Tab 2 - Section M APAC_30 SEP 25_DRAFT.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

ADVANCED PROPULSION ACQUISITION

CONTRACT (APAC)

Multiple Award Contract (MAC)

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

SOLICITATION FA8626-25-R-B008

30 SEPTEMBER 2025

Prepared by:

Propulsion Directorate, Advanced Propulsion Development (APD) Division (AFLCMC/LPA)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 PROCESS

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

1.3 DISCUSSIONS

1.4 POTENTIAL FUTURE ON-RAMP OPPORTUNITIES

2. EVALUATION FACTOR AND SUBFACTORS

2.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY

2.1.1 Factor 1 – Evaluation:

2.1.2 Factor 1 – Award Eligibility Requirements:

2.1.3 Factor 1 – Technical Proposal Ratings:

2.2 SUBFACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

2.2.1 Science & Technology

2.2.2 Research and Development

2.2.3 Test and Evaluation

2.2.4 Integration and Assembly

2.2.5 Production and Fielding

2.2.6 Operations and Sustainment

2.2.7 Modernization

2.2.8 Prototyping

2.2.9 Experimentation

2.2.10 Hardware and Software Modification

2.2.11 Propulsion Design

2.2.12 Data Mining, Collection, and Analysis

2.3 SUBFACTOR 2: PROPULSION INDUSTRY RELEVANCE (PIR)

2.4 SUBFACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD) 5

3. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS

3.1 GENERAL

3.2 GROSSLY DEFICIENT

3.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) PLAN

3.4 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

3.5 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

3.6 DELIVERY ORDER 01 (DO1) COMMITMENT AND PRICE PROPOSAL

1 | P a g e

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The Government will utilize FAR Subpart 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection (SS) Procedures in DFARS PGI 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures

5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to competitively award a Multiple Award Contract (MAC) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract as a result of this solicitation. If the Government determines not to award a contract, the Government will not be liable for costs incurred by Offerors. The Government intends to award a contract to all qualifying Offerors. Per FAR 2.101 a qualifying Offeror is one that is determined to be a responsible source, submits a technically acceptable proposal that conforms to the requirements of the solicitation, and the contracting officer has no reason to believe would be likely to offer other than fair and reasonable pricing. A decision on the technical acceptability of each Offeror’s proposal will be made in accordance with the evaluation criteria described in Sec M, para 2 below.

The Government SS team will evaluate Factor 1, Technical Proficiency, by assigning ratings of ACCEPTABLE or UNACCEPTABLE. An unacceptable Technical Proficiency rating may result in Offerors being ineligible for award. Offerors shall clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

1.1 PROCESS

The Government will review all documents for compliance within (Sec L, para 2), Table 1 Proposal Organization. Proposal submissions that do not comply with the instructions in Section L may not be evaluated and may not be considered for award. Page limitations will be treated as maximums, if exceeded, the excess pages will not be read or considered in the evaluation proposal.

Offerors shall meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions (T&Cs), representations and certifications, required other submissions, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as Factors or Subfactors. Failure to comply with the T&Cs of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award a contract to all qualifying Offerors who submit acceptable proposals and anticipate making multiple awards of the basic contract and issuing initial DOs of exactly $1,000.00 to participate in a post-award orientation conference (PAOC) (see attached statement of work).

1.3 DISCUSSIONS

The Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions in accordance with FAR 15.306, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) will be considered in making the SS 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

2 | P a g e evaluation and may introduce risk that the proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 POTENTIAL FUTURE ON-RAMP OPPORTUNITIES

The Government reserves the right to issue follow-on Requests for Proposals (RFPs) to allow additional contractors to be awarded contracts under this IDIQ. One on-ramp opportunity will be offered two (2) years after initial award of the basic contract, and as needed by the Government. If the five (5) year option is exercised, additional on-ramp opportunities will take place in years five (5) and seven (7), and as needed by the Government.

2. EVALUATION FACTOR AND SUBFACTORS

The following evaluation Factor and Subfactors shall be used to evaluate each proposal.

The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability in Factor 1, Technical Proficiency, but will not rank the proposals. The CO will make a responsibility determination in accordance with FAR Subpart 9.1, as supplemented.

Factor 1: Technical Proficiency

Subfactor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 2: Propulsion Industry Relevance (PIR)

Subfactor 3: Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)

Factor 1, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and are significantly more important than Subfactor 3.

2.1 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL PROFICIENCY

2.1.1 FACTOR 1 – EVALUATION:

The Government’s Technical evaluation team shall evaluate Factor 1, Technical Proficiency, on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, by assigning one of the ratings described below for each Subfactor.

2.1.2 FACTOR 1 – AWARD ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS:

Offerors shall demonstrate an acceptable rating for all Subfactors (1, 2, and 3) to be eligible for contract award. Only proposals receiving an acceptable rating for all Technical Proficiency Subfactors--either initially or as a result of discussions--shall be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions.

2.1.3 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL RATINGS:

The following ratings apply for Factor 1: Technical Proficiency, which include Subfactor 1, Technical Capability and Subfactor 2, Propulsion Industry Relevance are as follows:

Table 1 – Factor 1, Technical Proficiency- Subfactors 1 & 2 – Technical Ratings and Definitions

Ratings Definitions

3 | P a g e

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Technical proposal ratings for Factor 1, Technical Proficiency, Subfactor 3, Small Business Participation Commitment Document are:

Table 2 - Factor 1, Technical Proficiency- Subfactor 3 – Technical Ratings and Definitions

Ratings Definitions

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

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

The Offeror shall describe efforts completed within the past five (5) years for each Subfactor in which the Offeror claims to possess the required proficiency. Each example shall describe Propulsion relevant work efforts performed by the Offeror to demonstrate an acceptable rating for Factor 1. Each effort shall be described in the following format:

• Offeror’s role: e.g., prime, subcontractor, or in-house independent research, etc.

• The challenge, issue, or opportunity addressed by the Offeror

• The actions taken by the Offeror

• The results or outcomes achieved by the Offeror

• Additional comments which serve to demonstrate the Offeror’s proficiency

2.2 SUBFACTOR 1: TECHNICAL CAPABILITY

For Subfactor 1: Technical Capability, the Offeror shall submit two (2) detailed efforts in the format described in (Sec L, para 4). While each individual example may address multiple tasks listed in paragraphs 2.2.1 through 2.2.12, the two examples combined shall address a minimum of two (2) different tasks. This Measure of Merit (MoM) is met when both examples clearly demonstrate the Offeror's capability to accomplish the specified tasks and deliver meaningful results.

Table 1 – Subfactor 1: Technical Capability (For example only)

Example 1 Technical capability in Research and Development (R&D)

Example 2 Technical capability in R&D and Test and Evaluation (T&E)

4 | P a g e

2.2.1 SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Examples include basic research, technology exploration, risk reduction, or other scientific studies.

2.2.2 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

Examples include applied or advanced research and development and may include modeling and simulation.

2.2.3 TEST AND EVALUATION

Examples include hardware, software, or processes.

2.2.4 INTEGRATION AND ASSEMBLY

Examples include engineering of subsystems or systems, to include both hardware and software.

2.2.5 PRODUCTION AND FIELDING

Examples include planning, manufacturing, or initial deployment of hardware, software, or processes.

2.2.6 OPERATIONS AND SUSTAINMENT

Examples include supporting material readiness, operational performance requirements, and sustainment of fielded and operational capabilities.

2.2.7 MODERNIZATION

Examples include improvement, upgrade, or replacement of hardware, software, or processes.

2.2.8 PROTOTYPING

Examples include design and assessment of new capabilities of hardware, software, or processes, testing and validation of a prototype in a relevant environment.

2.2.9 EXPERIMENTATION

Examples include design or execution of empirical tests or investigations of new ideas, methods, or activities.

2.2.10 HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE MODIFICATION

Examples include changes made to maintain or enhance functional capability.

2.2.11 PROPULSION DESIGN

Examples include conceptualization, analyses, or studies relating to air-breathing or solid-fuel engines.

5 | P a g e

2.2.12 DATA MINING, COLLECTION, AND ANALYSIS

Examples include extracting, examining, transforming, and modeling large data sets to identify and define informed decisions.

2.3 SUBFACTOR 2: PROPULSION INDUSTRY RELEVANCE (PIR)

Offeror shall describe in detail one (1) effort in the format described in (Sec L, para 4) and describe prior experience in performing work related to propulsion-relevant technologies.

Examples include engineering, research, development, test, production, or sustainment.

