Sec M (DRAFT) - SPH-M.pdf

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 The Government intends to award approximately eight individual Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contracts for this 155mm Self-Propelled Howitzer system of systems evaluation effort as a result of this solicitation. Award(s) will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal represents the best value to the Government in accordance with the criteria set forth below, and is eligible for award.

M.1.1.1 There are five evaluation factors:

a. Maturity Factor

b. Technical Performance Factor

c. Test Readiness Factor

d. Cost/Price Factor

e. Small Business Participation Factor

The relative order of importance of these Factors are described in Section M.4 below.

M.1.1.2 Proposal selection(s) will be made utilizing the source selection trade-off process, considering the evaluation Factors and their relative order of importance (see Section M.4), to identify the proposal(s) which represents the best value and is most advantageous to the Government. The Government will weigh the evaluation factors (other than the Cost/Price Factor) against the final evaluated price to the Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal shall be considered in selecting the offer(s) that are most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to choose not to award any contract(s) if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.1.3 In making the award decision, the Government will review proposals to determine if any other price adjustments (beyond the GFP Price adjustment that is already included in the total evaluated price) are required IAW the FAR, DFARS, or clauses or provisions contained within this solicitation. If an additional price adjustment is determined to be applicable, then the Government will develop a final price for those offerors impacted by the adjustment(s) and base the final award decision on this final price. When FAR 52.219-4 is included in the RFP and a HUBZone price adjustment is applicable, then all other price adjustments described in the solicitation shall be applied before the application of the HUBZone price adjustment.

M.1.1.4 Importance of Cost/Price. Award will be made to the offeror(s) whose proposal represents the best value to the Government and is otherwise eligible for award. This may not be the offeror(s) with the lowest evaluated cost/price. However, the closer offerors’ evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the Cost/Price Factor, the more important cost/price becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the evaluation Factors stated herein, cost/price may be controlling when:

a. Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-price factors; or

b. An otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable; or

c. The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

M.1.2 Eligibility for Award. Award will only be made to an offeror who is eligible for award. To be eligible for award:

a. The offeror must be determined responsible (See Section M.3.6)

b. The proposal must not contain a Deficiency(s) (per FAR Part 15.001); and

c. The offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) - see provision 52.204-7, and

d. The proposal must be affordable (see Section M.1.3)

M.1.3 Affordability. No proposal, no matter how highly rated under the non-Price Factors, will be considered for award if unaffordable. The Government will review the offeror’s Price Volume Proposal to verify the offeror’s proposal is affordable. A proposal will be determined affordable if the proposed price for CLIN 0001 does not exceed $5 million. Proposals that exceed $5 million for CLIN 0001 will be determined unaffordable and will not be considered for award.

M.2 Rejection of Offers

M.2.1 The Government may reject any proposal if in the Government's best interest at any time after receipt of proposal. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following proposal conditions:

a. The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions in Section L of this solicitation (e.g. a proposal provides some data but omits significant material data and information required by Section L, the offeror fails to submit pricing Attachment 0003 in accordance with the instructions, the proposal fails to follow key proposal instructions or format requirements in Section L, etc.).

b. A proposal merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the solicitation terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

c. The proposal proposes exceptions to the RFP requirements, attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or solicitation terms and conditions.

d. The proposal contains one or more Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Refer to Section L paragraph L.2.5 of this solicitation, "Organizational Conflict of Interest."

e. The proposal submitted is for less than all the requirements called for by the solicitation.

f. The proposal’s acceptance period does not meet the Government’s required minimum acceptance period, or the offeror fails to provide a proposal acceptance period (Refer to Section L.1.2).

g. The proposal is not in English (American Standard) or in US Dollars.

h. Is unaffordable (Refer to Section M.1.3).

M.3 Source Selection Process

M.3.1 Compliance Review. After receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions.

M.3.2 Evaluation Process. Selection of the successful offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal not otherwise rejected, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of this RFP, and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described herein. Proposals not otherwise rejected will be evaluated as specified herein, to include developing narrative support for the evaluation conclusions under each Factor.

M.3.3 Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the offeror for contract award.

