Section M_Evaluation Factors for Award_Final RFP 5 Feb 21.pdf

FA8626-21-R-0002

Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Source Selection

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) 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), Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov/. Referenced definitions within this document are incorporated in

Section J, Attachment 1, Statement of Work (SOW).

A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR Part 9, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include submission of all information required by Section L of this solicitation and all stated terms, conditions, representations, and certifications of this solicitation), and is determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. In order to be considered awardable, Offerors must first meet the Prior F-15 Integration Gate described in paragraph 2.2.1 below.

The Government will select for contract award the Offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable and is determined to offer the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Risk and Price, as set forth below. The Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Price Factor in the Government’s best value decision. This may result in an award to a better rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the better risk rating of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the price difference. While the

Government Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB), the Source Selection Advisory Council

(SSAC) and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1.1 Evaluation Factors Used to Evaluate Each Proposal

Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best value to the

Government based on an integrated assessment of the following Factors and Subfactors:

Factor 1 Technical

Subfactor 1: Certifications

Subfactor 2: Producibility & Production Management

Subfactor 3: Propulsion System Integration, Aircraft Military Certification, and

Integration Schedule

Factor 2 Price

1.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

In order to be considered for award, a proposal must successfully pass the Gate (Factor 1, Subfactor 1, Measure of Merit (MoM) 1). Once the proposal passes the Gate, MoM 1 will no longer be part of the award decision. Factor 1 (Technical) is significantly more important than Factor 2 (Price) in the Government’s best value decision. However, Factor 2 (Price) will https://www.acquisition.gov/ contribute substantially to the decision. Within Factor 1, Subfactor 1 (MoM 2 and MoM 3), Subfactor 2, and Subfactor 3 are of equal importance. The Government will evaluate the Technical Factor as described in paragraph 2.1 below. Price will be evaluated as described in paragraph 2.5 below.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all.

1.3 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors if an initial assessment shows the proposal fails to address requirements of the Request For Proposal (RFP), fails to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements of the RFP, or does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

The evaluation criteria includes a Prior F-15 Integration Gate at paragraph 2.2.1, Factor 1, Subfactor 1, MoM 1. The Government may reject an Offeror’s proposal at this Gate without reviewing or performing an initial evaluation on the rest of the Offeror’s proposal if the Gate criteria is not met.

Additionally, the Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract or program requirements or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program.

1.4 Reserved

1.5 Discussions

The Government intends to award a contract without discussions or without the opportunity for proposal revision, but reserves the right to conduct discussions. Offerors should submit their best proposals upon initial submission and in the format specified in Section L, and should not rely on the possibility of discussions.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, only the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal, together with responses to Evaluation

Notices (ENs), has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, those EN responses must be specifically incorporated into the FPR to be considered in the source selection decision. Any additional changes in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.6 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.

2.0. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

Figure 2-1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1 Factor 1 – Technical

Subfactor 1 will be assigned a Technical rating only. Subfactors 2 and 3 will be assigned a

Technical rating and a Risk rating. Technical ratings and Risk ratings will only be assigned at the

Subfactor level.

2.1.1 Subfactor Technical Rating

An Unacceptable rating for any Subfactor makes an offer unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. For Subfactors 1, 2, and 3, the Technical Rating for each will be

Acceptable (A) or Unacceptable (U) as described in Table 2-1:

Code Rating Description

A Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation

U Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

Table 2-1 Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Table

2.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

Technical Subfactors 2 and 3 will be evaluated for Technical Risk and each Subfactor (2 and 3) will receive a risk rating. Subfactor 1 will not be assigned a risk rating. The Government will evaluate Technical Risk, focusing on weaknesses and significant weaknesses associated with an

Offeror's proposed approach. Risk considers the potential for disruption to schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement for the Subfactor including all subordinate MoMs; however, no risk rating will be applied below the Subfactor level. The Government may identify additional risks beyond those identified by the Offeror and will include these additional identified risks in its evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal.

The technical risk ratings assigned to Subfactors 2 and 3 will be IAW Table 2-2:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses, which may potentially cause disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close

Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses, which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule or degradation of performance. Contractor is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

Table 2-2 Technical Risk Rating

The definitions of Weakness and Significant Weakness in Table 2-3 will be used in the technical risk evaluation:

Type Definition per FAR 15.001

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Table 2-3 Definition of Weakness/Significant Weakness

2.2 Subfactor 1: Certifications

2.2.1 MoM 1: Gate, Prior F-15 Integration

The requirement is met when the Offeror provides all substantiating documentation instructed in

Section L, paragraph 5.2.3.1 MoM 1: Gate, Prior F-15 Integration.