Propulsion Industry Relevance (PIR) accomplishments described by Offerors may be applicable to hardware, software, components, systems, or processes. This MoM is met when the effort describes prior experience in performing work and delivering meaningful results related to propulsion-relevant technologies.

2.4 SUBFACTOR 3: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION COMMITMENT DOCUMENT (SBPCD)

This Subfactor will assess the Offeror’s approach to small business (SB) participation. This MoM is met when the Offeror provides a realistic and credible approach to utilization of SB, as documented in the SBPCD, and the participation level is reasonable given the unknowns regarding requirements that may be ordered under the proposed contract and the competitive nature of order placement. An Offeror’s SBPCD will be considered realistic and credible when it evidences meaningful intent to provide fair and significant opportunities for small business participation on DO/TOs that may be issued under the proposed contract. A SB minimum quantitative requirement is not being specified for this contract; however, SB utilization shall be considered for all DO/TOs issued during the life of the contract. Contractor Data Requirements List (CDRL) for Small Business Subcontract Report (DI-MGMT-81642) and Small Business Utilization Report (DI- MGMT-82041B) may be used to capture reporting.

3. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS

3.1 GENERAL

The Offeror’s proposal will be examined to ascertain that all submitted information complies with the requirements of this RFP. The following paragraphs provide specific compliance criteria for certain submissions, but all submissions must be fully compliant. Non-compliant proposals will not be eligible for award and may be excluded from the competitive range, unless the Government decides to enter into discussions.

3.2 GROSSLY DEFICIENT

The Government may reject any proposal from this competition prior to evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors 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 RFP, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory requirements set forth in the RFP, and do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to address the requirements of the RFP.

6 | P a g e

3.3 ORGANIZATIONAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST (OCI) PLAN

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s OCI Plan, submitted in response to (Sec L, para 3.5.3), to determine whether the Offeror has identified any actual or potential OCIs as described at FAR 9.5 and DFARS 209.5. If the potential for OCI(s) exists, the CO will evaluate the Offeror’s plans to avoid, neutralize, or mitigate significant potential conflicts during contract performance.

The Offeror’s OCI Plan will be accepted and incorporated into the resultant contract if it is credible and sufficient to minimize adverse impacts during contract performance.

3.4 COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

The compliance statement must demonstrate how the Offeror will comply with (Sec L, para 3.5.4), to receive an acceptable rating. The following alternatives will be found to be acceptable:

• The Offeror submits evidence showing that it has previously established an accounting system that was reviewed by the Government and determined to be adequate. If any inadequacies were found in a Government review, the Offeror submits a plan to resolve the identified shortfalls.

• The Offeror submits a plan to implement an acceptable cost accounting system,

• The Offeror acknowledges their firm will be ineligible to compete for cost-reimbursable orders, or

• The Offeror states, in response to a cost-reimbursable Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR), that it will consider submission of proposals based on other contract types envisioned under the proposed contract, including FFP, FP-EPA, LH, or T&M and that the Offeror acknowledges the Government is not obligated to consider such alternative offers.

3.5 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN

Small Business Subcontracting Plans submitted in response to (Sec L, para 3.5.5), will be reviewed by the Contracting Officer in accordance with the criteria listed at FAR 19.705. The Government expects that overall subcontract goals will be established in the basic plan as a general statement of intent and an estimate based on Offeror forecasts. No specific requirements are established for the goals applicable to the overall contract, given the unknown nature and scope of work that may be ordered under the contract. After award, contractors may be required to submit specific goals for each FOPR if the order exceeds $950K and offers subcontracting opportunities.

3.6 DELIVERY ORDER 01 (DO1) COMMITMENT AND PRICE PROPOSAL

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to determine if there is evidence of the Offeror’s commitment to perform the task called for by the DO1 Statement of Work. The proposed price shall be submitted on the required Excel spreadsheet (Attach X) and shall be exactly $1,000.

To be eligible for award for the first DO, Offerors shall provide the following:

a. Staffing Proposal/Price Template

• The template must be completed;

• The Government intends to pay $1,000 for the PAOC;

7 | P a g e o The offeror’s proposed price must equal $1,000;

• The Offeror’s staffing proposal/ price template for the PAOC will be evaluated for reasonableness and balanced pricing. The Government will review the submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L, para 5.3, of the solicitation. The burden of proof for credibility of proposed costs/prices rests with the Offeror.