M.3.4 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB). An SSEB has been established by the Government to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals who have been selected to conduct this evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria for this solicitation. All proposals not otherwise rejected will be given careful, full and impartial consideration by a team of Government personnel in the evaluation, pursuant to the criteria in this solicitation.

M.3.5 Award without Discussions. This RFP includes FAR Provision 52.215-1 Instructions to Offerors Competitive Acquisition in Section L which advises offerors that the Government intends to make award without conducting discussions. Where awards will be made without discussions, exchanges with offerors are limited to Clarifications as defined in FAR 15.306(a). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a Price and non-Price Factor standpoint. However, under FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government reserves the right to hold discussions, if necessary. 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 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.

M.3.6 Determination of Responsibility. Per FAR Part 9.103, a contract will be placed only with the offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Prospective offeror(s), in order to be eligible for award for this acquisition, must be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR Part 9.104, or refer the matter to the SBA per FAR

19.602 when applicable. In addition, the Government may assess the offeror's financial and management capabilities to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all offeror(s) or its subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each offeror's proposal and ensure that a selected offeror is responsible. No award can be made to an offeror who has been determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer. To make sure that you meet the responsibility criteria at FAR Part 9.104, the Government may:

a. Arrange a visit to your facility and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey. The offeror's refusal to authorize the Government to visit the offeror’s facility may result in a determination that the offeror is not responsible.

And/or

b. Request an offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If the requested information is not submitted within seven calendar days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an offeror refuses the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the offeror non-responsible. If the Government visits the offeror's facility, please ensure that current data relevant to the proposal is available for Government personnel to review.

M.3.7 Consistency. Each volume of the offeror’s proposal shall be consistent with the other proposal volumes and shall demonstrate the understanding and ability to perform according to the statement of work of the contract. The offeror should provide supporting documentation in sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation of the proposal. The Government may conduct a crosswalk between the information provided in offeror’s proposal volumes to assess whether the offeror submits consistent proposal information.

M.4 Evaluation Criteria

There are five evaluation factors:

a. Maturity Factor

b. Technical Performance Factor

c. Test Readiness Factor

d. Cost/Price Factor

e. Small Business Participation Factor

The relative order of importance of these factors is as follows: The Maturity Factor is more important than the Technical Performance Factor. The Technical Performance Factor is more important than the Test Readiness Factor. The Test Readiness Factor is more important than Price Factor. The Price Factor is more important than Small Business Participation. The non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than the Price Factor.

M.4.1 Factor 1: Maturity Factor

M.4.1.1 As part of the Maturity Factor evaluation, the Government will evaluate the risk associated with the offeror’s proposed solution being timely delivered and timely completing USG testing conducted under this effort based on the maturity of the proposed solution. The lower the maturity of the proposed solution is evaluated to have, the higher the risk will be assessed.

Proposed solutions that are not evaluated to have a sufficient level of maturity, may be assessed with unacceptable risk and, as such, unawardable.

M.4.1.2 Offerors shall not assume that substantiating data submitted for the Maturity Factor will be considered in the evaluation of other Factors of the proposal and shall not assume data submitted for other Factors will be utilized in the evaluation of the Maturity Factor. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize any data in other areas of the proposal in evaluation of this Factor.

M.4.2 Factor 2: Technical Performance Factor

M.4.2.1 As part of the Technical Performance Factor evaluation, the Government will evaluate the risk associated with the offeror’s proposed solution currently meeting the Technical Performance Factor requirements in L.4.2.3.

M.4.2.1.1 Proposed solutions that require further development to achieve the Technical Performance Factor requirements may be assessed with higher risk.

M.4.2.1.2 The Government will examine the offeror’s proposed substantiating data in the evaluation of the Technical Performance Factor. The primary purpose of the substantiating data is to document and credibly substantiate that the offeror’s proposed solution currently meets the Technical Performance Factor requirements.

M.4.2.1.3 The Government will consider the credibility of the substantiating data in the evaluation of Technical Factor. The more credible the data is determined by the Government to be, the lower the risk may be assessed against the evaluated requirement, and the less credible the substantiating data determined to be by the Government or lack of any credible substantiating data provided, the higher the risk may be assessed against the evaluated requirement.

