Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-900 EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Lowest Price

Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection procedure in accordance with FAR

15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedure 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The USG intends to award a single contract for the scope of work identified within this Statement of Work, with exception of the mission essential quantity. However, the USG could award up to two (2) contracts, should a qualified source not be determined the best value, in order to meet mission essential quantity requirements. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in paragraph 3 below.

II. Award of Mission Essential Quantity (MEQ)

A. The government has determined that a break in the supply of this item (that is, failure to deliver due to timeliness and/or conformance) would jeopardize support to operational units’ mission capability. Additionally, the item is of such complexity and/or so critical that first article testing measures are required for all unproven sources to ensure that the unproven source is capable of producing a conforming part. Therefore, the government reserves the right to award the Mission Essential Quantity (MEQ) and, if necessary, the remainder of the requirement to a proven source. In order to be awarded quantities beyond the MEQ, the proven source must be a responsive, responsible offeror and also be the lowest in price of all proven offerors, price and price-related factors considered.

Therefore, two contract line items are provided to correspond with each of the two alternatives.

B. The government shall first determine the apparent successful offeror for the complete quantity under Alternative 1. If offers are received from both proven and unproven sources and it is determined that an unproven source is the apparent best value (and is also responsive and responsible), then the prices under Alternative 2 shall be evaluated. Once a decision has been made to progress to Alternative 2, offers under Alternative 1 shall no longer be considered (e.g. the contracting officer shall not compare the proven source’s offer under Alternative 1 and the unproven source’s offer under Alternative 2). If only unproven sources submit offers, Alternative 1 will be used to determine the low offeror and award will be made for that quantity.

C. A proven source is an offeror who has previously satisfactorily provided the identical item to the government or who proposes to provide an item manufactured by the prime manufacturer or the prime manufacturer’s vendor (when there is no value added by the prime manufacturer).

D. An unproven source is an offeror who has not previously satisfactorily provided the identical item to the government and who proposes to provide an item manufactured by other than the prime manufacturer or the prime manufacturer’s vendor (when there is no value added by the prime manufacturer).

E. Competitively negotiated acquisition procedures may be used to determine low offeror status if,

(1) a proven source is not the low offeror, based on either initial proposals or on the final proposal revision if discussions are conducted, and

(2) if the proven source’s price is not determined to be based on adequate price competition pursuant to FAR 15.403-1, Prohibition on obtaining cost or pricing data. The contracting officer may proceed with an award to the low unproven source and may request cost or pricing data from the proven source. When received and evaluated, negotiations shall follow as necessary to determine fair and reasonable prices. Under these circumstances, any contract with the proven source would contain the clause at FAR

52.215-10, Price Reduction for Defective Cost or Pricing Data.

F. The government is under no obligation to exercise any options provided for under these procedures. Acceptable delivery of the basic award quantity by an unproven source shall not bind the government to exercise all or part of the option quantities, or to exercise options in any contract with the unproven source in lieu of options in any separate award to a proven source. In addition, the government reserves the right to reject, as nonresponsive, any offer in which the prices proposed in either Alternative 1 or 2 are determined, by the Contracting Officer, to be materially unbalanced.

III. Proposal Evaluation

A. General: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows, organized by Volume:

i. Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, 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 among the most highly rated proposals.

ii. Volume I, Completed RFP (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 unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award. The offeror shall ensure that the RFP and any amendments issued are signed and all “fill-in” clauses and provisions are completed as required.

iii. Volume II, Written Technical Proposal

Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the sub-factors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of Statement of Work (SOW) dated 14 Jan 2021 and any revisions, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements. The technical proposal addresses each of the following sub-factors in sufficient detail.

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical sub-factors:

(a) Sub-factor One: VSD Packaging, Handling, Shipping and Transportation

Solution:

This element is met when the detailed narrative adequately describes, within your technical approach, your packaging, transportation, in addition to shipping and handling solution for VSD and associated equipment without damage, as referenced SOW paragraph 3.1.

(b) Sub-factor Two: VSD Production Plan:

This element is met when the detailed narrative adequately describes, within your technical approach, the following elements as required in SOW paragraph 3.2:

manufacturing start up timeline, man power management, employee production training, production quality process, production risk management plan.

(c) Sub-factor Three: Composite Spring Manufacturing Plan:

This element is met when the detailed narrative adequately describes within your technical approach, as required in SOW paragraph 3.3:

How the Contractor intends to organize, manage, and perform manufacturing of the composite spring per government furnished technical data package.

A maximum of two specific examples of similar products to the composite spring previously manufactured by either prime offeror or subcontractor/partner.

A. The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each sub-factor. Any sub-factor 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 cautioned that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

IV. Cost/Price Factor

A. General: The offeror's Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price calculation in accordance with the following:

i. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of Government-obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

ii. Balance: Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items including the Basic and all Options, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of proposal

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

analysis techniques. An overstated or understated Contract Line Item Number

(CLIN) price may be due to (a) illogical progression of rates, factors or unit prices between program years, (b) unit prices that do not take into account quantity variations, or (c) the “front-loading” of CLINs; either of these situations would reflect an inaccurate “true” cost for that CLIN. Front-loading occurs when a larger than normal amount of costs are concentrated in an early contract period. The Government will consider any “front-loaded” CLIN as unbalanced, since acceptance of the proposal would result in advance payment. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether there are unbalanced separately priced line items or sub-line items.

Prices submitted will be compared and evaluated to assure that a logical progression exists as related to price and quantity changes within each offeror’s response to the pricing structure in Schedule B of the RFP. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government.

iii. Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The Government will calculate the TEP based on the following:

NOTE 1: An unproven source should propose on the First Article and related data as well as the production units, spares and support equipment kits. A proven source need only propose on the production units, spares and support equipment kits. Therefore, unproven sources must propose on Bid A under Alternative 1 and Bid C under

Alternative 2. Proven sources must propose on Bid B under Alternative 1 and Bid D under Alternative 2.

NOTE 2: Alternative 1 (Complete Award)

Under Alternative 1, only one award will be made. If only one award is made to the proven source, the minimum initial order will be placed to the proven source for at least the minimum quantity specified in the schedule under Bid B or any greater quantity up to the maximum specified. If only unproven sources submit offers under

Alternative I, Bid A will be used to determine the low offeror and award will be made. The minimum initial order awarded to an unproven source under Bid A must be the pre-production unit (first article) quantity specified in the schedule.

NOTE 3: Alternative 2 (DPP Award)

In accordance with Section M, prices proposed under Alternative 2 will be evaluated if it is determined that a proven source is not the low offeror under Alternative

1. Two awards will be made under Alternative 2. One award will be to the low

Proven Source using a basic IDIQ contract and initial order for the Mission Essential

Quantity (MEQ). The second award will be to the low Unproven Source using a basic IDIQ and an initial order for the First Article. Should the First Article then pass

Government testing, the Proven Source contract will conclude with delivery of the

MEQ units and any additional units that may have been ordered up to that point. Future production requirements would be then be procured under the terms of the Unproven Source contract. However, the Government is under no obligation to exercise Option periods or issue any subsequent orders under either contract should additional requirements not generate or it be determined not in the best interest of the

Government.

(a) The offeror will propose in accordance with the following CLIN structure as applicable:

CLIN Title Pricing Quantity

Base Period

Bid A: (Unproven Source) (Alt 1)

0001 VSD First Article

0002 VSD Production Units

0003 VSD Spares

0004 VSD Support Equipment Kits

Firm Fixed-Price (FFP)

FFP

1 EA

12 EA

2 EA

5 EA

Bid B: (Proven Source) (Alt 1)

0005 VSD Production Units

0006 VSD Spares

0007 VSD Support Equipment Kits

0008 Travel

0009 Training

FFP

Cost Reimbursement No-Fee (CRNF)

2 EA

5 EA

1 LO

1 EA

Bid C: (Unproven Source) (Alt 2)

0010 VSD First Article

1 EA

Bid D: (Proven Source) (Alt 2)

0011 MEQ -VSD Production Units

0012 MEQ - VSD Spares

0013 MEQ - VSD Support Equipment

Kits

2 EA

5 EA

0014 Data Not Separately Priced (NSP) 1 LO

0014AA A001 Conference Agenda

0014AB A002 Conference Minutes

0014AC A003 Integrated Master Schedule

0014AD A004 Quality Assurance Program

Plan

0014AE A005 Training Materials

0014AF A006 Training Conduct Support

0014AG A007 IUID Marking Plan

0014AH A008 IUID Marking Report

CLIN Title Pricing Est.

Quantity

Option 1

1001 VSD Production Units FFP 42 EA

1002 VSD Spares FFP 8 EA

1003 Travel CRNF 1 LO

1004 Training FFP 1 EA

1005 Data NSP 1 LO

1005AA A001 Conference Agenda

1005AB A002 Conference Minutes

1005AC A003 Integrated Master Schedule

1005AD A004 Quality Assurance Program

1005AE A005 Training Materials

1005AF A006 Training Conduct Support

1005AG A007 IUID Marking Plan

1005AH A008 IUID Marking Report

Option 2

2001 VSD Production Units FFP 36 EA

2002 VSD Spares FFP 8 EA

2005 Data NSP 1 LO

2005AA A001 Conference Agenda

2005AB A002 Conference Minutes

2005AC A003 Integrated Master Schedule

2005AD A004 Quality Assurance Program

2005AE A005 Training Materials

2005AF A006 Training Conduct Support

2005AG A007 IUID Marking Plan

2005AH A008 IUID Marking Report

Option 3

3001 VSD Production Units FFP 12 EA

3002 VSD Spares FFP 6 EA

3005 Data NSP 1 LO

3005AA A001 Conference Agenda

3005AB A002 Conference Minutes

3005AC A003 Integrated Master Schedule

3005AD A004 Quality Assurance Program

3005AE A005 Training Materials

3005AF A006 Training Conduct Support

3005AG A007 IUID Marking Plan

3005AH A008 IUID Marking Report

Option 4

4001 VSD Production Units FFP 2 EA

4002 VSD Spares FFP 6 EA

4005 Data NSP 1 LO

4005AA A001 Conference Agenda

4005AB A002 Conference Minutes

4005AC A003 Integrated Master Schedule

4005AD A004 Quality Assurance Program

4005AE A005 Training Materials

4005AF A006 Training Conduct Support

4005AG A007 IUID Marking Plan

4005AH A008 IUID Marking Report

1. For proposals that include quantity ranges, the Government will multiply the proposed range unit price(s) by the quantity included in each range to obtain an evaluated price for that CLIN.

2. Offerors will also propose an estimated cost for CRNF Travel CLINS.

Proposed travel costs will not be included in the TEP calculation.

3. All Data CLINs will be Not Separately Priced (NSP) and therefore not included in the TEP calculation.

4. All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest whole dollar.

5. Only the unproven source shall propose a cost/price for CLINs 1003 Travel and

1004 Training.

(b) The Government will utilize the following methodology to determine the TEP for all option periods as follows:

1. For both unproven sources (First Article required) and proven sources (First

Article not required), the evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the proposed unit price by the respective quantity required on the CLIN.

2. Option periods 2-5 will be included in the Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 TEP calculations.

3. Proven sources are not required to propose for First Article costs.

4. The sum of all CLINS including each option period proposed, less travel, will represent the total evaluated price for that proposal.

5. This award will be made on an all or none basis. Any proposals not offering for all items for all quantities will not be evaluated and will not be eligible for award.

(c) The TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. Offerors are advised that evaluation of Option periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

(d) Attachment 01 of Section M, Sample TEP Calculations, is an example of the TEP

Calculation and is attached to the solicitation. The example is provided for demonstration purposes only and is inclusive of all contract periods. The Government estimated dollars, hours, rates, quantities, and/or prices contained within are arbitrary numbers. The example is in no way reflective of the actual/total requirements as defined in the RFP. It is provided only as a means of identifying how the various types of calculations will be performed.