Att 0006 AIT-7 Section M APR2025.pdf

W519TC-24-R-0038

Attachment 0006 Section M – Rev04APR2025

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

The United States Government (USG) is conducting a source selection for Automatic Identification Technology-7 (AIT-7) under FAR Part 12 Acquisition of Commercial Items in conjunction with the policies and procedures of Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, Contracting by Negotiation. The USG intends to award up to three Fixed Price (FFP) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts. However, the USG reserves the right to award no contract(s), one contract, or two contracts, if an insufficient number of Offerors are found to be “Acceptable” in all the non-price factors and/or the Offeror’s proposed price is not (1) Fair and Reasonable, and/or, (2) Balanced. The IDIQ(s) will have five one-year ordering periods. Offeror’s proposals and any pricing, within that proposal, shall be valid for at least 185 days after solicitation closing date.

The proposal(s) submitted in response to this solicitation should contain the Offerors best terms for contract award. The USG reserves the right to contact an Offeror for clarification without opening discussions. The USG reserves the right to conduct discussions to permit Offerors to revise their proposal at the discretion of the KO.

Offers are solicited on an “all or none” basis. Failure to submit offers for all items and quantities listed may be cause for rejection of the offer.

M.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

This source selection will be evaluated as Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) based on the following three factors:

FACTOR 1: MANAGEMENT (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

FACTOR 3: PRICE (FAIR AND REASONABLENESS & BALANCED)

First, the USG will list proposal by their Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – Evaluated. These will be listed from low to high.

Second, the USG will evaluate the three lowest TEP-Evaluated priced Offeror(s)'s proposals for compliance with the required documentation in Volume 1. Proposals failing this compliance review will be replaced by evaluating the next lowest-priced proposal (determined by TEP-Evaluated).

Third, the USG The Management Factor evaluation and Technical Factor evaluation will then be conducted on the lowest priced proposal for acceptability. If the lowest priced proposal is determined to be unacceptable, the next lowest proposal will be evaluated for acceptability. This process will continue until up to three proposal(s) are deemed to have the lowest price and are “Acceptable” in both the Management and Technical

Factors. Proposals found not “Acceptable” in either Factor will be replaced by evaluating the next lowest-priced proposal (determined by TEP-Evaluated).

Fourth, proposals passing all previous steps will be reviewed to determine if they are Fair and Reasonable as well as for Balanced pricing. Proposals found not Fair and Reasonable or Unbalanced will be replaced by evaluating the next lowest-priced proposal (determined by TEP-Evaluated).

M.4. VOLUME SPECIFIC EVALUATIONS

M.4.1. VOLUME 1 - COMPLIANCE ONLY DOCUMENTS

The Offeror(s) submitted Cover Letter (CL), Contractor Agreements (CAs), and, if applicable, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSCP) will be reviewed for compliance with the RFP instructions. No rating will be assigned to these but will determine if the offer is considered responsive or non-responsive.

M.4.2. VOLUME 2 - MANAGEMENT (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE):

The Management Volume will be provided an Overall rating of either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable.” Note, Parts a, b, and c, below ARE NOT subfactors for the Management Factor. These represent required documents to be submitted in the Offeror(s)’s Management Volume.

Rating – Management Description

Acceptable All submission elements of the Offeror(s)’s Management Volume submission MEET the “Pass” criteria.

Unacceptable All submission elements of the Offeror(s)’s Management Volume submission DO NOT MEET the “Pass” criteria.

Table 3: Evaluation Factors – Volume 2, Management Factor

Submission Element [a]: ORGANIZATIONAL CHART (OC) Pass: The Offeror provides a clear OC illustrating lines of authority and chains of command, clearly labeling all positions and outlining the reporting relationships of both the Prime Contractor (Prime) and, if applicable, their subcontractor(s).

Fail: The Offeror fails to provide a comprehensive OC that clearly delineates lines of authority and chains of command, including labeling all positions and/or outlining the reporting relationships for both the Prime and its subcontractor(s), if any.

Submission Element [b]: TECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES (TES) APPROACH Pass: This definition, Pass, applies ONLY IF ALL the following criteria is met.

(1) The Offeror details a clear staffing and management approach, including a table specifying the number of personnel the Offeror deems necessary to fulfill the AIT- 7 requirements as defined in Section 10 of Att 0001.

