Section_M.docx
DOCX document 24 KB Posted
- Attached to
- The Joint Threat Emitter (JTE) Program/Logistics Support Federal contract opportunity
- Solicitation number
- FA8210-24-R-5014
About this file
This document is a Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award, for a Department of the Air Force Materiel Command contract opportunity related to the Joint Threat Emitter (JTE) Program. It outlines the basis for contract award, which will be a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection, and the evaluation factors and subfactors to be used, including Program Management/Logistics, System Design Compliance/Production, and Testing. The Government intends to award one contract for the follow-on JTE Program, but reserves the right not to make an award. Offerors will be evaluated on the completeness, reasonableness, and balance of their proposed pricing, as well as the acceptability of their technical proposals. Proposals determined to be technically unacceptable in any subfactor will be ineligible for award. The contract will provide for software maintenance support for the JTE system components.
View the file
Other files for this federal contract opportunity
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing_Work_Book.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| CDRLs_A_List.pdf | ||
| Section_L.docx | DOCX document | |
| FA8210-24-R-5014.pdf |
On GovTribe
Work with this file on GovTribe
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
SECTION M
Evaluation Factors for Award Joint Threat Emitter (JTE) Enhanced Delivery Initiative (JEDI)
1. SOURCE SELECTION
| 1.1 | Basis for Contract Award – This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 15, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 15, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplemental Procedures, Guidance and Information (DFARS Subpart 215-3—Source Selection) with the new DoD source selection procedures memorandum revised on 31 March 2016. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. All Offerors will be evaluated in accordance with Section M. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors. The Contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, 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 and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. |
| 1.2 | Number of Contracts to be Awarded – The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the follow-on Joint Threat Emitter (JTE) Program. However, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, if the SSA determines it is in the Government’s best interest to do so. If the Government determines to not award a contract the Government is not liable for contractor proposal costs incurred. |
| 1.3 | Major Proposal Revisions – If a proposal receives an “Unacceptable” rating after initial evaluation and will require major revisions in order to meet the technical requirement, the Government reserves the right to exclude the Offeror from the competitive range. |
| 1.4 | Discussions – The Government reserves the right to award without discussions. However, 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 final 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 Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. |
| 1.5 | 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 or subfactors. 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. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions as unacceptable. |
2. EVALUATION FACTORS
2.2 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors – The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors.
· Factor 1: Price
· Factor 2: Technical
· Subfactor One: Program Management and Logistics
· Subfactor Two: System Design Compliance and Production
· Subfactor Three: Testing
3. VOLUME I – PRICE
| 3.2 | Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete, unreasonable, or unbalanced may not be considered for award. |
| 3.2.1 | Completeness – Any cells in the Pricing Workbook that are not completed will be considered a no bid or an omitted price resulting in an incomplete price submission and may be considered ineligible for award and may be eliminated. |
| 3.2.2 | Reasonableness – The determination of Price Reasonableness will consist of reviewing the proposed prices to calculate a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and evaluate the TEP in accordance with the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1, Proposal analysis techniques. Cost or Pricing Information Requirements – In Accordance With (IAW) FAR 15.402, FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), “information other than certified cost or pricing data” may be required to support price reasonableness. If after receipt of proposals, the CO determines that there is insufficient information available to determine the reasonableness of the proposed pricing the Offeror may be required to submit additional information other than certified cost or pricing data. If, during the source selection process, the CO determines that adequate competition no longer exists, then certified cost and pricing data may be required. Cost Reimbursable-No Fee (CRNF) CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. |
| 3.2.3 | Balance – The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to unit prices and variable quantity matrix factors in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. |
| 3.2.4 | TEP – The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated on the price(s) proposed in the pricing workbook based on a pre-determined notional quantity of end-items (standard and accelerated delivery schedules), retrofit kits, spares, support equipment, SDS, First Article Testing, Training, Site Surveys and Foreign Military Sales Site Acceptance Tests (SATs) purchased across the five (5) year ordering period. The notional quantities will be defined before receipt of proposals and will be consistently applied across all Offerors. The TEP will also utilize the Offeror’s labor rates proposed by the contractor. For the Cost Reimbursable-No Fee CLINs, the contractor need not propose an amount. These CLINS will not be evaluated as part of the TEP. |
| 3.3 | The Government’s price evaluation team will determine if the proposal contained a professional employee compensation plan that meets the requirements of FAR 52.222-46. |
4. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL
| 4.1 | The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on an Acceptable or Unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire Technical Factor 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. |
| 4.2 | Evidence which clearly demonstrates and supports the Offeror’s claims is essential. The absence of such evidence may result in a technically unacceptable proposal. |
TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS
| Rating |
| Description |
| Acceptable |
| Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation. |
| Unacceptable |
| Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicit |
The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors:
4.3 Subfactor One: Program Management / Logistics
Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to lead, manage, and control all levels of this effort by means of an Integrated Management Plan (IMP), Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), Supply Chain Processes and System Delivery description, Configuration Management Plan (CMP), and a description of the Offeror’s obsolescence management approach.
