SECTION M - MFDU LRIP - DRAFT.pdf

Maternity Flight Duty Uniform Attachment 2 – Section M: ITO

12 April 2021

Maternity Flight Duty Uniform (MFDU) Low- Rate Initial Production (LRIP) SECTION M

INSTRUCTIONS, CONDITIONS, AND NOTICES TO OFFERORS OR

RESPONDENTS (ITO)

FA8606-21-R-0010

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation 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 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Acquisition.gov. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make no award at all. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical Rating of acceptable/unacceptable on Product Demonstration Model and a combined Technical Rating/Technical Risk on Production Capability and Demonstrated Prior Experience. For this solicitation Factor 1 (Technical) is more important than Factor 2 (Price). A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, 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 determined, based on the evaluation factors, to represent the best value to the Government. 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 technically superior rating and/or lower risk rating of the higher priced Offeror outweigh the price 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.

Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

B. Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals: The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors herein if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient.

Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation.

C. 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.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. 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 evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

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.

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 and will rate the proposals by the nonprice factors or subfactors. The technical subfactor ratings, however, shall not be combined into an overall rating for the Technical factor. If subfactor 1 is found to be unacceptable, the government will not evaluate the remaining proposal and will be determined un-awardable. The Technical factor shall not be independently rated.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Product Demonstration Model (PDM) Subfactor 2: Production Capability (Combined Technical Risk Rating) Subfactor 3: Demonstrated Prior Experience (Combined Technical Risk Rating)

Factor 2: Price

3. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors: The relative importance of each factor is as follows: The Technical Factor is significantly more important than Price;

however, Price will contribute substantially to the Source Selection Decision. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactors are listed in descending order from most important to least important. This source selection will utilize tradeoff between Price and Subfactor 2 Production Capability. Additionally, the technical risk rating for Subfactor 3 and the technical rating for Subfactor 3 is of equal importance. The technical rating for Subfactor 1 is pass/fail and will not contribute to the Government’s tradeoff decision.

B. Volume I, Executive Summary

1. Cross Reference Matrix: The cross-reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements documents (Statement of Work (SOW), Fielding Plan, Purchase Description (PD), the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Section L (Instructions to Offerors) and Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award)).

C. Volume II, Technical Volume

1. General: Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Fielding Plan/CDRL Package/SOW/PD, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks.

The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For subfactors 2 & 3, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

2. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings: The Subfactor 1: PDM evaluation of the

Technical Factor provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements. Subfactor 1 will receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable. If subfactor 1 is deemed Unacceptable, the government will render the entire proposal Unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3. Combined Technical and Risk Rating: The technical and risk rating provides an assessment of the offeror’s solution IAW the DoD Source Selection Guide for meeting the Government’s requirement. Subfactor 2 - Production Capability and Subfactor 3 - Demonstrated Prior Experience, will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings (adjectival shown below) that focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements.

4. Subfactor 1: Product Demonstration Model (PDM)

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offerors' ability to perform the Government’s capabilities in accordance with the performance specification. Acceptable proposals will clearly show that requirements are met by providing thorough evidence supported by independent test results and/or certifications as required in Section L. The PDMs will be evaluated for conformance to each item's specification characteristics. Failure to furnish PDMs by the time and date specified in the solicitation may be cause for rejection of the entire offer if not otherwise acceptable under the provisions for considering late offers.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror's proposal provides a PDM that meets the Government's requirements. Performance Specification compliance will be evaluated against the Purchase Description and gives an indication of the requirement

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK

RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Goo d

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is un-awardable.

being met. Proposals which meet all requirements in the Purchase Description will be rated as Acceptable.

5. Subfactor 2: Production Capability

Description: This subfactor will evaluate the offeror’s ability to provide a sound approach to production and quality assurance, to include the ability to manufacture and deliver 2,000 MFDUs.

The offeror’s proposal will be also be evaluated on the maturity of their current manufacturing capability and the adequacy of their responses to the Pre-Award Survey (PAS) to justify this maturity.

Measures of Merit: This sub-factor is met when the offeror provides sound PAS responses that clearly identify and substantiate its answers. Furthermore, the offeror clearly demonstrates that its mitigation plans are executable within the time and resources allocated to program execution.

6. Subfactor 3: Demonstrated Prior Experience

Description: This subfactor evaluates the offerors' ability to manufacture garments of similar technical complexity and quantity as specified in the purchase description and statement of work in the RFP documentation.

Measures of Merit: This subfactor is met when the offeror provides sound documentation and explanation of their products with similar technical complexity, previous uniform efforts, and apparel manufacturing capabilities.

D. Volume III, Price

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 CO determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

1. 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 proposal may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award

2. 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.

3. 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, 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. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists, and the Contracting Officer 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.

4. Total Evaluated Price: The TEP will be the summation of the offerors proposed unit or extended prices for each of the CLINs for base and option periods. The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only.