up to two, five year IDIQ contracts (multiple award) for the BBU-36A/B impulse cartridge program.

However the government reserves the right to award to only one source or to no source at all.

2.2. Discussions - If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to file://fshill/Contracting/EBHK/10-Source_Selection/Tab55/BBU36_Tab_55_SS/Tab%20A.%20SSP/Tab%2055%20A.b%20-%20SSP%20Revisions/acquisition.gov evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. The government reserves the right to not hold discussions.

2.3. Solicitation requirements, terms, and conditions - Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale (see Section L). The government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1. The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

3.1.1. Relative Importance of Factors: The relative importance of each factor is as follows;

Technical, Past Performance and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being the most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last importance.

3.1.2. IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the source selection decision.

3.2. Factor 1: Technical

3.2.1.1. The government will determine eligibility of sources based upon prior qualification. The government maintains a list of qualified vendors for the BBU-36A/B programs. During the solicitation period, any potential offeror can contact the contracting officer to verify if it is on/not on the qualified vendors list. A copy of this confirmation email may be submitted with the offeror’s proposal but is not necessary. Any vendor that completes qualification procedures set forth in the attached “Justification for Qualification Requirements” prior to the close of the solicitation will be considered technically acceptable. In the event that all qualification steps are not completed prior to contract award, the award of the contract will not be delayed. Vendors are not required to submit anything as evidence of qualification if they have previously been qualified. A technical acceptability rating will be assigned to each offeror in accordance with the table directly below.

Table 1 - Technical Ratings

Rating Description Acceptable The offeror is on the qualified vendors list or has completed qualification procedures set forth in the “Justification for Qualification Requirements” prior to solicitation closure.

Unacceptable The offeror is NOT on the qualified vendors list and has NOT completed the qualification procedures set forth in the “Justification for Qualification Requirements” prior to solicitation closure.

Any factor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal Unacceptable, and therefore, un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially, or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award; however, the offeror is reminded that the government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

3.3. Factor 2: Past Performance

3.3.1. Ratings: The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below:

Table 2 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Description

SUBSTANTIAL

CONFIDENCE

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high excitation 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.

NEUTRAL CONFIDENCE 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.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorable or unfavorable on the factor of past performance.

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.

3.3.3. Evaluation Process: The past performance evaluation process considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance. In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, Contract Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

3.3.4. Recency Assessment: An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be considered recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.3.5. Relevancy Assessment: The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided performed under those contracts relate to the Technical and Cost/Price factor, including their relative order of importance. In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Information obtained from other sources may be used to determine relevancy. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3).

Table 3 – Relevancy Definitions Rating Definition 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.

3.3.6. Performance Quality Assessment: The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical sub-factors and Cost/Price Factor; however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings.

Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 4 - Performance Quality Levels

Quality Assessment Rating/Color

Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered.

Contractor took timely corrective action.

SATISFACTORY (S)/GREEN During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements.

For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

UNSATISFACTORY(U)/RED During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements.

Serious problems encountered, corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive Customer oversight and involvement was required.

NOT APPLICABLE (N) WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Un-ratable.

3.3.7. Assigning Ratings: As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical sub-factors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance, or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, and as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor. The SSA may determine that a “Substantial Confidence” or “Satisfactory Confidence” past performance rating is worth more than a “Neutral Confidence” past performance rating.

3.3.8. More recent performance will not have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent effort performed during the past five years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. All performance determined to be recent will have an equal impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

3.4. Factor 3: Price

3.4.1.1. Submit a copy of the completed TEP worksheet in the Price Volume. As this is a Best Value source selection, the TEP will only be calculated for those offerors that achieve an “Acceptable” rating in Factor 1. In order to facilitate the calculation of a TEP, the contractor shall price each quantity band in each ordering period. The prices proposed on the TEP work sheet will be set prices for the duration of this contract. For the first article, the offeror shall propose a separate price. Data and reports shall be not separately priced (NSP), meaning the cost to provide the required data, as outlined in the attached CDRLs (DD Form 1423-1s), will be included in the price for production and first article.

3.4.1.2. Reasonableness - The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs and reviewing them for price reasonableness in accordance with the techniques described in FAR 15.404.

Generally, adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. For more information see FAR 31.201-3 and Section L.

3.4.1.3. Balance - Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs is significantly over or understated. The government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced in accordance with FAR 15.404-1.

An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the government.

4. Pre-Award Survey System

4.1.1 Per DFARS PGI 223.370-4(iv) the PCO will request DCMA to conduct a pre-award survey within the Pre-Award Survey System (PASS), to include a review of the contractor’s/subcontractor’s facility, and to obtain a pre-award ammunition and explosives safety survey as a part of this source selection. Additionally, the requirements of DFARS PGI 223.370-4(iv) require that a pre-award survey be conducted before awarding any contracts involving ammunition and explosives, as defined in DFARS 252.223-7002 – Safety Precautions for Ammunition and Explosives. This requirement extends to any subcontractors a prospective contractor intends to use; therefore, to facilitate any potential PASS, the offeror shall provide a list of all locations where the work is to be performed (to include all locations/contractors outside of the United States) and indicate whether such a facility is a division, affiliate, associate contractor, or subcontractor. Results of the PASS will be evaluated to determine each offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and shall be a condition of award.