NOTE: The Offeror must meet MoM 1 to be considered eligible for contract award. If the

Offeror fails to meet MoM 1, the Offeror will be considered ineligible for contract award and eliminated without further evaluation of its proposal.

2.2.2 MoM 2: Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Certification

The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a CEO Certification Letter in accordance with

Section L, paragraph 5.2.3.2 MoM 2: Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Certification.

2.2.3 MoM 3: Small Business Participation

The requirement is met when the Offeror’s submits a narrative of their Small Business

Participation approach that addresses the elements identified at Section L, paragraph 5.2.3.3

MoM 3: Small Business Participation and demonstrates a commitment to incorporating Small

Business concerns where possible and provides a more than nominal amount of Small Business support throughout the life of the contract.

2.3 Subfactor 2: Producibility and Production Management

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to meeting the solicitation’s delivery schedule and addressing Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortages (DMSMS) and engine component parts availability throughout the life of the contract.

2.3.1 MoM 1: Production Schedule

This element is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound production approach and

Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) required by Section L, paragraph 5.2.4.1, MoM 1 Production

Schedule, to meet the contract delivery schedule for each delivery lot and any combination of

Section L, Attachment 1, Pricing Workbook Tab D identified annual buys.

2.3.2 MoM 2: Diminishing Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortage (DMSMS)

This element is met when the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to address DMSMS for the life of the contract as required in Section L, paragraph 5.2.4.2 MoM 2: Diminishing

Manufacturing Sources & Material Shortage (DMSMS).

2.4 Subfactor 3: Propulsion System Integration, Aircraft Military Certification, and

Integration Schedule

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach for Propulsion System Integration, Aircraft Military Certification, and Integration Schedule.

2.4.1 MoM 1: Propulsion System Integration

This element is met when either: the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach for full

Integration of the Propulsion System into the F-15EX Aircraft and aircraft manufacturer relationship; or, the Offeror’s proposal includes evidence of engine DD250 delivery to the

Government in support of the F-15EX program as required by Section L, paragraph 5.2.5.1, MoM 1: Propulsion System Integration.

2.4.2 MoM 2: Aircraft Military Certification

This element is met when either: the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to provide the necessary data and documentation to obtain United States Air Force Military Certification for operational use in the F-15EX Aircraft; or, the Offeror’s proposal includes evidence of engine

DD250 delivery to the Government in support of the F-15EX program as required by Section L, paragraph 5.2.5.2, MoM 2: Military Certification.

2.4.3 MoM 3: Integration Schedule

This element is met when either: the Offeror’s proposal describes a sound approach to the

Propulsion System Integration within the IMS required by Section L, paragraph 5.2.5.3 and completes the F-15EX Lot 2 Integration no later than Section F schedule requirements for

Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) 1000; or, the Offeror’s proposal includes evidence of engine

DD250 delivery to the Government in support of the F-15EX program as required by Section L, paragraph 5.2.5.3, MoM 3: Integration Schedule.

2.5 Factor 2 – Price

2.5.1 Evaluation Process

The Government will evaluate the Price proposal for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness,

(3) unbalanced pricing, and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors, whose price is determined to be unreasonable, will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Procuring

Contracting Officer (PCO) determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the

Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.5.2 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with

Section L of the solicitation. If not complete and in compliance, the Offeror’s proposal may be ineligible for award.

2.5.3 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 adequate price competition and use of one or more of the price analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404.

2.5.4 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more contract line items 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. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balance pricing rests with the

Offeror.

2.5.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Evaluation of proposed pricing will be based on review of pricing provided in the Pricing

Workbook, Section L, Attachment 1 of the RFP, pricing narrative, and pricing support information.

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offerors proposed prices for all separately priced

CLINs including options. The CLINs included in the TEP are: 1000, 1002, 1003, 1004, 2000AA-

2000AM, 2002, 2004AA-2004AC, 3000, 3002, 3003, 4000, 4002, 4003, 5000, 5002, 5003, 6000, 6002, 6003, 7000, 7002, 7003, 8000, 8002, 8003, 9000, 9002 and 9003.

For Production CLINs 2000, 3000, 4000, 5000, 6000, 7000, 8000, and 9000, the most probable quantity identified in the Pricing Workbook, Section L, Attachment 1 of the RFP, will be used for TEP calculation. For CLINs 2004AA-2004AC, 3003, 4003, 5003, 6003, 7003, 8003 and

9003, the most probable quantity of spare engines identified in the Pricing Workbook, Section L, Attachment 1 of the RFP will be used for TEP calculation. For Fixed Price Incentive Firm (FPIF)

CLIN 1000, the ceiling price will be included in the TEP.

The TEP Calculation Table in Tab B of the Pricing Workbook, Section L, Attachment 1 of the

RFP demonstrates how the TEP will be calculated.