M.4.2.1.3.1 Test data may be considered more credible than narratives or other types of substantiating data (e.g., Engineering design documentation, modeling and simulation, theoretical analysis, or technical analysis). However, the Government may also consider the credibility of test data differently. When determining the extent of credibility of test data, the Government may take into account who validated the test data (for example, data from a Government-validated test will be considered more credible than data from other sources), in addition to whether the testing was conducted on a full system or less-than-full system, where the Government may consider full system testing to be more credible than less-than-full system testing. Further, test data for the proposed configuration may be deemed more credible than test data for a similar system or similar configuration. Test data that does not clearly demonstrate the test method used or does not adequately substantiate the test results may be deemed less credible.

M.4.2.1.3.2 Government test data which establishes conformance to the proposed design configuration represents the most credible form of substantiating data. Therefore, any substantiating data for a design configuration which meaningfully varies from tested configuration may be considered less credible or higher risk. The greater the extent to which the offeror’s proposed design configuration meaningfully varies from the originally tested configuration, thereby undermining the credibility of the offered data, the greater the probability that the Government may discount the credibility of Government test data as substantiating information.

M.4.2.2 No evaluation credit will be given for proposing performance that exceeds the Technical Performance Factor requirements, except to the extent that it reduces the risk of meeting the requirement(s) set forth in L.4.2.3.

M.4.2.3 Offerors shall not assume that substantiating data submitted for the Technical Performance Factor will be considered in the evaluation of other Factors of the proposal, and shall not assume data submitted for other Factors will be utilized in the evaluation of the Technical Performance Factor. However, the Government reserves the right to utilize any data in other areas of the proposal in evaluation of this Factor.

M.4.3 Factor 3: Test Readiness Factor

M.4.3.1 The Test Readiness Factor evaluation will evaluate the risk associated with the offeror’s proposed solution being sufficiently safe to timely begin USG evaluation at USG Test facilities under this effort. As part of the evaluation, the Government will consider the completeness of the safety assessment report provided, in terms of both process and content. Safety assessments that do not follow the equivalent of a commercial or military standard may be assessed with a higher risk than ones that do follow a commercial or military standard (e.g. ISO 26262, MIL-STD- 882).

M.4.3.2 Offerors shall not assume that substantiating data submitted for the Test Readiness Factor will be considered in the evaluation of other Factors of the proposal and shall not assume data submitted for other Factors will be utilized in the evaluation of the Test Readiness Factor.

However, the Government reserves the right to utilize any data in other areas of the proposal in evaluation of this Factor.

M.4.4 Factor 4: Price Factor

M.4.4.1 The Price Factor evaluation will result in a determination of the Total Evaluated Price to the Government. The Government will also evaluate the offeror’s price proposal for price reasonableness.

M.4.4.1.1 Total Evaluated Price.

The Total Evaluated Price equals the sum of the following:

(a) The total proposed price for all CLINs, as calculated in the “Summary” worksheet of Attachment 0003 - Pricing Workbook; and

(b) If applicable, any other price adjustments, for evaluation purposes only, that are required in accordance with the (i) FAR; (ii) DFARS; or (iii) RFP (to include RFP Attachments).

M.4.4.1.2 Price Reasonableness.

The Government will evaluate whether or not the offeror’s proposed price is reasonable. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1.

M.4.5 Factor 5: Small Business Participation (SBP) Factor

M.4.5.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror’s approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the SBP Factor goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the extent of SBP proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the SBP Factor goals for this solicitation.

During its evaluation, the Government will check for consistency within the proposal, and any inconsistencies found may impact the assessed credibility of the offeror’s proposed goal(s) and/or the offeror’s rating in this Factor. Please note the solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this SBP Factor in Section L.4.5.2(c). The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

1.00 % Small Business (SB)

0.20 % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

0.20 % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

0.20 % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

0.20 % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

0.20 % Service-Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business Offerors ONLY, the SDB goal is BOTH of the following:

1.00 % of ‘Total Contract Amount’

5.00 % of ‘Total Subcontracting Amount’

M.4.5.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Each of the Government Goals.

Where the offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government's goal and the Government has determined that achievement of said small business participation is credible, or where the offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government's goal, the Government may assign the offeror a strength against such proposal. Where the offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government's goal, or where the offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the Government's goal, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.