Att_0004_-_Section_M_2017-07-28_FINAL.pdf

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. BASIS FOR AWARD

1.1. The awards will be made based on utilizing the Best Value Subjective Tradeoff methodology to determine the best value proposal that is the most beneficial to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to the six (6) evaluation factors: Factor 1 - 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly Manufacturing & Quality Plan, Factor 2 - 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies Manufacturing & Quality Plan, Factor 3 - Management, Factor 4 - Cost/Price, Factor 5 - Past Performance and Factor 6 - Small Business Participation.

1.2. The Factors above are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 which is more important than Factor 3 which is more important than Factor 4 which is significantly more important than Factor 5 which is more important than Factor 6. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

1.3. Offerors must receive a rating of at least “Marginal” for the 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly Manufacturing & Quality Plan, 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies Manufacturing & Quality Plan, and Management factors (to include all sub-factors) to be eligible for award. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Sub-factor level are ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to make an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or to other than the Offeror with the highest technical rating if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that doing so would result in the best value to the Government.

2. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

2.1. The following evaluation factors and sub-factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror whose overall proposal is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below:

2.1.1. Volume I – Technical

Factor 1: 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly Manufacturing & Quality Plan

Factor 2: 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies Manufacturing & Quality Plan

Factor 3: Management

The Management Factor is further divided into the following three sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Integrated Master Schedule and Analysis of Schedule Risk

Sub-factor 2: Surge Facilitization Plan

Sub-factor 3: Performance Work Statement (PWS) Breakdown

Sub-factor 1 is more important than Sub-factor 2 which is more important than Sub-factor 3

2.1.2. Volume II - Factor 4: Cost/Price: The Cost/Price Factor does not have any sub-factors. The resulting award for Large Caliber Metal Parts Production will be a Fixed Price (FP) with Economic Price Adjustment (EPA) combination contract, consisting of IDIQ CLINs for the 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly and Indefinite Delivery Requirements CLINs for the 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies. The resulting award for Property Management of SCAAP will be an IDIQ hybrid contract of primarily FFP task orders, but may allow some Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) task orders based on risk. However, the solicitation will not include any cost reimbursable efforts. CPFF effort will be negotiated under the task order and certified cost or pricing data will be required unless an exception applies. Price analysis will be used to determine price reasonableness in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

2.1.3. Volume III – Factor 5: Past Performance

The Past Performance Factor is further divided into the following two sub-factors:

Sub-factor 1: Large Caliber Metal Parts Production Past Performance

Sub-factor 2: Property Management Past Performance

Sub-factor 1 is more important than Sub-factor 2.

2.1.4. Volume IV – Factor 6: Small Business Participation

The Small Business Participation Factor does not have any sub-factors.

2.2. The Factors above are listed in descending order of importance. Factor 1 is more important than Factor 2 which is more important than Factor 3 which is more important than Factor 4 which is significantly more important than Factor 5 which is more important than Factor 6. All evaluation factors other than price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

3. EVALUATION APPROACH

3.1. All proposals will be evaluated by the Source Selection Team (SST). The evaluation process will consider the adequacy and completeness of responses for the proposal. 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 thoroughly and comprehensively addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP. The evaluation process will also consider the feasibility of the Offeror’s approach to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule. The Volumes, Factors, and Sub-factors are as follows:

3.2. VOLUME I - Technical

3.2.1. Factor 1: 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly Manufacturing & Quality Plan

The Government will evaluate the adequacy, completeness, feasibility, and supportability of the Offeror’s process map and narrative description of the proposed manufacturing processes for both the prime contractor and major subcontractors/suppliers to deliver product that meets the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the completeness of the process map and narrative to include all operations and steps required for manufacture, assembly, testing, inspection, marking, packaging and storage. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the sequence of operations for all major assemblies, subassemblies, and parts, to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess adequacy of the identification of which processes and/or components are subcontracted out or purchased. The Government will evaluate the following areas of the narrative descriptions for each operation or process:

3.2.1.1. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s narrative description of the operation, to include:

3.2.1.1.1. Adequacy and completeness of the description of all steps, inspections, verifications, process controls, documentation, and material handling involved in each operation or process

3.2.1.1.2. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of the

identification and understanding of specifications and standards

3.2.1.1.3. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of the

identification and understanding of the operation’s contribution to a critical characteristic. Adequacy and completeness of how process contributing to critical characteristics will be controlled

3.2.1.1.4. Adequacy and completeness of procedures for

controlling non-conforming material

3.2.1.1.5. Adequacy and applicability of the description of

whether or not the operation has been proven out on the items included in this solicitation and/or similar items to reduce the risk of unsuccessful performance under this solicitation

3.2.1.2. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s identification of Process Inputs, to include:

3.2.1.2.1. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of the raw materials utilized during the operation or process

3.2.1.2.2. Adequacy and completeness of the supplier or

subcontractor proposed for each raw material

3.2.1.2.3. Adequacy and completeness of how vendor product

will be controlled

3.2.1.2.4. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of

Government Furnished Material (GFM) consumed

3.2.1.3. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s identification and description of Manufacturing Equipment to be utilized, to include:

3.2.1.3.1. Adequacy and completeness of specific equipment

capabilities

3.2.1.3.2. Adequacy and completeness of the location, ownership (Government or Contractor), availability, and current status of the manufacturing equipment to be utilized

3.2.1.3.3. Adequacy and completeness of the description of

maintenance

3.2.1.4. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s identification and description of Inspection Equipment to be utilized, to include:

3.2.1.4.1. Adequacy, completeness and understanding of the

identification of corresponding Critical, Major, and Minor Characteristics, per item specification and/or in-process inspections

3.2.1.4.2. Adequacy and completeness of the description of

Inspection Equipment

3.2.1.4.3. Adequacy and completeness of the inspection

frequency

3.2.1.4.4. Adequacy and completeness of the calibration

schedule

3.2.1.5. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s Personnel Required, to include:

3.2.1.5.1. Adequacy and completeness of the identification of key qualifications, positions, or expertise/skills required to support each step of the manufacturing process

3.2.1.5.2. Adequacy and completeness of the availability of

personnel (e.g., employed, training required, hiring required, etc.)

3.2.1.6. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s Throughput Analysis to meet a monthly production rate of 10,000, with added value placed on the ability to achieve 13,500 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly, to include:

3.2.1.6.1. Adequacy and completeness of Cycle Times, Shift

Basis, Percentage of Capacity, time available for ramp up and/or preventative, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, for identified rate(s)

3.2.1.6.2. Adequacy and completeness of the data and/or

rationale for establishing throughput metrics

3.2.1.6.3. Adequacy and completeness of the identification of shared resources and plans for concurrent production

3.2.2. Factor 2: 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies Manufacturing & Quality Plan

The Government will evaluate the adequacy, completeness, feasibility, and supportability of the Offeror’s process map and narrative description of the proposed manufacturing processes for both the prime contractor and major subcontractors/suppliers to deliver product that meets the solicitation requirements. The Government will evaluate the completeness of the process map and narrative to include all operations and steps required for manufacture, assembly, testing, inspection, marking, packaging and storage of the 120mm Smoke Shell Bodies and 120mm HE Cartridge Shell Body Assemblies. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the sequence of operations for all major assemblies, subassemblies, and parts, to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will assess adequacy of the identification of which processes and/or components are subcontracted out or purchased. The Government will evaluate the following areas of the narrative descriptions for each operation or process:

3.2.2.1. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s narrative description of the operation, to include:

3.2.2.1.1. Adequacy and completeness of the description of all steps, inspections, verifications, process controls, documentation, and material handling involved in each operation or process

3.2.2.1.2. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of the

identification and understanding of specifications and standards

3.2.2.1.3. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of the

identification and understanding of the operation’s contribution to a critical characteristic. Adequacy and completeness of how process contributing to critical characteristics will be controlled

3.2.2.1.4. Adequacy and completeness of procedures for

controlling non-conforming material

3.2.2.1.5. Adequacy and applicability of the description of

whether or not the operation has been proven out on the items included in this solicitation and/or similar items to reduce the risk of unsuccessful performance under this solicitation

3.2.2.2. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s identification of Process Inputs, to include:

3.2.2.2.1. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of the raw materials utilized during the operation or process

3.2.2.2.2. Adequacy and completeness of the supplier or

subcontractor proposed for each raw material

3.2.2.2.3. Adequacy and completeness of how vendor product

will be controlled

3.2.2.2.4. Adequacy, applicability, and completeness of GFM

consumed

3.2.2.3. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s identification and description of Manufacturing Equipment to be utilized, to include:

3.2.2.3.1. Adequacy and completeness of specific equipment

capabilities

3.2.2.3.2. Adequacy and completeness of the location, ownership (Government or Contractor), availability, and current status of the manufacturing equipment to be utilized

3.2.2.3.3. Adequacy and completeness of the description of

maintenance

3.2.2.4. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s identification and description of Inspection Equipment to be utilized, to include:

3.2.2.4.1. Adequacy, completeness and understanding of the

identification of corresponding Critical, Major, and Minor Characteristics, per item specification and/or in-process inspections

3.2.2.4.2. Adequacy and completeness of the description of

Inspection Equipment

3.2.2.4.3. Adequacy and completeness of the inspection

frequency

3.2.2.4.4. Adequacy and completeness of the calibration

schedule

3.2.2.5. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s Personnel Required, to include:

3.2.2.5.1. Adequacy and completeness of the identification of key qualifications, positions, or expertise/skills required to support each step of the manufacturing process

3.2.2.5.2. Adequacy and completeness of the availability of

personnel (e.g., employed, training required, hiring required, etc.)

3.2.2.6. The adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s Throughput Analysis to meet a concurrent monthly production rate of:

12,000 120mm M933A1/M934A1 HE Cartridge Shell Body Assemblies

12,000 120mm M931 Full Range Practice Cartridge Shell Body Assemblies

1,500 120mm M929 WP Smoke Cartridge Shell Bodies 2,500 120mm Illuminating Front/Rear Cartridge Shell Bodies

3.2.2.6.1. Adequacy and completeness of Cycle Times, Shift

Basis, Percentage of Capacity, time available for ramp up and/or preventative, scheduled and unscheduled maintenance, for identified rate(s)

3.2.2.6.2. Adequacy and completeness of the data and/or

rationale for establishing throughput metrics

3.2.2.6.3. Adequacy and completeness of the identification of shared resources and plans for concurrent production

3.2.3. Factor 3: Management

The Management Factor is divided into the following sub-factors:

3.2.3.1. Sub-factor 1: Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and

Analysis of Schedule Risk

The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s over-arching IMS and supporting detailed schedules to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government will also evaluate the adequacy of the Offeror’s Analysis of Schedule Risk associated with the proposed schedule(s). The Government will evaluate the following areas:

3.2.3.1.1. The adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s top level, overarching, IMS to meet the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will assess the feasibility of the top level IMS, and evaluate how the major milestones/events for the Property Management, 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly Production, and 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies Production roll up to meet solicitation requirements. The Government will assess if the IMS clearly illustrates the Offeror’s ability to execute all Property Management requirements, achieve First Article Acceptance, and produce all items in the solicitation concurrently at the stated minimum production rates, as well as, other items produced at the Offeror’s facility(ies). The Government will evaluate the adequacy and completeness of the Offeror’s identification of shared resources. In support of the IMS, the Government will evaluate supporting detailed schedules for the following:

3.2.3.1.1.1. The adequacy and feasibility of the

detailed schedule that supports the Property Management of the Scranton Army Ammunition Plant and the execution of the PWS requirements to include all events, milestones, long lead items, permitting, and planned deliveries. The Government will assess all activities and interdependencies, and all key milestones/functions (e.g., long lead time items, personnel, certifications, permitting, etc.) for the prime and major subcontractors/suppliers. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the Critical Path. The Government will confirm that the Property Management detailed schedule addresses the following PWSs:

Transition PWS Security PWS Maintenance PWS Environmental PWS Layaway of Industrial Facilities (LIF) and Maintenance of Inactive Facilities

(MIF) PWS

3.2.3.1.1.2. The adequacy and feasibility of the

Offeror’s detailed schedule to support a production rate of 10,000 with added value placed in the ability to achieve 13,500 per month 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly. The Government will assess as a minimum, all activities, interdependencies, and the critical path required to achieve the proposed Government delivery schedule.

The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s key activities required to purchase, install, move, re-integrate, and/or verify and qualify all equipment and processes at both the prime and major subcontractor/supplier facilities that are necessary to perform First Article Test (FAT), scheduled Ballistic Lot Acceptance Testing (BLAT), and scheduled monthly production deliveries. The Government will confirm that the schedule includes all key milestones/events (e.g., long lead time items, FAT, scheduled monthly production, etc.) for the prime and major subcontractors/suppliers. The Government will assess the adequacy and completeness of the supporting documentation and rationale for developing the timeline of events.

3.2.3.1.1.3. The adequacy and feasibility of the

Offeror’s detailed schedule to support concurrent monthly production rates of:

12,000 120mm M933A1/M934A1 HE Cartridge Shell Body Assemblies

12,000 120mm M931 Full Range Practice Cartridge Shell Body Assemblies

1,500 120mm M929 WP Smoke Cartridge Shell Bodies

2,500 120mm Illuminating Front/Rear Cartridge Shell Bodies

The Government will assess as a minimum, all activities, interdependencies, and the critical path required to satisfy the proposed Government delivery schedule.

The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s key activities required to purchase, install, move, re-integrate, and/or verify and qualify all equipment and processes at both the prime and major subcontractor/supplier facilities that are necessary to perform First Article Testing (FAT) and scheduled monthly concurrent production deliveries. The Government will confirm that the schedule includes all key milestones/events (e.g., long lead time items, FAT, scheduled monthly production, etc.) for the prime and major subcontractors/suppliers. The Government will assess the adequacy and feasibility of the supporting documentation and rationale for developing the timeline of events.

3.2.3.1.2. The adequacy, feasibility and understanding of the Offeror’s schedule risks for Property Management (including PWS execution) and 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly and 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies production, which could potentially lead to a significant delay in the delivery of these items. The complete proposal submission will be used to assess the feasibility and appropriateness of the risks provided. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the mitigation plan for each risk, to include a description of the actions that will be taken to reduce the likelihood and/or severity of the risk, the impact to the contract and/or schedule, as well as the contingency plans to mitigate the risks.

3.2.3.2. Sub-factor 2: Surge Facilitization Plan

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Surge Facilitization Plan and its ability to meet Surge Capacities with the associated timeline requirements as defined in the Surge Facilitization PWS. The Government will evaluate the following areas:

3.2.3.2.1. The adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s plan to increase production capacity from the base capacity needed for this solicitation to the capacity and timeline requirements in the Surge Facilitization Plan PWS.

The adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s description of equipment and facility requirements including re-activation of laid away equipment and facilities, procurement and installation of new equipment and facilities, relocation of existing equipment, and/or tooling and test equipment.

3.2.3.2.2. The adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s facility layout including all proposed production lines for the prime contractor and any major subcontractors/suppliers; to include all operations, from receipt of raw material through final packing, storage and shipping to meet the requirements of the Surge Facilitization PWS. The layout clearly shows the flow of production through the various facilities.

The layout follows a clear, logical production pattern with little opportunity for missed operations or co-mingling of in-process material. Adequacy and feasibility of the layout to clearly identify if Government Furnished (Owned) Property, including equipment, is used or transferred to another facility and clearly show which facilities are currently owned or leased.

3.2.3.2.3. The ability of the Offeror’s Throughput Analysis to meet or exceed an annual Surge Capacity of:

Item Annual Surge

Capacity

M795 400,000

M933A1/M934A1 540,000 Total Annual Surge

Capacity 940,000

The adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s identification of: equipment cycle times, bottlenecks, description of shifts, time available for maintenance, and estimation of equipment downtime within its throughput analysis. The throughput analysis is supported by existing and/or historical data on this or similar items and provides a logical and feasible basis for establishing cycle times. The identification of shared resources the description of how the resources will be managed to meet the requirements of the Surge Facilitization PWS will be evaluated.

3.2.3.2.4. The adequacy and feasibility of the Offeror’s

Personnel Management plan and its ability to meet any increase in staffing needs across all areas of its Surge Facilitization Plan.

3.2.3.2.5. The adequacy and feasibility of the Surge IMS to

support the Surge Facilitization Plan requirements during the eighteen (18) month Ramp-Up period as described in the Surge Facilitization PWS. The Government will assess as a minimum all significant activities and milestones required to increase capability and/or capacities to satisfy the proposed Surge Facilitation PWS capacities within the Ramp- Up period. The Government will evaluate the IMS for inclusion of all key activities, milestones and events for the prime and major subcontractors and/or suppliers. The Government will assess the adequacy and feasibility of the Critical Path identified in the Surge Facilitization Plan.

3.2.3.2.6. The adequacy and feasibility of the Risk Analysis

performed as part of the IMS for any areas of significant risk in relation to cost, schedule or performance. Risk mitigation strategies or alternate production plans will be assessed for risk mitigation performance and practicality.

3.2.3.3. Sub-factor 3: PWS Breakdown

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plans to comply with the PWSs as described below.

3.2.3.3.1. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s plans to comply with the following PWSs for adequacy and supportability. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and feasibility of the plans. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate its suitability for use in operating and maintaining this Government-owned facility, including evaluation of: processes and/or procedures, control of documents/records, internal corrective action procedures, and personnel training procedures. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s process that will be used to flow down requirements to major subcontractors for adequacy.

Property (Attachment 0006) Security (Attachment 0009) Maintenance and Utilities (Attachment 0007) Environmental (Attachment 0008) Facility Plans, Strategies, and Analyses

(Attachment 0014)

3.2.3.3.2. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s LIF Plan and MIF Plan to meet the requirements as defined in the LIF and MIF PWSs respectively. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s ability to demonstrate its suitability for use in operating and maintaining this Government-owned facility, including evaluation of:

processes and/or procedures for layaway, inspection, and/or maintenance; control of documents/records;

and an inspection schedule.

3.2.3.3.3. If the Offeror is not requesting Government funds to place equipment or facilities in layaway, it is acceptable to state such as a response to this requirement. Any Government-owned equipment and facilities that are not laid away must be maintained by the contractor in accordance with the Maintenance

PWS.

3.2.4. The Technical and Management (Factors 1, 2, and 3) Ratings below focus on the strengths, deficiencies, weaknesses, risks and uncertainties of the Offeror’s proposal. The color/adjectival rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical and Management requirements.

3.2.5. Within the Technical and Management Factors, each Sub-factor will be rated separately using the color /adjectival ratings. Each Sub-factor will be assessed for significant strengths, strengths, significant weaknesses, weaknesses, deficiencies, risks (see Table 1). Each Sub-factor will be assigned an adjectival rating based upon these collective findings. The compilation of these Sub-factor adjectival ratings will form the basis of the Factor rating.

3.2.6. Offerors that receive a final rating of Red/Unacceptable at any Factor/Sub-factor level are ineligible for award.

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.

3.2.7. The adjectival and color/adjectival rating from the table above has an assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Technical risk will not be rated separately, however, the definitions for risk are in the table below.

3.3. VOLUME II - Factor 4: Cost/Price

3.3.1. The Government will evaluate offers based on proposed FFPs for the Property Management Basic Ordering Periods (1-5), Property Management Option 1 Contract Ordering Periods (1-5), Property Management Option 2 Contract Ordering Periods (1-5) along with FFP unit prices for the Large Caliber Metal Parts Production Basic Ordering Periods (1-5) and Large Caliber Metal Parts Production Option for the 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly and Option for the 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies (1-5), FAT and any other price related factors required by the RFP. Failure to propose all required prices may result in an offer being rejected.

3.3.2. If the Government determines that adequate price competition was not obtained and/or if the total evaluated price cannot be deemed fair and reasonable, the Government reserves the right to request cost or pricing data and to evaluate such data utilizing the proposal analysis techniques delineated in the FAR 15.404-1 as deemed appropriate.

3.3.3. A total evaluated price will be computed for each Offeror and used in the performance of a price analysis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(b).

Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the Procuring 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.

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.

3.3.4. The total evaluated price will be computed by summing the total proposed prices for the Property Management Basic and Property Management Options 1 & 2 and the total evaluated prices for the Large Caliber Metal Parts Production Basic and Large Caliber Metal Parts Option which will be adjusted to include the Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor for the use of government property, when applicable.

3.3.4.1. For Property Management Basic and Property Management Options 1 & 2, the Government will calculate the evaluated price by totaling all proposed CLIN prices for all ordering periods to include the base and both option periods.

3.3.4.2. For each Large Caliber Metal Parts Production item, a total evaluated price will be calculated for the base contract and option by summing the weighted evaluated prices for the First Article Tests and Production items for all ordering periods within each contract period.

3.3.4.2.1. First Article Tests (Initial & Subsequent): The

weighted evaluated price for each Initial and Subsequent FAT will be calculated by multiplying the proposed FAT unit prices adjusted to include the Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor for the use of government property (when applicable) by the respective weights in each ordering period and summing the products.

3.3.4.2.2. Large Caliber Metal Parts Production Items: A total unit price will be computed for each ordering period within each quantity range by summing the proposed unit price with the average shipping unit price for items with multiple shipping destinations and the government property rental equivalent evaluation factor, when applicable. The total unit price for each ordering period will be multiplied by its respective range’s maximum quantity and weight and the products per ordering period will be summed to compute the weighted evaluated price for the quantity range. The weight associated with each range represents the likelihood that an order would be placed within that range.

3.3.4.2.3. For the production items and FATs, if an Offeror

proposes the use of Government property in its possession or in the possession of one of its subcontractor’s during the performance of a contract awarded as a result of this solicitation, for evaluation purposes only, the proposed unit prices will be adjusted to include a rental equivalent evaluation factor for each item of such property calculated in accordance with FAR 52.245-9 and evaluated for cost realism.

3.3.5. The Offerors proposals will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing between ordering periods and quantity ranges, where applicable. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g), a proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Offers that include unreasonably high unit prices, for example the First Article Test CLINs, may be determined to be unbalanced and rejected IAW FAR 15.404-1(g).

3.4. VOLUME III - Factor 5: Past Performance

3.4.1. Past Performance as used in RFPs W15QKN-17-R-0018 and W52P1J- 15-R-0023 assesses the likelihood an Offeror will successfully perform the required effort based on the Offeror’s record of recent and relevant performance.

3.4.2. Recent Contract Performance: Defined as prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders where product deliveries or services were performed, or are still being performed, anytime within five (5) years of the issuance of this SCAAP Property Management and Large Caliber Metal Parts Production RFP. The Government also reserves the right to consider any past performance after the RFP closing date and prior to award.

3.4.3. Relevant Contract Performance:

3.4.3.1. Sub-factor 1 - Large Caliber Metal Parts Production Past Performance, relevant means performance that demonstrates the Offeror has successfully performed on contracts involving the same or similar manufacturing and quality processes required to supply Large Caliber Metal Parts for 155mm Artillery M795 Projectile Metal Parts Assembly and Family of 120mm Family of Mortar Shell Bodies in accordance with the RFP, including but not limited to Section C and Technical Data Packages (TDPs). The degree to which the contracts are comparable with regard to the complexity of the processes, size of the production quantities, in house production, and total dollar value to the solicited effort may also be considered in determining relevance.

3.4.3.2. Sub-factor 2 - Property Management Past Performance, relevant means performance that demonstrates recent work efforts performed as a prime contractor that provided the management of maintenance and operations of an active manufacturing facility and equipment, or management and maintenance of a laid away manufacturing facility and equipment in accordance with the requirements of the W52P1J-

15-R-0023 RFP.

