Final Section M 5 Apr 2022.pdf

Section M

Evaluation Basis For Award

BASIS FOR AWARD

This Best Value Tradeoff Source Selection will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15. The Request for Proposal (RFP) will be issued on a full and open competition basis and will result in a single award indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract to the responsible Offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value and is most advantageous to the Government. The resulting award will be a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) IDIQ contract to a single Offeror. The Government will select for award the proposal meeting all eligibility requirements of the RFP and representing the best overall value to the Government, considering the Technical factor (to include all sub-factors) and Price.

The Technical factor is more important than the Price. Therefore, the Government may select for award an Offeror whose proposed price is not the lowest, but whose non- Price proposals demonstrate sufficient advantage to justify the price premium of a higher price proposal. To be eligible for award, an Offeror must be assessed with a rating of ACCEPTABLE or better under the Technical Factor including each of the Technical Sub-factors and the Price proposal must be found to be REASONABLE.

FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below. The Government reserves the right to make award based upon the Price factor in the event that the Technical evaluation results of all the Offerors’ proposals are substantially the same.

Factor 1: The Technical factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

a. Calibration

b. User

c. Maintenance

d. Cybersecurity

Calibration is more important than User, Maintenance, and Cybersecurity. User is equal to Maintenance. Cybersecurity is less important than Calibration, User, and Maintenance.

Evaluation of the Offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical sub-factor as it applies to the Offeror’s bid sample and Statement of Work (SOW). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth below in the “Evaluation Criteria” section. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each

Technical sub-factor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings.

Factor 2: Price: The resulting award will be a FFP IDIQ contract. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

By submission of its offer, the Offeror shall accede to all RFP requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the RFP terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.

In accordance with FAR 9.103, the contract will be placed only with an Offeror that the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines to be responsible. In order to qualify as sources for this acquisition, the Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The Government also reserves the right to conduct a pre-award survey of a prospective contractor pursuant to FAR 9.106 as part of the responsibility determination. The SSA can make no award to an Offeror who has been determined non-responsible.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

All proposals shall be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST).

The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and sub-factors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

1.0 Volume 1 – Technical.

The Technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the Government’s requirements, through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. As part of the evaluation of the technical merit of an offeror’s proposal, the Government will determine whether the offeror’s methods and approaches have adequately and completely considered and satisfied the requirements specified in the solicitation. In addition, the Government will evaluate the feasibility of an offeror’s approach to satisfying the Government’s requirements, both individually and collectively.

In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

The Technical factor is divided into the following sub-factors: Calibration, User, Maintenance, and Cybersecurity.

1.1 Sub-Factor 1 – Calibration.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s calibration proposal as it pertains to the calibration community. For this sub-factor, calibration is looked at as a function of time, equipment, tools, and technical ability (see Army Regulation (AR) 750-43 and Technical Bulletin 43-180 for references). The Calibration Sub-Factor focuses on:

• whether the ports available on the equipment facilitate Army calibration;

• equipment/software that is not in the Transfer Set Standards: AN/GSM-440 or Electronic Equipment Tool Kit: TK-17/G is required for calibration; and

• whether the complexity of calibration measurement techniques, procedures, and/or software utilized complicates the calibration mission.

1.1.1 Calibration Evaluation.

The Government will examine the equipment and the Calibration Procedures for Bid Sample document provided by the Offeror to determine which port(s) are being utilized for calibration and how it aligns with current Army standards.

The Government will review the Calibration Equipment and Software Used in Calibration documents provided by the Offeror to ensure accuracy. If any conflict(s) arise, the Government will submit an Evaluation Notice (EN) in Acquisition Source Selection Interactive Support Tool (ASSIST) to resolve the conflict(s).

The Government will evaluate the bid sample against the calibration procedure TB 9- 6625-2339-24 “Calibration Procedure for Spectrum Analyzers, AN/USM-677 (Agilent, Model #E4407B-H76) and Models E4407B, E4407B-E57, E4407B-H57, and E4407B- 1D51DR-A4H” using the Army’s regular calibration equipment, supplemented by the equipment provided as part of the proposal, if necessary. If any issues arise, the Government will refer to the Calibration Procedures for Bid Sample and Software Used in Calibration documents provided by the Offeror for clarification. If the Government cannot resolve the issue(s) based on the provided documentation, the Government will submit an EN in ASSIST to resolve the issue(s). Upon completion of the calibration, if possible, the Government will determine if the Mean-Time-To-Calibrate (MTTC) Data provided by the Offeror is feasible.