(2) The table includes all the following:

[i] Position titles, [ii] Number of personnel proposed for each position, and, [iii] Rationale for proposed staffing levels.

(3) The Offeror explains how their proposed approach will meet all requirements outlined in Section 10 of Att 0001.

Fail: This definition, Fail, applies if ANY of the following criteria is met.

(1) The Offeror fails to detail a clear staffing and management approach and/or does not include a table specifying the number of personnel the Offeror deems necessary to fulfill the AIT-7 requirements as defined in Section 10 of Att 0001.

(2) The table fails to include one or more of the following:

[i] Position titles, [ii] Number of personnel proposed for each position, and, [iii] Rationale for proposed staffing levels.

(3) The Offeror fails to explain how their proposed approach will meet all requirements outlined in Section 10 of Att 0001.

Submission Element [c]: APPROACH TO RECRUIT, HIRE AND RETAIN A WORKFORCE Pass: The Offeror provides a detailed approach on how they intend to recruit, hire, and retain a workforce to support AIT-7 using all the labor positions identified in Section 10.3 of Att 0001, PWS AIT-7.

Fail: The Offeror fails to provide a detailed approach on how they intend to recruit, hire, and retain a workforce to support AIT-7 using all the labor positions identified in Section

10.3 of Att 0001, PWS AIT-7, and/or the Offeror fails to include one or more labor positions identified in Section 10.3 of Att 0001, PWS AIT-7.

M.4.3. VOLUME 3 - TECHNICAL (ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE)

Technical tradeoffs will not be made, and no additional credit will be given for exceeding requirements. The USG will not evaluate the Technical Engineering Services CLINs/SLINs (Series XX08), for the Technical Factor, as part of the base contract award. The ordering KO may choose to assess Technical at the task order level. The ordering KO will determine the evaluation criteria for technical evaluation(s).

M.4.3.a. CBOM Offerors shall propose all CLIN/SLIN found in Att 0004, CBOM, but the USG will only evaluate the 25 CLINs/SLINs listed in Table 4 below for the Technical factor.

M.4.3.b. TDS An Offeror’s proposal shall include TDSs for the 25 CLINs/SLINs listed in Table 4. Table 4 below shows the 25 CLINs/SLINs that will be reviewed and evaluated by the USG for the Technical factor.

CLIN/SLIN Description

XX01 AA Hand-Held Barcode Terminal A (HHT-A)

XX01 BA Hand-Held Barcode Terminal B (HHT-B)

XX01 CA Hand-Held Barcode Terminal C (HHT-C)

XX01 EA Hand-Held Barcode Terminal E (HHT-E)

XX01 FA Hand-Held Terminal-F (HHT-F)

XX01 GA Hand-Held Terminal-G (HHT-G)

XX01 HA Hand Held Barcode Terminal H (HHT-H)

XX01 IA Hand Held Barcode Terminal I (HHT-I)

XX02 AA Imager for PC Input - General Bar Code (Tethered)

XX02 BA Imager for PC Input - General Bar Code (Bluetooth)

XX02 CA Imager for PC Input - IUID Label Markings

XX02 DA Imager for PC Input - IUID Direct Part Markings

XX02 EA Imager for PC Input - Extended Reading Range (Tethered)

XX03 AA Portable/Wearable Bar Code Label Printer

XX03 BA Stationary Bar Code Label Printer

XX04 AA pRFID Fixed Reader w/antennas

XX04 BA pRFID Vehicle Mount Fixed Reader w/antennas

XX04 CA pRFID Smart Table

XX04 DA Handheld Terminal-Passive RFID A (HHT-pRFID-A)

XX04 EA Handheld Terminal-Passive RFID B (HHT-pRFID-B)

XX04 FA pRFID Shipping Tag - 4" x 2" (2,000 labels /roll)

XX04 FB pRFID Shipping Tag - 4" x 6" (500 labels /roll)

XX04 GA pRFID Thermal Transfer Printer;

XX05 AA Bar Code Label Design and Printing Software

XX06 AA Iridium Modem

Table 4: Volume 3 Technical Evaluated CLINs

M.4.3.c. RESELLER AGREEMENTS (RAs) RAs Pass: This definition, Pass, applies ONLY IF ALL the following criteria is met. Offeror submits, for each product in Att 0004, written proof (on company letterhead, signed by an authorized officer) of either Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) status or a formal business partnership/agreement with the OEM for this specific effort. This statement specifies the company's mission related to OEM status and includes their NAICS code.