3.4.4. The Government will consider the recency, relevancy, source and context of the past performance information it evaluates, along with general trends in performance, and demonstrated corrective actions. A significant achievement, problem/problem resolution or lack of relevant data in any element of the work performed can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. A significant negative finding in any element may result in an overall lower confidence assessment rating.

3.4.5. 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.

3.4.6. The Government may consider other past performance information and information regarding predecessor companies where such information is recent and relevant to the RFP.

3.4.7. The Government is not required to interview all Points of Contact (POC) identified by Offerors.

3.4.8. The Government reserves the right to consider any recent and relevant past performance that occurs after the solicitation closing date and prior to award. It is the responsibility of the Offeror to provide complete past performance information and thorough explanations as required in Section L. The Government is not obligated to make another request for the required information. In performing the Past Performance Factor evaluation, evaluators will apply the following relevance levels to assess the relevance of the prior contract effort(s) of Offerors.

Rating Description

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.

3.4.9. The Offeror’s Past Performance will be rated using the following Past Performance (Confidence) Ratings:

Rating Description

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 factor 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 successfully perform the required effort.

3.4.10. Sub-factor 1: Large Caliber Metal Parts Production Past Performance is more important than Sub-factor 2: Property Management Past Performance. Sub-factor 1 and Sub-factor 2 will be assessed individually, and the results will then be assessed in totality to determine the Offeror’s Past Performance (Confidence) Rating based on demonstrated recent and relevant performance.

3.5. VOLUME IV – Factor 6: Small Business Participation

3.5.1. Small Business Participation is evaluated in order to support the Government policy that Small Businesses be provided maximum practicable opportunities in Government acquisitions. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to address the following two areas:

1) the degree to which the Offeror’s Small Business Participation plan demonstrates the Offeror’s commitment to maximizing opportunities for small businesses; and 2) the degree to which an Offeror meets or exceeds any single socio-economic category, as well as the number of socio-economic categories that an Offeror meets or exceeds.

3.5.2. The Government has established the following objectives for this procurement, based on total contract value (including options) for the

Property Management of SCAAP and the Production of Large Caliber Metal Parts:

3.5.2.1. Property Management of SCAAP:

Small Business (SB) 60%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 2%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 7%

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) 3%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) 5%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 2%

3.5.2.2. Production of Large Caliber Metal Parts:

Small Business (SB) 5%

Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) 2%

Women Owned Small Business (WOSB) 2%

HUBZone-Certified Small Business (HUBZone) 2%

Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB) 2%

Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB) 2%

The Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation (goals) identified in the Small Business Participation Plan Attachment 0022 (Appendix E) of W52P1J-15-R-0023 and Attachment 0009 of W15QKN-17-R-0018 will be evaluated against the Government’s Objective for each socio-economic category. The Government will compare the Offeror’s proposed percentage of participation for each category to the Government’s Objective.

The proposed plan will also be evaluated on the extent of participation for multiple socio-economic categories. In addition, the proposed plan will be evaluated with regard to the percentage of total dollars going to Small Businesses.

Note: Small business primes may achieve small business participation goals through its own performance/participation as a prime and also through subcontracting to other small businesses.

3.5.2.3. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s written statement of its established procedures for timely payments to small business subcontractors in accordance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns for those recent contracts for which it was required (contracts awarded within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

3.5.2.4. For Other than Small Businesses, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s compliance with reporting requirements on Individual Subcontracting Reports (ISRs) and achievement on each goal stated within the subcontracting plan as reported on each ISR, in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan for those recent contracts under which it was required (contracts awarded within the past three years from the closing date of this solicitation). If the Offeror has no historical information, the proposal will be evaluated without regard to this paragraph.

3.5.3. Small Business Participation Rating: The USG will develop one overall Small Business Participation rating for each Offeror based on the evaluation criteria described above and assign an adjectival Small Business Participation Rating from the table below.

Small Business Participation Factor Rating Definitions

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.