1.1.2 Calibration Rating.

Upon completion of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s calibration proposal utilizing the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (See Table 1) as shown in paragraph 1.0 “Volume 1 – Technical”. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the Government’s requirements, through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies.

1.2 Sub-Factor 2 – User.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s user proposal as it pertains to the user community. For this sub-factor, user is looked at as a function of equipment, tools, performance, technical ability, and suitability. The User Sub-Factor focuses on:

• design features to assure safety, ease of operation, and convenience of user-level maintenance in normal and adverse conditions;

• the ability to use this item to perform an existing operator and user-level maintenance tasks in order to support a system/sub-system for all Military Occupational Series (MOSs); and

• understanding the Product Verification Testing (PVT) requirements.

1.2.1 User Evaluation.

The Government will review the Safety Checklist, the Manufacturer’s Operator, and Maintenance Manuals provided by the Offeror to evaluate the equipment’s safety. If any issue(s) arise, the Government will submit an EN in ASSIST to resolve the issue(s).

The Government will review the Technical Comparison Data to determine how compatible the bid sample is with its predecessor the AN/USM-677 Spectrum Analyzer.

If any concern(s) arise, the Government will submit an EN in ASSIST to resolve the concern(s).

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bid sample utilizing personnel with one of the following MOSs: 25S, 25Q, 29E, 35S, 35T, 94E, 94H, or 94S or the Civilian Job Series 3378 to determine the ease of operation; the convenience of user-level maintenance; and the ability to use the bid sample to perform an existing operator and user-level maintenance tasks in order to support a system/sub-system.

The Government will review the Product Verification Test Plan Excerpt provided by the Offeror to determine if the Offeror has an understanding of the PVT requirements. If a question(s) arises, the Government will submit an EN in ASSIST to resolve the question(s).

1.2.2 User Rating.

Upon completion of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s user proposal utilizing the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (See Table 1) as shown in paragraph 1.0 “Volume 1 – Technical”. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the Government’s requirements, through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies.

1.3 Sub-Factor 3 – Maintenance.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s maintenance proposal as it pertains to the maintenance community. For this sub-factor, maintenance is looked at as a function of time, equipment, tools, and technical ability (see AR 750-1 for reference). The Maintenance Sub-Factor focuses on:

• design features to assure safety, ease of maintenance, and convenience of repairs in normal and adverse conditions;

• list of Spare Parts that include all items that the Government identifies as necessary for maintenance of the equipment;

• compatibility with the Army Materiel Maintenance Policy as defined in AR 750-1;

and

• equipment that is not in the Electronic Equipment Tool Kit: TK-17/G is required for maintenance.

1.3.1 Maintenance Evaluation.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s bid sample by breaking down the bid sample into its individual board-level components to determine the ease of maintenance; convenience of repairs; equipment requirements; and acceptability of the List of Spare Parts and Maintenance Fixtures, Extender Boards, Breakout Cables, Accessories, and Special Tools documents provided by the Offeror. If any issue(s) arise, the Government will submit an EN in ASSIST to resolve the issue(s). Upon completion of the break down, the Government will determine if the Mean-Time-To- Repair (MTTR) Data provided by the Offeror is feasible.

The Government will review the Maintenance Support and Software Used in Maintenance documents provided by the Offeror to evaluate the Offeror’s compatibility with the Army’s Field Level Maintenance Philosophy.

1.3.2 Maintenance Rating.

Upon completion of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s maintenance proposal utilizing the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (See Table

1) as shown in paragraph 1.0 “Volume 1 – Technical”. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the Government’s requirements, through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies.

1.4 Sub-Factor 4 – Cybersecurity.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cybersecurity proposal as it pertains to the cybersecurity, quality, and training communities.

1.4.1 Cybersecurity Evaluation.

The Government will conduct the Cybersecurity Evaluation at Redstone Arsenal, Alabama.

The Government will evaluate the results of vulnerability scans against current Nessus plugins, metrics provided by the Assured Compliance Assessment Solution (ACAS), and the NIST National Vulnerability Database (NVD).

The Government will evaluate the items provided (i.e.: Bid Sample and Cybersecurity Documentation) by the Offeror against best practices and guidance from various sources such as international standards (e.g.: ISO 28000, “Specification for security management systems for the supply chain”; ISO 20243, “Information technology — Open Trusted Technology ProviderTM Standard (O-TTPS”) — Mitigating maliciously tainted and counterfeit products”); NIST Interagency Report 7622, “Notional Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems”; NIST Special Publication (SP) 800-161, Supply Chain Risk Management Practices for Federal Information Systems and Organizations”; and the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM):

• Supply chain risk management information

• Component-level procurement strategy

• Hardware assurance and validation practices

The Government will evaluate the following information provided against best practices and guidance from various sources such as international standards (e.g. ISO 15026), NIST SP 800-160 Volumes 1 and 2, and the Carnegie Mellon University Software Engineering Institute Software Assurance Framework (SAF).

• Software development information

• Software assurance practices and guidance from various sources such as international standards (e.g. ISO 270001) and NIST SP 800-53 Revision 5 and 800-53A Revision 5.

• Secure networking and development environment information

• Equipment security controls information and guidance from various sources such as international standards and NIST SP 800- 128.

• Configuration management information

• Change control information

1.4.2 Quality Assurance Evaluation.

The Government will evaluate the Quality Assurance Documentation against best commercial practices and ISO-9001/9002.

1.4.3 Commercial Training Data Evaluation.

The Government will evaluate the Commercial Training Data, if available, against Statement of Work paragraph 3.8 “Operator and Field Maintenance Training CD-ROM and Institutional Training Package”.

1.4.4 Cybersecurity Rating.

Upon completion of the evaluation, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s cybersecurity proposal utilizing the Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method (See Table

1) as shown in paragraph 1.0 “Volume 1 – Technical”. The technical rating reflects the degree to which the proposal meets or does not meet the Government’s requirements, through an assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, deficiencies.

2.0 Volume 2 – Price.

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum (contract value). The evaluation of all option CLINs will not obligate the Government to exercise any option. The Total Evaluated Price consists of summing the Offeror’s proposed firm fixed-price CLIN prices.

The following CLINs will be calculated as specified below:

• The price for CLIN 0003 is the summation of all of the SLINs prices.

• The price for CLIN 0005 is the summation of the prices for one (1) of each item listed multiplied by two hundred (200).

• The price for CLIN 0009 is the summation of the unit price for Fixed Unit Cost For

Repair (per incident) for years one (1) through four (4) plus the summation of the unit price for Fixed Unit Cost For Calibration (per incident) for years one (1) through four (4), then multiplied by five (5).

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for the following:

2.1 Compliance with Section L – Price.

The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated for compliance based upon the submission requirements contained in the Section L, Volume 2 – Price instructions.

2.2 Reasonableness.

The Price proposal submitted by the Offeror will be evaluated to determine if it is reasonable. In accordance with FAR 31.201-3, 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 Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable. The reasonableness evaluation will include a comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b)(2)(i).

Normally, adequate price competition establishes a fair and reasonable price.

2.3 Unbalanced Pricing.

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more CLINs/SLINs/unit prices is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques.

Offerors are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award.

2.4 Sub-contract Line Item Numbers.

The price for Sub-contract Line Item Numbers (SLINs) will be evaluated as follows:

2.4.1 SLIN 0004AA.

The price for SLIN 0004AA is one thousand nine hundred (1,900) each multiplied by the unit price.

2.4.2 SLIN 0004AB.

The price for SLIN 0004AB is four hundred (400) each multiplied by the unit price.

2.4.3 SLIN 0006AA.

The price for SLIN 0006AA is the summation of prices for one (1) of each item listed multiplied by four hundred (400).

2.4.4 SLIN 0006AB.

The price for SLIN 0006AB is the summation of prices for one (1) of each item listed multiplied by four hundred (400).

2.3.5 SLIN 0008AA.

The price for SLIN 0008AA is the product of one thousand five hundred (1,500) multiplied by the unit price.

2.3.6 SLIN 0008AB.

The price for SLIN 0008AB is the product of one thousand five hundred (1,500) multiplied by the unit price.

3.0 General Information.

3.1 Discussions.

The Government may make a final award determination solely on the basis of the initial proposals submitted. The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). The Contracting Officer may conduct discussions (if appropriate) with each Offeror retained in the competitive range. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint, and other areas. The Government intends to select one Offeror for the CM-523/U contract.

Discussions (if held) would be held after evaluations with all Offerors determined to be in the competitive range. In the event discussions are held, the Contracting Officer will provide detailed instructions during the discussion process to all Offerors in the competitive range. Those Offerors remaining in the competitive range after discussions (if held) will be allowed to submit final proposal revisions as instructed by the Contracting Officer.

Adjectival ratings shall not be used for Offerors’ Price proposals. The Government will fully evaluate all priced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). For award purposes, the total proposed price for all CLINs will be added together into a total sum ...