JLTVCI - DRAFT – Section M - Continued – SPE7LX-25-R-0021

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

BACKGROUND

SOURCE EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURES

Subsequent to the date specified in the solicitation for receipt of proposals, all timely proposals will undergo a nonprice and a price evaluation as described in FAR 15.305 Proposal Evaluation. Written and/or oral discussions may be conducted with all offerors in the competitive range. Firms removed from the competitive range shall be notified in writing. Final proposal revisions resulting from discussions will undergo further non-price and price evaluations. Lastly, proposal(s) will be selected for award in accordance with the established evaluation criteria in FAR 15.305 Proposal Evaluation as spelled out in this section. In the event of multiple awards, the same evaluation criteria will be used to determine which proposals represent the best value to the Government.

This pool of prime awardees will work with the wider base of suppliers and manufacturing sources. A vendor pool will allow for significant competition to manage unit price concerns. This will allow DLA to provide efficient supply chain support on JLTV items during vehicle fielding. To be eligible to receive an award, prior to the solicitation closing date, the offeror must:

1. Propose on the minimum number of PEL NSNs outlined in Section L of the solicitation.

2. Be registered in System for Award Management (SAM) (sam.gov).

3. Possess Export Control/ Joint Certification Program (JCP) certification.

4. Possess DLA Enhanced Validation. DLA Enhanced Validation is an additional approval by the DLA

Controlling Authority that is required following JCP certification. Additional information regarding DLA Controlling Authority Approval can be found at the following website:

(https://www.dla.mil/HQ/LogisticsOperations/EnhancedValidation/).

5. Have a quality system that is compliant with the higher-level quality standard ANSI/ISO/ASQ(E) Q9001 American National Standard, Quality management systems.

6. Possess a valid NIST SP 800-171 assessment and score posted in Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS).

Failure to comply with any of the above cannot be corrected during discussions. Offers/offerors without the above at solicitation closing will not be considered for award.

This evaluation will result in a pool of “Most Highly Rated” vendors to provide the initial schedule of PEL NSNs, but also to compete for delivery order awards for items that within the scope of the contract. Per FAR 15.306(c)(1) , Agencies shall evaluate all proposals in accordance with 15.305(a), and, if discussions are to be conducted, establish the competitive range. Based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria, the contracting officer shall establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, unless the range is further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to paragraph (c)(2) of this section. Per FAR 15.306(c)(2), the Government may limit the competitive range for purposes of efficiency.

PROPOSAL EVALUATION

M.1. Proposals will be evaluated using Best Value Tradeoff source selection procedures, with the Government evaluating the six (6) evaluation factors: Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation, Delivery, Surge and Price. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and awards will be made based on an assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making

DRAFT

wo wo nificant conificant co hain support on hain support on citation closing date, tcitation closing da inimum number of PEL Ninimum number of PEL N em for Award Managemem for Award Managem

Joint Certifoint Certification Prograication P dation. DLA Enhanced Vdation. DLA En equired following red following JCP ceJCP ce rity Approvality Approval can be foun can be

Operations/EnhancedValiOperations/EnhancedVali t with the higher-level quhe higher-level qu ty management systemsmanagement systems and and score posted in Suppscore posted in Supp during discussions. Ofscussions. Of prov this assessment, the Government shall give due consideration to all of the factors, and their relative order of importance, using the rationale defined in this document. The Government intends to make multiple awards.

All evaluation factors, other than price, when combined are significantly more important than price. The non-price factors considered are listed below and ranked in descending order of importance. The non-price evaluation factors, Technical and Past Performance, are significantly more important than the other non-price factors.

Although price is significantly less important than the non-price factors, offers may be removed from consideration for award if the offeror’s evaluated pricing is so significantly out of line that the Contracting Officer determines the offeror is unlikely to be able to be a competitive participant in this Program’s individual procurement actions.

If an initial assessment of an offeror’s proposal finds that the proposal is Grossly Deficient, the Government may exclude that offeror’s proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the offeror’s proposal against the evaluation factors as defined in Section M. Grossly Deficient proposals fail to address essential requirements of this solicitation, or fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in this solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the offeror to address the requirements of the solicitation.

Offerors that receive the rating of “Unacceptable” or “Marginal” (if applicable) in any one of the following Evaluation Factors: Technical, Delivery, Surge and/or Small Business Participation (If Necessary) and/or “Limited Confidence” or “No Confidence” in the Past Performance Evaluation Factor are not eligible for a basic contract award. At completion of evaluation, the Contracting Officer may make Basic Contract Awards to all eligible awardees, and concurrently open additional discussions with the remaining offerors to provide a final opportunity to address omissions, deficiencies, and weaknesses.

Non-Price Evaluation Factors, Subfactors:

1. Technical

2. Past Performance

3. Small Business Participation

4. Delivery

5. Surge

Price Evaluation Factor:

Price

M.2. TECHNICAL:

M.2.1. Technical Factor Evaluation: The offeror’s Technical approach will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror has developed a plan that will allow it to successfully fulfill the requirements of the solicitation and Statement of Work (SOW). Further, the offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the technical requirements can be met, by the offeror. The evaluation

DRAFT

feror’feror’ hat offeror’shat offeror’s mination without emination withou ection M. Grossly Deficection M. Grossly Defic nish information demonnish information demon in some other manner in some other manner dod ments of the solicitation.s of the solicitatio

Unacceptable” or “Margieptable” or “Margi , Delivery,eliv Surge and/or SSurge and/ r “No Confidr “No Confidence” in thence t completion of evaluatioletion of evaluatio dees, and concurrently and concurrently opop ty to address omissions, dy to address omissions, d may include, but not be limited to, the offeror’s stated ability to perform any First Article Test (FAT) requirements, provide the Qualified Product List (QPL) items, and provide all other requirements, as defined in the solicitation and SOW.

M.2.3. TECHNICAL RATING:

M.2.3.1. The evaluation will consider the degree to which:

The offeror’s plan meets the requirements.

The offeror’s plan indicates an adequate approach and understanding of those requirements.

The offeror’s plan minimizes the risk of unsuccessful performance.

M.2.3.2. The ratings table listed below will be assigned to the Technical factor to depict the degree to which each offerors proposal meets, or does not meet the minimum performance or capability requirements of each of the Technical factor, through an assessment of the strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies, or uncertainties of each proposal. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement.

Technical Ratings:

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

Good – 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.

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

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

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.

M.2.3.3. Definitions used in evaluating factors, and subfactors responses to determine the overall factor, subfactor rating as defined in FAR 15.001 and the most recent version of the DoD Source Selection Procedures. The definitions below will be used to assist the contracting source selection team in assigning these adjectival ratings outlined above for the non-price subfactors.

Strength- An aspect of the JLTVCI proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance. Each strength will lend support to a good or outstanding rating.

Weakness- A flaw in the JLTVCI proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. Each weakness will lend support to a marginal or unacceptable rating.

DRAFT

chnicachnica s of each prs of each pr eting the Governmeting the Gover tes an exceptional apn exceptional approp risk of unsuccessful perfoisk of unsuccessfu pproach and understandproach and underst ul performance is low to mul performance is low to m ndicates an adequate aptes an adequate ap ance is no worse than mnce is no worse than m approach and understanderstand gh.

tation, and thation

e. Prop

Deficiency- A material failure of a JLTVCI proposal to meet a Government requirement in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. Each deficiency will lend support to a marginal or unacceptable rating.

Uncertainty- An is any aspect of the proposal for which the intent of the offeror is unclear because there may be more than one way to interpret the offer or because inconsistencies in the offer indicate that there may be an error, omission, or mistake.

3. PAST PERFORMANCE

M.3.1. The past performance evaluation will assess the offerors probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each offeror's recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products.

M.3.2. Past performance includes but is not limited to, the offeror’s record of conforming to specifications, to the standards of good workmanship, adherence to contract schedules, commitment to customer satisfaction, and cooperative behavior. The Government will use Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS) in the Past Performance Evaluation.

As noted in Section L, the Government may solicit information from an offeror’s customers and business associates; federal, state, and local government agencies; and from other persons and organizations as deemed necessary. The Government may also consider information from sources in addition to SPRS including but not limited to: contracting agency experience with the contractor, previous contract history available from DCMA, Vendor Performance History (VPH), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), current Joint Light Tactical Vehicle Competitive Initiative (JLTVCI) Contract Performance, interviews with Program Managers or Contracting Officers/Officials.

The Government will also review and consider any “Other Past Performance Information” (see Section L.4.2.) submitted by an offeror in the evaluation and rating of an offeror. Once again please note, the submittal of “Other Past Performance Information” is optional.

M.3.2.1 Supplier Performance Risk System (SPRS):

The Government will consider the offeror’s overall SPRS Supplier Risk Score and any other information provided relating to the offeror’s performance (see Section L). The Government may also consider overall or individual Federal Supply Class (FSC) SPRS delivery assessments. Overall or individual FSC Quality performance assessments may be made based upon the overall or individual FSC ratings found in SPRS.

For further details concerning SPRS classification calculations and contractor data challenge procedures, see user guides under References at https://www.sprs.csd.disa.mil.

M.3.3 Past Performance Adjectival Rating Description:

Offerors with no recent/relevant performance record, or with a performance record is so sparse that no meaningful rating can be assigned will receive a rating of Neutral Confidence.

Proposals will receive one of the following ratings for Past Performance:

DRAFT

des budes bu rds of good rds of good nd cooperatnd coo ive behve b ast Performance Evaluaast Performance Evalua

Government may solicit Government may solicit ii local government aggovernment agencien ment may also considerment may also cons i cting agency exgen perience wence w erformance History (VPHformance History (V contract Recontract Reporting Systemporting System ct Performance, intervct Performance, intervieie ther Past Performance Inher Past Performance In ng of an offeror. Once agnce ag nal.