Fail: This definition, Fail, applies if ANY of the following criteria is met. Offeror fails to submit, for each product in Att 0004, written proof (on company letterhead, signed by an authorized officer) of either OEM status or a formal business partnership/agreement with the OEM for this specific effort. This statement fails to specify the company's mission related to OEM status and/or include their NAICS code.

Table 5 outlines how proposals are evaluated for Technical Factor.

Rating Description

Acceptable

Offeror BOTH: (1) Proposed ALL CLINs/SLINs in Att 0004 except for the “To Be Determined at Time of Order” CLINs/SLINs; and (2) ALL 25 CLINs/SLINs (those listed above in Table 4 above and found in yellow highlighted cells in Att 0004), meet the minimum requirements of the PWS. The Offer submits all 25 TDSs. The Offeror must meet the definition of “pass” for the Reseller Agreements.

Unacceptable

The Offeror did not propose ALL CLINs/SLINs in Att 0004, excluding the “To Be Determined at Time of Order” CLINs/SLINs, AND/OR At least 1 of the 25 CLIN/SLIN proposed in Att 0004 does not meets the minimum requirements of the PWS. The Offer does not submits all 25 TDSs The Offeror does not meet the definition of “pass” for the Reseller Agreements.

Table 5: Evaluation Factors – Volume 3, Technical Factor

M.4.4. VOLUME 4 - PRICE (FAIR AND REASONABLE OR NOT, AND

BALANCED/UNBALANCED PRICING)

The USG will evaluate price in accordance with FAR Clause 52.219-4, Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business Concerns. The basis for determining the lowest evaluated price is Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The calculation process is as follows:

1. Start with individual CLINs/SLINs:

a) Weighted Evaluated Price (WEP) = Proposed Unit Price (blue cell) ×

Calculated Quantity

2. For each Ordering Period:

a) Ordering Period Total (OpT) - Evaluated = Sum of all WEPs for that ordering period

i. Exclude:

• Unpriced CLINs/SLINs (e.g., Series XX11)

• CLINs/SLINs priced at the order level (e.g., Series XX07, XX09)

3. TEP - Evaluated:

a) TEP - Evaluated = Sum of all OpT - Evaluated.

The below table shows a visual example of how these calculations would apply.

In this example:

Example Calculation:

• Weighted Evaluated Price (WEP) for CLIN/SLIN XX01AA:

o Ordering Period 1: 160 x $10.00 = $1,600.00 o Ordering Period 2: 160 x $20.00 = $3,200.00

• Option Total - Evaluated (OpT - Evaluated):

o Ordering Period 1:

▪ $1,600.00 + $48,000.00 + $7,700.00 + $8.000.00 = $65,300.00 o Ordering Period 2:

▪ $3,200.00 + $56,000.00 + $8,400.00 + $8,500 = $76,100.00

• Total Evaluated Price (TEP - Evaluated): $434,500.00

Table 6 – Example Calculations Visual

To be considered for award, each Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) / Subline Item Number (SLIN) proposed price must be determined to be both fair and reasonable, and balanced.

Fair and Reasonable Price The USG anticipates that adequate price competition will support a determination of price reasonableness. In the absence of adequate price competition, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined based on the information provided in the offer, the USG may request additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 to support the proposed price. The USG may employ price analysis techniques as outlined in FAR 15.404-1(b)(2) to determine price reasonableness. While the USG does not intend to conduct cost analysis, the Contracting Officer reserves the right to utilize cost analysis or other appropriate techniques at their discretion.

Balanced Pricing Offerors are cautioned against submitting offers with unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP – Evaluated, the price of one or more price elements (e.g., CLINs/SLINs) are significantly overstated or understated, as determined through price analysis techniques consistent with FAR 15.404-1. The USG will analyze offers to identify potential unbalanced pricing. In accordance with FAR

15.404-1, offers determined to exhibit unbalanced pricing may be rejected if the unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the USG.

M.5. SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS:

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical, management, and price requirements, as detailed in this narrative, in the solicitation document, and its associated attachments (e.g., Att 0001 PWS AIT-7). Offers must comply with all attachments and exhibits included with this solicitation. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale.