Attachment_11_-_Section_M_v4.0_-_01.17.2017.pdf

V 4.0 SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION - SEE FAR 3.104

Source Selection Information (SEE FAR 3.104)

Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) Shipping and Storage Container, Guided Missile P/N 13556595

Section M: Basis for Award

Attachment 0011

W31P4Q-17-R-0063

Date: 17 January 2017

EXPORT CONTROL ACT WARNING: "WARNING - This document contains technical data whose export is restricted by the Arms Export Control Act (Title 22, U.S.C., Sec 2751, et seq.) or the Export Administration Act of 1979 (Title 50, U.S.C., App. 2401 et seq), as amended. Violations of these export laws are subject to severe criminal penalties. Disseminate in accordance with provisions of DoD Directive 5230.25."

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT F: FURTHER DISTRIBUTION ONLY AS DIRECTED BY PROJECT

MANAGER, JOINT ATTACK MUNITION SYSTEMS PROJECT OFFICE (ATTN: SFAE MSL JA,

REDSTONE ARSENAL, AL 35898-5610) OR HIGHER DoD AUTHORITY. CRITICAL TECHNOLOGY, 10

JUNE 2014.

Section M

A. EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS / BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government will utilize Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) procedures to make a best value award. A decision on the technical acceptability of each offeror’s proposal will be made. For those offerors rated acceptable for both non-price factors, award will be made to the offeror with the lowest aggregate total price. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose offer conforms to all solicitation requirements, including the detailed instructions in Section L, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the LPTA evaluation process.

The Government may make a final determination as to whether the offeror’s proposal is acceptable or unacceptable solely on the basis of the initial proposal submitted. Offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without requests for additional information. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions and technical requirements as outlined in the Request for Proposal (RFP) to be eligible for award. The Government intends to select one contractor to produce the new JAGM Shipping and Storage Container (SSC).

B. FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal: Price, Technical and Past Performance. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “acceptable” must be achieved for the Technical factor (to include each and every sub-factor) and the Past Performance factor as described below.

Factor 1: Price

The contract will be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract. The offeror’s proposed costs will be evaluated using price analysis. The Government will evaluate offers based on the Lowest Aggregate Total Price. The Government will evaluate submitted proposals by adding the total of all CLIN/SUBCLIN/SLIN prices to determine the Lowest Aggregate Total Price (e.g. First Article and Performance

Oriented Packaging (POP) testing, all production quantities, all range quantities [aggregate total price of each range segment within a range quantity whether or not exercised], Data CLIN).

For all CLINs, with the exception of those CLINs reflecting a range quantity, the total price for each CLIN reflected in the offeror’s proposal will be used in calculating the Lowest Aggregate Total Price. For those CLINs reflecting a range quantity, the evaluated price will be calculated by multiplying the maximum quantities in each range by the proposed unit prices for each range. For example; the evaluated price for a CLIN that reflects the following range quantities and prices would be $625 calculated as follows:

CLIN XXXX

RANGE QTY UNIT PRICE TOTAL PRICE

1-5 $20 $100 6-15 $15 $225 16-30 $10 $300 $625

The evaluated price for the option CLIN will be added to the proposed price for each CLIN/SUBCLIN/SLIN in the base requirement to arrive at the Lowest Aggregate Total Price.

Offerors are required to propose on all CLINs set forth in Section B of the RFP.

Range quantities can be found in Attachment 0008 of the RFP.

Evaluation of the option prices will not require the Government to exercise the options.

Factor 2: Technical

The Technical Factor consists of four (4) sub-factors: Production Approach, Critical Production Equipment – Tooling, Fixtures and Test Equipment, Facilities and Parts Sources. The offeror’s technical capability will be evaluated as either Acceptable or Unacceptable, based upon the evaluation of each of the Technical sub-factors.

TABLE 1. Technical

Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Note: A proposal with a rating of unaaceptable in any of the Technical sub-factors cannot be considered for award.

1. Production Approach Sub-factor: The adequacy and completeness of the offeror’s proposed production approach and Production Management Plan (PMP) to manage and manufacture the JAGM SSC in accordance with this RFP will be evaluated. At a minimum, the offeror shall demonstrate experience in manufacturing, painting, inspecting and testing to all standards and processes defined in the TDP under P/N 13556595, ISO 9001 and welding certifications, and the demonstrated maturity and readiness to begin production of the prescribed quantities in accordance with the delivery schedule.

