ATTACHMENT_0009_TASK_ORDER_0001_-_ORDERING_PROCEDURE.docx

Order Placement Procedures

For

Ammunition Industrial Base (IB) Engineering Services Support Task 0001

Ordering Placement Procedures for the Ammunition Industrial Base (IB) Engineering Services Support Task 0001

1.0 Basis for Award

In accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 16.505(b)(1) Fair Opportunity, the Contracting Officer will provide each awardee a fair opportunity to be considered for the Ammunition Industrial Base (IB) Engineering Services Support Task 0001. All proposals will be evaluated in a fair and consistent manner. The Best Value Order Awardee Decision Determination will be based on an integrated assessment of the awardees’ proposal to meet the PWS in an affordable and cost effective manner.

Relative Weighting of Criteria

The selection of the best value proposal will be the result of an integrated assessment considering the collective assessment for the following, listed in descending order of importance:

1. Factor I – Technical Subfactor (a) Technical Approach is more important than subfactor (b) Personnel Experience. The following are the Technical subfactors:

a. Technical Approach: The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed technical approach to meeting the task requirements within the appropriate functional area (Production Base Modernization Analysis, Benefit Realization Study, Armament Retooling & Manufacturing Support (ARMS) and Initiative Program Analysis & Implementation).

b. Relevant Personnel Experience – The Government will assess the relevant work experience of each proposed individual.

2. Factor II – Price

For evaluation purposes, Technical is the most important factor. The non-price factor is more important than Price.

The offeror’s proposal is presumed to represent its best effort to respond to the solicitation. Unexplained inconsistencies resulting from the offeror’s lack of understanding of the nature of the scope of work required may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

2.0 Evaluation Factors

a. The evaluation of the Technical Approach subfactor will consider the following:

(1) The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which it demonstrates a clear understanding of all features involved in the requested services and meeting the requirements for the Ammo Industrial Base Engineering Services Support Task 1 and determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach to meeting the requirements provide the Government with a high level of confidence of successful completion within the required schedule.

The following adjectival rating will be utilized in the evaluation of the Technical Approach:

Color

Rating

Description

Blue

Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple

Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow

Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

b. The evaluation of the offeror’s Personnel Experience proposal will consider the following:

(1) Individual(s) and expertise in the support of Ammunition IB Engineering Services with significant practical experience. Offeror’s similar position(s) in the past with the Government and/or private industry.

(2) Offeror’s experience with Ammunition IB Engineering Services within the Department of Defense or private industry

(3) Offeror’s skilled technical support past experience proposed to accomplish the task requirements.

Evaluators will rate the proposals in the Personnel Experience against the requirements, using the following definitions:

PRICE

The price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b). Price will not be scored. Price reasonableness will be determined by comparing the offeror’s proposal to the Independent Government Cost Estimate.

The Price factor will not have an adjectival rating assigned. The offeror shall propose pricing for this order in accordance with the Requirements & Schedule Labor of the Basic Contract. The total evaluated price is the sum of the CLINs.

The proposed FFP labor rates for this order shall not exceed the negotiated FFP loaded labor rates in the table titled “Pricing Schedule for Labor Categories” within the basic contract for the relevant ordering period during which the proposed Task Order is to be awarded. Offerors shall submit a cost breakout in sufficient enough detail to allow the Government to verify that the offerors are not using labor rates that exceed those in the basic contract. Offerors shall utilize a Microsoft Excel file format with formulas intact when submitting their price/cost proposal (FAR 15.403-5(b)(2)).

A price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b) will be conducted on the total price for this Order. The total price for this order will be evaluated for fairness and reasonableness.

Adequate competition is anticipated for this order. However, in the event that only one offer is received, the Government reserves the right to perform a cost analysis for other than labor rates such as: Hours, Material, Travel, Other Direct Costs and Use of Government Owned Production and Research Property (if applicable) IAW FAR 15.404-1(c). Other than cost or pricing data shall be provided upon request IAW FAR 15.403-3. Other than cost or pricing data provided for this Order, if applicable, will be evaluated for magnitude and reasonableness and may be adjusted from a technical and cost perspective using cost analysis to determine the most probable cost to the Government.

Price/Cost Inconsistencies: A proposal is presumed to represent an offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. The offeror shall fully explain associations of cost with the requirements of the Task within their Proposal. Any significant inconsistencies, if unexplained, raise a fundamental issue of the offeror’s understanding of the nature and scope of work required and his financial ability to perform the contract, may be grounds for rejection of the proposal.

Other Considerations.

Proposals that are unrealistic in terms of technical or schedule commitments, or unrealistically low in price, will be considered indicative of a lack of understanding of the complexity and risk in the contract requirements.

Offerors are reminded that unsupported promises to comply with the contractual requirements will not be sufficient. Proposals must provide convincing documentary evidence in support of any conclusionary statements relating to promised performance.

Offerors are cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered. The Government intends to make an award without discussions but reserves the right to hold discussions if they will benefit the Government.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY – COMPETITION SENSITIVE