Score

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror's performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort

No Confidence Based on the offeror's recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully to perform the required effort.

4. SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

M.4.1. The Government will evaluate the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) document and the Small Businesses Subcontracting Plan to ensure that the other than small business offeror provided the minimum requirements of small business participation. A Small Business offeror may meet the requirement using work performed itself.

M.4.1.1. The other than small business offeror shall provide a SBPCD that maintains a minimum of forty percent (40%) of the total contract value for each contract year to small business. The Government will evaluate the document to ensure that the offeror provides the minimum requirements of small business participation.

M.4.1.2. Other-than-small-business offerors shall provide a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that contains all the elements required by FAR 52.219-9. This plan shall be incorporated into any resultant contract in reference to the RFP.

M.4.1.3. The SBPCD and the subcontracting plan will be reviewed, and each rated as acceptable or unacceptable. In order to receive overall acceptable rating for this factor, both documents must be rated acceptable. A small business will receive an adjectival rating of acceptable on these evaluation subfactors.

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

5. DELIVERY

DRAFT

GG

succesuDDDD

TICIPATION TICIPATION

DRvaluate the Small ate the Sm BusinesBusi es Subcontracting Ples Subcontracting an t rements of small nts businesbusines performed itself. rformed itself.

r shall provide a SBPCD thprovide a SBPCD th h contntract year to small bract year to small b rovides the minimum reqovides the minimum req

Small Business Suness S bcontcont hall be incorporatee inco

Offerors will be evaluated based on their offered delivery as compared to the Government’s required delivery.

Delivery will be rated as follows:

1) Acceptable – the offeror’s delivery is equal to or less than the Government’s required delivery on 50% or more of the NSNs.

2) Unacceptable- the offeror’s delivery is longer than the Government’s required delivery on 50% or more of the NSNs.

6. SURGE

M.6.1. The following documents are required for the proposal: a completed Attachment 5 and Attachment 10.

M.6.1.1. The offeror shall provide a completed Attachment 5 and Attachment 10.

M.6.1.2. The offeror will be required to submit a CAP (Capability Assessment Plan). The CAP will be reviewed by an Industrial Specialist. The CAP must be found acceptable by the Government.

M.6.1.3. The CAP (Capability Assessment Plan) will be reviewed, and rated as acceptable or unacceptable. In order to receive overall acceptable rating for this factor, the CAP must be rated acceptable.

M.7. PRICE

M.7.1. Each proposal will be reviewed to determine if alternate items are acceptable and if pricing was submitted for the minimum number of PEL NSNs. An offeror that does not supply an offer for the minimum number of PEL NSNs will have its proposal rejected.

M.7.2. If necessary for the Government to determine prices to be fair and reasonable, the Government may review certified cost or pricing data or data other than certified cost or pricing data provided by the Offeror.

M.7.3. Items evaluated by the Government to have fair and reasonable pricing may be incorporated into the resultant contract(s) as part of a Basic Contract Awardee’s Rapid Ordering Catalog for the for the applicable contract period (base period and/or each respective option year period). Any PEL items not determined to be fair and reasonable at time of basic contract award may be acquired as part of this action’s delivery order competitions during contract execution.

M.7.4. The Government will determine the Total Evaluated Price using the following methodology:

-- The Government has calculated six Quantity Ranges per item for each year of the proposed contract (Years 1-5) based on the annual demand quantities (ADQ) (Based on the current data available).

- Offers will be evaluated on the basis of the estimated annual quantity.

DRAFT

ll provide a coll provide a complm l be required to submit l be required to submit aa pecialist. The CApecialist. The CAP must bmust b ssment Plan) will be reviessment Plan) will erall acceptabacc le rating forrating fo f alternate items are accef alternate items are acce feror that does not suppferor that does not supp ed.

e fair and reasonair and cost or pc

- [X] If checked, and subject to the terms and conditions of the solicitation relating to the evaluation of offers, the following procedures will be followed:

(1) When offers are requested on a quantity increment basis, each contract line-item (CLIN) will be evaluated for price by:

[X] applying a weighted factor of 5% to the first quantity increment, 20% to the second increment, 25% to the third increment, 25% to the fourth increment, 20% to the fifth increment and 5% to the sixth increment to arrive at an average weighted unit price.

- This average weighted unit price will be multiplied by the estimated annual quantity that may be procured during the contract period to arrive at a total annual evaluated price for each item. If the solicitation provides for separately priced option periods, average weighted prices will be calculated as described above in (1) for each option period and then added to the base contract period total to determine the total estimated price of that individual item for the evaluation.

-- The Total Evaluated Price will be determined by adding the Estimated Total Price per Item (For common items).

-- In the event there are no common items, the evaluation will be based on the evaluated price of all items offered by each individual offeror based on summing the Estimated Total Price for each offered item.

The FAT unit price will not be evaluated.

DRAFT

optiooptio ed price of ted price of t

Price will bePrice determineetermine mmon n items, the evaluatitems, the evalu offeror based on offeror based on summinsu