W15QKN-17-R-0214_SECTION_M.docx

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

A. BASIS FOR AWARD

A.1 The Government intends to make a single award as a result of the solicitation. The Government will select for award the proposal that is most advantageous and represents the best value to the Government, with the Source Selection Authority (SSA) giving the appropriate consideration to the three (3) evaluation Factors: Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and award will be made based on an integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation. In making this assessment, the SSA will give due consideration to all Factors and Subfactors and their relative order of importance. For evaluation purposes, the Technical Factor is significantly more important than the Past Performance Factor, the Past Performance Factor is more important than Price. When all evaluation Factors other than Price are combined, they are significantly more important than Price. Price will be evaluated, but will not be rated with a color or adjectival rating. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the SSA determines that to do so would result in the best value to the Government. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

A.2 The Government intends to award a contract without discussions (except for clarification as described in FAR 15.306(a)), as permitted by FAR 15.306(a)(3) and FAR 52.215-1. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposals.

Minimum Acceptability: If an Offeror takes exception to any of the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offeror may not be considered for contract award. All Offerors are urged to ensure that their initial proposals are submitted with the most favorable terms in order to reflect their best possible potential.

B. FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED:

B.1 The Government will weigh the relative benefits of each proposal and the SSA will assess the results of the following Factors, listed below in descending order of importance:

Factor 1: Technical Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

B.1.1 The Technical Factor has three Subfactors which are listed below:

Each of the three (3) Technical Subfactors are of equal importance.

B.1.2 The Past Performance Factor does not have any Subfactors.

B.1.3 The Price Factor does not have any Subfactors.

B.2 The evaluators will use the following terms in support of the rating of all non- cost/price evaluation Factors except Past Performance. The Adverse Past Performance term is to be used under the Past Performance Factor only:

a. Deficiency - A material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

b. Significant Weakness - A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

d. Strength - An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

e. Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

f. Uncertainty - Any aspect of a non-cost/price Factor proposal for which the intent of the Offeror is unclear (e.g., more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission or mistake).

g. Adverse Past Performance - Past Performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating from sources where the information is from other than formal rating systems such as “Past Performance Information Retrieval System” (PPIRS) or “Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System” (FAPIIS).

C. EVALUATION APPROACH:

C.1 TECHNICAL EVALUATION APPROACH

C.1.1 Careful, full, and impartial consideration will be given to all proposals received pursuant to the solicitation. A team of Government personnel will evaluate each proposal relative to the Factors and Subfactors. The result will be a determination of the overall merits of each proposal in terms of its potential to best satisfy the needs of the Government. In making the integrated assessment of the results of the evaluation of all Factors, the Government will give due consideration to the relative order of importance of such Factors and their merit ratings in relationship to price. The Government weighs any increase in merit rating against any additional cost to determine if the parity of the relationship warrants the paying of additional cost for additional merit.

C.2 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

The Technical Factor and Subfactors will receive a color/adjectival rating in accordance with the chart below. Evaluation of the Subfactors will consider the following:

Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Within the Technical Factor, each Subfactor will be rated separately using the color code/adjectival ratings. Each Subfactor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks, and uncertainties. Each Subfactor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Subfactor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating.

Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Subfactor level are ineligible for award.

C.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1: Manufacturing Approach

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s Manufacturing Approach to meet the requirements of the solicitation. The Government’s evaluation of the Offeror’s Manufacturing Approach will consider experience on programs of similar production complexity as the IAC Modification program and the supporting details that substantiate claims/experience.

C.2.2 SUBFACTOR 2: Quality Assurance Plan

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s description of their Quality Assurance Plan to meet the Quality Assurance requirements as defined in the solicitation. The Government will assess the Offeror’s plan that is to be used for producing a compliant IAC Modification Kit to TDP #57K6756.

C.2.3 SUBFACTOR 3: Management Plan

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s Management Plan and the details on how the manufacturing of the IAC Modification Kit will meet solicitation requirements.

C.3 FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE

C.3.1 The Offeror and its subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Both independent data and data provided by Offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the Offeror’s past performance. A single confidence rating will be established.

C.3.2 For the purpose of evaluating proposals, “recent” is defined as occurring within the following time standards 1) occurring within the past three (3) years, or 2) awarded earlier than three (3) years ago, but for which deliveries/performance occurred or were scheduled to occur within the past three (3) years. However, the Government may evaluate any performance in the period subsequent from the closing date, but prior to the date of award. “Relevant” is defined as contracts demonstrating technical/management capabilities the same as or similar to those required to perform on this item. subcontractors are defined as those that will be providing critical hardware or whose subcontract is for more than 25% of the total proposed price.

C.3.3 This evaluation will encompass all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the Offeror’s detailed record of 1) compliance of products, services, documents, and related deliverables to specification requirements and standards of good workmanship; 2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for customer’s interest, and 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance.

Based on the Offeror’s previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum three (3) years), including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the Offeror’s past performance. The Government will focus its inquiry of the Offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of product, timeliness of performance, business practices, and customer significant achievement. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data obtained from other sources.

C.3.4 Performance Relevancy Assessment. The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the Offeror’s past performance to determine if work performed in the past is relevant as relevant is defined in C.3.2 above. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant, which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity (including welding requirements as stated in paragraph C.2.1.d), dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontracting/teaming. In conducting the performance relevancy assessment, each offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

C.3.5 Performance Confidence Assessment. The second aspect of the past performance evaluation is to determine how well the Offeror performed under the contract scope. The past performance evaluation gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. In conducting the performance confidence assessment, each Offeror shall be assigned one of the ratings identified below:

Performance Confidence Assessments

NOTE TO OFFEROR: An Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral past performance.

C.4 FACTOR 3: PRICE

C.4.1 Prices proposed in Section B of the solicitation will be utilized to compute a total evaluated price. A price reasonableness determination will be made on the total evaluated price which will be used in the performance of a tradeoff analysis. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

C.4.2 If an Offeror proposes the use of Government property in its possession, the total evaluated price will be adjusted to include a rental equivalent factor for each item of such property calculated in accordance with FAR 52.245-9. This adjustment will apply for the use of Government property by the Offeror as well as any subcontractor thereto. The value of the proposed Government property will be evaluated for cost realism.

C.4.3 Price Inconsistencies. A proposal is presumed to represent an Offerors best effort to respond to the solicitation. Any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price, should be explained in the proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the Offerors understanding of the nature and scope of work required and his/her financial ability to perform the contract and may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

C.4.4 Unbalanced Pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, one or more contract line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. A proposal may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

C.5 DETERMINATION OF RESPONSIBILITY:

C.5.1 For small businesses, a Certificate of Competency may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 19.6.

C.5.2 A Preaward Survey may be required by the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 9.106.

C.5.3 For actions over $10M, a Preaward Clearance by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) will be required in accordance with FAR 22.805(a).

C.5.4 As an element of responsibility, Offerors that propose to use Government property are required to submit a Property Management Plan in accordance with FAR Clause 52.245-4003 Use and Rental of Government Property listed in Section L. Offerors will be evaluated on the adequacy of the plan's description of the prime contractor's and/or any prospective subcontractors' property management system, plan and any customary commercial practices, voluntary consensus standards, or industry-leading practices and standards to be used by the Offeror in managing Government property. The proposed property management plans, systems and procedures shall provide a description to enable the outcomes described under FAR Clause 52.245-1(f)(1) to include acquisition of property, receipt of Government Property, records of Government property, physical inventory, subcontractor control, reports, relief of stewardship responsibility and liability, utilization of Government property, maintenance, and property closeout.