Section M DRAFT 8.7.23.pdf

July 28, 2023

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. GENERAL

1.1 - Basis for Contract Award

This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable source selection 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, Appendix C, 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3.

Award will be made to the lowest priced offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements and who is found to be Technically Acceptable. The Government will organize the proposals in order of Total Evaluated Price and will evaluate the technical approach of the lowest priced offeror first. The Government will evaluate proposals in ascending order of price until two technically acceptable proposals are found. Award shall be made to the lower price of the two proposals without further consideration to any other offers. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 – Number of Contracts to be awarded

The Government intends to award one C-type contract for the Royal Thai Air Force (RTAF) components.

1.3 – Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 – Discussions

The Government reserves the right and fully intends to award this acquisition without discussions based on the initial proposal received. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, a competitive range will be established in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). In that event, Offeror responses to discussion 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 evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined Unacceptable, and thus, ineligible for award.

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. A grossly deficient proposal is a proposal that fails to address essential requirements of the RFP or fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP and does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

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 an offeror’s 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 unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

1.6 – Pre-Award Survey (FAR 9.106)

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate and confirm the offeror's written proposal.

2. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 – Overview

The following entry gate, evaluation factors, and subfactors will be used to evaluate proposals as needed. The Government will evaluate Technical subfactors for acceptability.

Entry Gate: Relevant Performance History Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Bill of Material Compliance

Subfactor 2: Delivery Schedule Approach Factor 2: Price

3. ENTRY GATE

3.1 – Entry Gate Overview:

The entry gate evaluates whether the offeror has relevant performance history.

3.2 – Entry Gate Measure of Merit

This entry gate is passed when the proposal provides evidence demonstrating that they have completed the following two criteria within a single contract:

A. A prior contract greater than $5M in total value within the past 5 years and B. International delivery of components outside of North America.

IF AN OFFEROR FAILS TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF THE ABOVE, THE OFFEROR WILL

BE CONSIDERED INELIGIBLE FOR CONTRACT AWARD AND ELIMINATED

WITHOUT FURTHER EVALUATION OF ITS PROPOSAL

4. FACTOR 1, TECHNICAL

4.1 – Technical Overview

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Proposals must meet the Measure of Merit within a given subfactor in order for the subfactor to be rated “Acceptable.” Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. 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 intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

4.2 – Technical Ratings Table

4.3 –Subfactor 1: Bill of Material Compliance

Description: This subfactor assesses whether the offeror’s proposal is in conformance with the Bill of Materials (BOM).

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to obtaining all brand name items and part numbers that strictly adhere to the BOM located as attachment 1.

4.4 –Subfactor 2: Delivery Schedule Approach

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s approach to deliver all required components and support equipment.

Measure of Merit: This requirement is met when the offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to deliver all required components and support equipment to the required destination with full operational functionality no later than the required delivery date.

5. FACTOR 2, PRICE

5.1 - Price Overview

Price proposals will be evaluated for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness, (3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be incomplete or unreasonable will not be considered for award. If the Contracting Officer (CO) determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government, the offeror may not be eligible for award.

5.2 – Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation.

TECHNICAL RATINGS TABLE

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

5.3 - Reasonableness

The offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

5.4 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

5.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated based upon the Pricing Matrix (Attachment 1). The Total Evaluated Price will be the summation of all items listed on the BOM. The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only, and does not necessarily reflect an actual award value of any ensuing contract.

Other:

List of Attachments: Section L attachments listed below are provided as separate files.

• Attachment 1: Bill of Materials and Pricing Matrix

• Attachment 2: Statement of Work (SOW)