This subfactor is considered Acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria:
| 4.3.1 | Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) – The IMS will be evaluated to verify that the Offeror’s critical path is properly identified and realistic. Additionally, the IMS will be evaluated for realistic component and system build timelines and that the IMS dates match the Offeror’s production approach per (PWS 4.10.9). |
| 4.3.2 | Supply Chain Processes and System Delivery – The Offeror’s description of their supply chain processes will be evaluated to ensure they clearly outline an understanding and capability to procure complex components from multiple vendors. Proposals will be evaluated to ensure that feasible schedule risks associated with OEM supplier constraints have been identified. Identified risks will be evaluated to ensure that all mitigation solutions realistically address vender-driven schedule risks. The Offeror’s Outside Contiguous United States (OCONUS) delivery approach will be evaluated to ensure it clearly demonstrates an understanding of export controls, and OCONUS shipping and travel. |
| 4.3.3 | Configuration Management Plan (CMP) – The Offeror’s CMP will be evaluated to ensure their Quality Assurance Program meets ISO 9001 standards or equivalent. Also, the CMP will be evaluated to verify it provides a robust, and feasible approach to maintain the configuration of multiple system baselines, the Government owned technical data package, and software. The CMP will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror’s software assurance meets Software Engineering Institute (SEI) Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level Three Core Process Areas and Development processes at a minimum (PWS 4.3.13). |
| 4.3.4 | Obsolescence Management – The Offeror’s obsolescence management approach will be evaluated to verify that it is proactive and utilizes prediction tools to reduce program risk from obsolescence (PWS 4.3.14). |
| 4.4 | Subfactor Two: System Design Compliance / Systems Engineering |
Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to produce JTE systems in accordance with the Government owned TDP and within delivery schedules outlined in the Performance Work Statement (PWS). This subfactor also evaluates the Offeror’s ability to adequately and appropriately perform engineering changes to the JTE system design. The Offeror’s production approach and design compliance approach, will be evaluated in this subfactor.
This subfactor is considered Acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria:
| 4.4.1 | Production Approach – The Offeror’s approach will be evaluated to verify it details the manufacturing processes to the component level or lower. The approach will be evaluated to ensure that all production details meet a minimum Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) of 7 and have a reasonable approach to increase production capability to a MRL of 9. All MRLs are defined within the Manufacturing Readiness Level Deskbook Version 2.2.1 and described within the MRL_Users_Guide_V12.5.16.xls (attached in Section J of the Model Contract). The approach will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror can produce Fixed Command and Control Units (FC2Us), Mobile Command and Control Units (MC2Us), Threat Emitter units (TEUs), and Wideband TEUs (WTEUs) within the applicable standard and accelerated schedules. The approach will be evaluated to ensure that the Offeror can maintain production throughput of 24 total end-items within these delivery schedules while simultaneously delivering, support equipment, retrofit kits, and full sets of spares for at least 50% of these end-items ordered. Additionally, the timeframes within the approach will be compared to the dates outlined in the IMS to verify consistency. (PWS 4.10.9) |
| 4.4.2 | Design Compliance Approach – The Offeror’s approach will be evaluated to ensure that the manufacturing processes outlined are capable of producing complex end-items. |
| 4.5 | Subfactor Three: Testing |
Description: This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to accurately and adequately perform component and system level testing in accordance with the PWS Section 3.7.
This subfactor is considered Acceptable when the Offeror’s proposal meets the following criteria:
| 4.5.1 | Test Capability – The Offerors’ test capability will be evaluated to verify that the Offeror currently has, or has a plan to obtain the correct test equipment, facilities, and expertise needed to perform all component and system level testing prior to the applicable test. |
| 4.5.2 | Test Capacity – The Offeror’s test capacity description will be evaluated to ensure the Offeror can perform multiple test events simultaneously while meeting the PWS delivery requirements. This may include but is not limited to, multiple end-items undergoing system level (FAT and SAT), LRU level, Bench level, incoming inspection/test of spares and support equipment, and software tests (PWS 4.3.15, 4.3.16, 4.3.17, 4.3.18, 4.3.19). |
5. VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION
| 5.1 | Along with technical requirements, and in addition to the previously identified factors and sub-factors, Offerors are required to meet all other solicitation requirements, such as terms, conditions and representations and certifications. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Although not considered a factor, the contract documentation volume will be reviewed for completeness by the PCO as part of a determination of responsibility. The volume shall include a signed copy of the Model Contract/Solicitation, Sections A through K (as outlined in Section L), signed amendments to the solicitation (if any), and all other information required by Instructions of Offerors (ITOs) Section L paragraph 6.0. |
| 5.2 | Small Business Subcontracting Plan |
| 5.2.1 | If applicable, the Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated against applicable Federal Acquisition Regulation requirements IAW DFARS 219.702. |
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .