Attachment 0016 - Section M - Evaluation Factors For Award dated 19 March 2024.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete and thorough explanations for each factor/subfactor submitted as required by Section L. Each volume, to include all factors/subfactors, shall be submitted with its initial proposal, and the U.S.

Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information.

Performance or capabilities proposed above mandatory minimums may be incorporated into the contract in accordance with (IAW) FAR 15.306(d)(4).

M.1 BASIS FOR AWARD

a. The U.S. Government will evaluate proposals submitted in accordance with this section and will decide considering the following factors with subfactors: (1) Technical with subfactors Production Capability, Quality System, Program Management Plan, and (2) Past Performance and (3) Price.

b. Best Value Tradeoff procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 will be utilized to select the successful Offeror. Award will be made to the Offeror whose proposal is determined to provide the best value to the U.S.

Government considering the evaluation criteria stated herein. The U.S.

Government plans to award one FFP, Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract for the metal parts for the M8 Smoke Pot that will consist of five, one-year ordering periods.

c. As part of the tradeoff determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, uncertainties, deficiencies, and risks of each proposal will be considered in selecting the proposal that provides the overall best value to the U.S.

Government. Therefore, the U.S. Government may award to other than the lowest priced Offeror. The non-price factors will be rated in an adjectival manner. If one subfactor receives an ‘Unacceptable’ rating, the overall Technical Factor rating shall be ‘Unacceptable’ and the Offeror’s proposal will not be evaluated further. Price will be evaluated, but not adjectivally rated.

d. Selection of the successful Offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal against the solicitation requirements and the cited evaluation criteria. The criteria will be used to evaluate and assess the information provided by the Offerors in response to the information required by Section L of the solicitation.

e. The U.S. Government will evaluate each proposal strictly in accordance with Section M.

f. The Minimum Guarantee Quantity (MGQ) is 800 each for the Inner Cover Assembly, Outer Cover Assembly, and Container for the M8 Smoke Pot. The first Delivery Order, which will consist of the MGQ, will be issued concurrently with the IDIQ contract award to the successful Offeror.

M.1.1 DISCUSSIONS

Each proposal shall contain the Offeror’s best terms for award of a contract under the solicitation. The U.S. Government intends to award without discussions. The Contracting Officer may contact Offerors for clarification, as described in FAR 15.306(a) and FAR 52.215-1, without opening discussions. However, the U.S.

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit Offerors to revise its proposals if determined necessary by the Contracting Officer.

If the Contracting Officer determines discussions are necessary, they will be held IAW

FAR 15.306.

M.1.2 OTHER EVALUATION CONSIDERATIONS

Pursuant to FAR 9.103, contracts will only be awarded to Offerors that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. Separate from the best value source selection criteria, Offerors must be able to demonstrate that they meet the standards of responsibility set forth in FAR 9.104. The U.S. Government may conduct a pre-award survey on any Offerors considered for award, to assist in the Contracting Officer’s determination of Contractor responsibility.

M.1.3 ORDER OF IMPORTANCE

The Technical factor is the most important factor; the Past Performance factor is slightly less important than the technical factor. Price is significantly less important than the other factors. Although Price is not the most important factor, it could become a controlling factor if proposals under the non-price factors are determined to be relatively equal.

The Technical Factor is comprised of three subfactors: 1) Production Capability,

2) Quality System, 3) Program Management System. Within the Technical factor, the Production Capability subfactor is the most important subfactor; the Quality System subfactor is slightly less important than the Production Capability subfactor; the Program Management System subfactor is significantly less important than the other subfactors.

An Offeror who receives an “Unacceptable” rating in technical factor will not be considered for award.

M.2 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR

Offerors will be evaluated for the technical factor utilizing the following three subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Production Capability Subfactor 2 – Quality System Subfactor 3 – Program Management Plan

The U.S. Government will evaluate the technical proposal to determine if the Offeror demonstrates a clear understanding and ability to comply with the requirements of this solicitation. Evaluation will be conducted at the subfactor level with an overall technical factor rating assigned based on the individual subfactor ratings and findings. The overall technical factor rating will take into consideration the technical subfactors’ order of importance and each subfactor’s evaluation. If any Technical subfactor is assigned an “Unacceptable” rating, the overall Technical factor rating will be “Unacceptable”.

The following combined Technical/Risk Rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the Technical Factor and Subfactors:

Table 1. Combined Technical/Risk Ratings

Color 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 un-awarded.

The following definitions apply to the evaluation of the Offeror’s Technical factor (and subfactors) as follows:

a. Significant Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ 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.

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

c. Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

d. Significant Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

e. 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. See FAR 15.001.

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).

M.2.1 VOLUME I – TECHNICAL FACTOR

M.2.1.1 Subfactor 1: Production Capability:

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's proposed manufacturing plan, operational flow chart, and description of individual operations to determine if the plan demonstrates an adequate approach and sufficient understanding of the solicitation and technical data package requirements.

This evaluation shall include the steps and operations required for manufacture. Proposed subcontracted work will be evaluated in the same level of detail as in-house-work.

b. The USG shall evaluate the adequacy of the submission’s narrative to demonstrate sufficient understanding of the critical parameters and potential problem areas for each operation. The evaluation shall include the Offeror’s ability to identify these parameters and the adequacy of how they will be controlled and proposed remedies. The USG shall evaluate if the narrative adequately and completely addresses remedies for any shortfalls of manufacturing equipment or skills coupled with contingency plans that address potential supply chain issues.

M.2.1.2 Subfactor 2: Quality System:

a. The U.S. Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s General Quality Manual demonstrates that the Offeror’s quality program complies with the solicitation requirements as listed in FAR 52.264-11, Higher-Level Contract Quality Requirement.

b. The U.S. Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s proposed plan to control and verify the requirements contained in this solicitation, to include the inspection equipment to be used, inspections to be performed and their frequency. The U.S. Government will evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s plans and concepts for process control including inspection equipment, methods, inspection points and frequency for dimensional inspections.

c. The U.S. Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plan to identify and prevent the occurrence of critical defects and how the Offeror can identify, notify, and recover from an occurrence of a critical defect during production to meet the TDP and solicitation requirements.

d. The USG shall evaluate how the will ensure the Quality Management System’s requirements are flowed down to subcontractors and how the Offeror shall verify subcontractor compliance to the contractual quality requirements.

M.2.1.3 Subfactor 3: Program Management Plan:

a. The U.S. Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Program Plan to determine the adequacy and level of understanding of the programmatic requirements of the solicitation. The evaluation will include determining if sufficient level of detail is provided and if the schedule is realistic and achievable.

b. The U.S. Government will evaluate the Offeror’s discussion of significant program risks to determine if it demonstrates an adequate approach and sufficient understanding of the requirements. The evaluation will include the appropriateness of the risk mitigation efforts as well as the inclusion of key events into the risk mitigation plan as well as communication strategies to ensure successful execution.

M.2.2 VOLUME II – PAST PERFORMANCE

Past Performance information is evaluated as a predictor of future contract performance. The U.S. Government will evaluate the degree of confidence it has that the Offeror will successfully complete the requirements in accordance with the TDP and solicitation requirements based on the Offeror's demonstrated record of recent and relevant performance.

The U.S. Government may consider the currency, degree of relevance, source, and context of the past performance information it evaluates, as well as general trends in delivery and quality performance.

A significant achievement, problem, problem resolution, or lack of relevant data in any element can become an important consideration in the assessment process. A negative finding in any element may result in a lower past performance confidence assessment rating.

If absent any recent and relevant past performance history, the Offeror will be assigned a Neutral Confidence rating and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the U.S. Government may use information obtained from other sources, or may use information with regard to other contracts performed by the Offeror of which it has knowledge, whether or not those contracts are disclosed to the U.S. Government by the Offeror.

Adverse performance shall be identified on every recent and relevant contract awarded to the Offeror and subcontractors that encountered any performance problems. If there are no contracts with performance problems, the Offeror must state as such. Failure to include this information or a statement may be a cause for rejection of an Offeror’s proposal as incomplete.

M.2.2.1 Recent contracts are defined as prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, and subcontracts where deliverables or services were provided, or are still being provided, anytime within five years of issuance of this solicitation. The U.S. Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance information after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.2.2.2 RELEVANCY RATINGS

Relevant means performance that demonstrates the Offeror has successfully performed on contracts involving the same or similar processes and quality assurance needed to produce and deliver M8 Smoke Pot Metal Parts in accordance with the TDP and solicitation requirements.

The degree to which the contracts are comparable with regard to the complexity of the production processes, size of the production quantities, and total dollar value (more than $1M) to the solicited effort may also be considered in determining relevance.

The relevancy of the past performance information will be determined as follows:

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

M.2.2.3 CONFIDENCE PAST PERFORMANCE RATINGS

Offeror’s recent and relevant past performance will be rated as follows:

TABLE 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments

Rating Definition

Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the

Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the facto of past performance.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

NOTE: The U.S. Government advises Offerors that while an Offeror will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably for having Neutral Confidence past performance, that Neutral Confidence rating may be considered during a trade-off analysis with other Offerors who have a performance rating other than Neutral Confidence. For example, in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, the Source Selection Authority (SSA) may determine that a Substantial Confidence or Satisfactory Confidence past performance rating is worth more than a Neutral Confidence past performance rating in a best value tradeoff.

The burden of providing thorough and complete past performance information remains with the Offeror. Offerors are advised that while the U.S. Government may use independent data to evaluate an Offeror’s past performance the U.S.

Government does not assume the duty to search for data to cure problems.

The U.S. Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information.

**Additional outside sources available to the U.S. Government, other than the Offeror’s proposal, may be utilized to evaluate past performance. Outside sources include, but are not limited to, data from CPARS, or other databases;

interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and the Defense Contract Management Agency.

References provided on classified contracts cannot be verified and will not be evaluated. Recent contracts to foreign entities will only be verified when a U.S.

Government POC with phone and email is provided.

M.2.3 VOLUME III – PRICE FACTOR

The U.S. Government will evaluate Offeror’s proposals based on the TEP from the Price Matrix, and any other price related factors required by the solicitation. The TEP is the sum of the Evaluated CLIN Prices, FAT, and any other price related factors required by the solicitation.

a. The Evaluated FAT price is the sum of the proposed FAT price for each of the five ordering periods. The FAT price will be priced separately and will be added as applicable.

b. The Weighted Evaluated Price for each ordering period is calculated by multiplying the proposed unit prices for each quantity range by their respective weight and maximum quantity for each range, and then summing their totals. The weight associated with each range represents the likelihood that an order, if placed, would be placed within that range.

If an Offeror fails to propose unit prices for each CLIN for all quantity ranges and ordering periods, the U.S. Government may reject that offer as unacceptable.

Price Analysis shall be used to determine price reasonableness. The TEP will be evaluated utilizing the proposal analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the contracting officer. These methods of evaluation may include the use of information/input from sources such as (but not limited to) other Government agencies and personnel.

As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing. IAW FAR 15.404-1(g), i.e., Unbalanced Pricing, a proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the U.S.

Government.

The Technical team will review Attachment 0002 EPA worksheet for acceptability in regards to the EPA clause.

The Government anticipates receiving adequate price competition under this solicitation; therefore, cost or pricing data is not required to be submitted with the proposal. However, in the event the PCO determines that adequate competition does not exist, the Government reserves the right to require certified cost or pricing data to be submitted, which will be required within ten (10) days of request.

Additionally, the Government reserves the right to request data other than certified cost or pricing data in the event such data is necessary to establish a fair and reasonable price.

The PCO reserves the right to make no award as a result of the solicitation if, upon evaluation, the proposed price cannot be determined fair and reasonable.