2. Critical Production Equipment – Tooling, Fixtures and Test Equipment Sub-factor: The offeror’s access to or specific explanation as to how it will obtain the needed Critical Production Equipment including all tooling, fixtures and test equipment required to manufacture, inspect and test the prescribed quantities of JAGM SSCs in accordance with this RFP, the offeror’s PMP and the delivery schedule will be evaluated. Minimum required critical production equipment includes tooling and fixtures associated with the processing of aluminum sheets, bars, rods, channels, and/or ingots into containers using industry standard extrusion, press brake forming, sheet metal fabrication, welding equipment, turret press fabrication and punch press stamping. Minimum required test equipment includes test equipment associated with all testing and inspections required by the TDP under P/N 13556595.

3. Facilities Sub-factor: The offeror’s access to and availability of facilities needed to produce JAGM SCCs, in accordance with the requirements of this RFP, at the rates required to meet the delivery schedule will be evaluated. Minimum required facilities include receiving/stock area(s)/room(s), production floor/shop, in-house CARC capable paint facility, storage for customer specific tooling, dedicated inspection and test areas, and finished goods holding/storage area(s)/facilities.

4. Parts Sources Sub-factor: The ability of the offeror to access all parts and parts sources needed to produce the prescribed quantity of JAGM SSCs in accordance with the requirements of this RFP and delivery schedule will be evaluated. At a minimum, the offeror shall demonstrate that it either has in inventory or will be able to acquire all major parts in a timeframe to support the requirements of this RFP and delivery schedule. Ability can be demonstrated through evidence and documentation such as inventory reports, make/buy plan with identified suppliers, vendor quotes, and procurement flows with timelines.

Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will conduct a Past Performance evaluation based on recent and relevant current and past performance of the offeror (and their proposed major subcontractors), as it relates to the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements. Major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform ten (10) percent or more of the proposed effort.

A single rating of Acceptable / Unacceptable will be assigned upon completion of the Past Performance evaluation. If an offeror receives a Past Performance rating of “unacceptable,” it will not be considered for contract award. There are three aspects to the past performance evaluation: relevancy, recency and quality of performance. The quality of performance of recent and relevant efforts will be evaluated to determine if the offeror’s past performance rating is Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The first aspect evaluates the degree of relevance of the offeror’s recent past performance to the effort to be acquired. Relevant performance is considered to be performance related to the production of SSCs, under contracts in excess of $500,000. In the case of an offeror without a record of recent, relevant current or past performance or for whom information on current or past performance is unavailable or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

The second aspect assesses the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. For purposes of this assessment, recent performance is performance related to ongoing contracts and contracts that have been completed within three (3) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. When assessing how well an offeror has performed, the Government will focus its inquiry on current and past performance of the offeror (and its proposed major subcontractors) as it relates to all solicitation requirements.

Particular emphasis will be placed on the offeror’s demonstrated record of: 1) Meeting technical and other contract requirements. 2) Meeting contract schedules, including, delivery and administration schedules. 3) Quality assurance practices, including warranty issues and their resolution. 4) Record of effective management. 5) Record of cooperative and proactive Government representatives. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of work will be an important consideration in the assessment.

Offeror’s are cautioned that in conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government may use data provided in the offeror’s proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in the U.S. Army Past Performance Information Management System (PPIMS), and Federal Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), and data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the offeror’s or its proposed major subcontractors’ current and past performance under Government contract for the same or similar items and/or services. Since the Government may not necessarily interview all of the sources provided by the offeror, it is incumbent upon the offeror to explain the relevance of the data provided. Offerors are reminded that while the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the burden of proving low performance risk rests with the offerors. Performance that has resulted in termination for default or the appearance on a contract alert list or a debarred list would be reflected in this assessment. Current status on a debarred list would, of course, result in elimination from the competition. Additionally, if the data provided/reviewed substantiates the offeror’s performance has been either marginal or unacceptable overall based on the outstanding, good, acceptable, marginal and unacceptable rating criteria of the applicable performance assessment tools, the offeror will receive a Past Performance factor rating of unacceptable.

TABLE 2. Past Performance

Acceptable/Unacceptable Definitions

Rating Definition

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown.

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.