Att0018_SECTION_M.pdf

SECTION M - BASIS FOR AWARD

The award will be made based on the best overall proposal, (i.e. best value), that is determined to be the most beneficial to the U.S. Government (USG), with appropriate consideration given to the four evaluation factors: Management, Technical, Past Performance, and Price. The Government will evaluate these factors using trade-off procedures, wherein the relative merits of price and non-price factors will be considered in making a best value determination. Management is slightly more important than Technical. Technical is slightly more important than Price. Price is significantly more important than Past Performance. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Although Price is not the most important factor, it could become a controlling factor as offers under the non-price factors may tend to equalize.

Offerors will be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest price offered.

Proposals pertaining to Management, Technical, and Price shall be evaluated only on their content. Assumptions, preconceived ideas and personal knowledge or opinions for these factors, not supported by material provided in the proposal, will not be considered or used as a basis for evaluation; however, the Government’s evaluation of Past Performance may include data/information from sources other than those provided with the offeror’s proposal. The USG may also consider past performance information up to the date of award.

The Government anticipates awarding up to two IDIQs as a result of this solicitation.

The offeror(s) whose proposal provides the overall best value to the Government, considering both non-price and price factors, will be awarded an IDIQ contract and will have the opportunity to compete for NSA/NSMWS requirements during the period of the contract. At the time of award, each successful offeror will also be awarded a determined split of the GMQ, which will be identified in Delivery Order 0001. It is the Government’s intent to award IDIQs to independent offerors in order to reduce the risk of a single point of failure, enhance competition, and allow flexibility in executing delivery orders. Accordingly, proposals which are essentially the same management team, with simply reversed prime and subcontractor roles, do not meet the Government’s intended purpose and are not acceptable. The submission of multiple proposals from essentially the same management and logistics supply teams may result in any or all those proposals being rejected.

The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining the ratings. An offeror who receives an “Unacceptable” rating in Management, Technical, or Past Performance, will not be considered for award.

The Government intends to award without discussions; therefore, each proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms for award of a contract under the solicitation. The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) may contact offerors for clarification, as described in FAR 15.306(a) and FAR 52.215.1, without opening discussions. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and to permit offerors to revise their proposals if determined necessary by the Government.

B. EVALUATION APPROACH

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 Request for Proposal (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.

C. FACTORS AND SUB-FACTORS TO BE EVALUATED

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

The best value/trade-off source selection determination will be based on an integrated assessment of the offeror’s proposal to meet the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria to determine how well the proposal meets the following evaluation factors:

Volume I. Management A. Supply Chain Management B. Program Management

Volume II. Technical

A. Technical Description B. Configuration Management

Volume III. Past Performance

Volume IV. Price

The relative order of importance assigned to these evaluation factors/sub-factors in determining the proposals that provide the best value to the Government shall be as follows:

Management Factor is slightly more important than the Technical Factor. Technical is slightly more important than Price. Price is significantly more important than Past Performance. All non-price factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price. Although Price is not the most important factor, it could become a controlling factor as offers under the non-price factors may tend to equalize.

The Management factor consists of the following two sub-factors: (A) Supply Chain Management and (B) Program Management. The Program Management sub-factor is slightly more important than the Supply Chain Management sub-factor. The Technical factor consists of the following two sub-factors: (A) Technical Description and (B) Configuration Management. The Technical Description sub-factor is slightly more important than the Configuration Management sub-factor. The Past Performance Factor does not have sub-factors.

The offeror(s) whose proposal provides the overall best value to the Government, considering both non-price and price factors, will be awarded an IDIQ contract and will have the opportunity to compete for NSA/NSMWS requirements during the period of the contract. At the time of award, each successful offeror will also be awarded a GMQ which will be identified in the solicitation under Delivery Order 0001.

If a rating of unacceptable is given in any of Management and Technical sub-factors, then the overall adjectival rating at the factor level will be unacceptable.

VOLUME I. MANAGEMENT FACTOR:

The Management factor consists of the following two sub-factors: (A) Supply Chain Management and (B) Program Management. The Program Management sub-factor is slightly more important than the Supply Chain Management sub-factor. The Government will evaluate the two sub-factors as follows:

A. Supply Chain Management sub-factor:

The Government will evaluate the proposal on the extent to which the offeror's Supply Plan and Transportation Plans are complete, comprehensive, consistent, and executable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine its ability to meet the requirements in the solicitation.

(a) The Government will evaluate the offeror's Supply Plan for its ability to procure/supply the requirements.

(b) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s Transportation Plan, for its level of understanding of the processes required and the ability to handle the movement and transportation of the requirements to the four locations identified.

B. Program Management sub-factor:

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for the GMQ requirements as follows:

(a) The extent to which the offeror’s proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and supporting narratives for the GMQ requirements incorporates all events, accomplishments, and criteria, and that they adequately describe and provide a thorough analysis to indicate that the IMS is complete, supportable and achievable. The IMS and supporting narratives will be evaluated for completeness to ensure all the tasks and milestones identified in the Government Statement of Work (SOW) and general specifications are adequately addressed, including deliverables and applicable data items for the required GMQ requirements.

(b) The Government will evaluate the planned tasks, associated milestones, entrance/exit criteria, interrelationships, major subcontractor and suppliers’ schedules and their traceability to the SOW requirements over the critical path for the first Delivery Order (GMQ requirements). The Government will also evaluate the extent to which the offeror's proposal demonstrates assurance that the offeror’s suppliers receive and understand pertinent information and also how well the offeror ensures implementation of this information and/or requirements in a timely manner for the required GMQ requirements.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for the entire program as follows:

(a) The adequacy and comprehensiveness of the offeror’s plan to identify, inspect and prevent issues or processes that could result in loss of performance and/or test or inspection failures and non-conformances.

(b) The extent to which the offeror’s organizational structure can clearly define/display the roles and responsibilities of the key personnel and how the proposed team will be able to manage and execute complex supply and transportation plans; to include the level of direct access of the offeror’s Program Manager to his/her higher-level management (i.e., senior staff, corporate senior officials) and/or the authority of the Program Manager to accomplish delegated tasks.

(c) The adequacy of the offeror’s Quality Management System and whether or not it is certified to, compliant with, or exceeds the requirements of ISO 9001:2008.

The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s planned initiatives to be used to minimize quality problems and approach to identify, improve and control internal and supplier processes.

(d) The adequacy of the evidence substantiating the offeror’s experience and ability to effectively manage cost, schedule, and performance of the offeror’s subcontractors.

(e) The offeror’s understanding of the potential program risk events, probabilities, and consequences associated with the NSA/NSMWS program. The Government will evaluate the techniques and resources that will be employed to mitigate the risks throughout the contract that could potentially impact program requirements and schedule.

Management Factor Rating:

The Management sub-factors will be independently evaluated and each assigned a Management/risk rating. Since the Program Management sub-factor is slightly more important than the Supply Chain Management sub-factor, the Program Management sub-factor rating will be given slightly more value when combining the ratings for the overall Management Factor rating.

Combined Management/risk ratings shall be as follows:

Table 1 - Combined Management/Risk Ratings Color Rating Definition Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

VOLUME II. TECHNICAL FACTOR:

The Technical factor consists of the following two sub-factors: (A) Technical Description and (B) Configuration Management. The Technical Description sub-factor is slightly more important than the Configuration Management sub-factor. The Government will evaluate the two sub-factors as follows:

A. Technical Description sub-factor:

1) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal on completeness of documented examples of technical data as defined in the Applicable Specification (listed in paragraph 2 below) for:

a) CLIN 0191 82mm Mortar HE (Complete)

b) CLIN 0012 7.62x54mm R Ball, Sniper

c) CLIN 0239 40mm HE Frag

2) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal on the comprehensiveness of the Technical Data Package (TDP), depth of detail, and demonstrated compliance to technical requirements and verification procedures as defined in the NSA and NSMWS specifications listed below:

a) General Specification for Non-Standard Ammunition, dated 2 November 2015

b) General Specification for Non-Standard Small Caliber Ammunition, dated 2 November 2015

c) General Specification for Non-Standard Mortar Ammunition, dated 2 November 2015

d) General Specification for Non-Standard Rocket Propelled & Spin Stabilized Grenade Ammunition, dated 2 November 2015

e) General Specification for Non-Standard Mortar Systems, dated 2 November

B. Configuration Management sub-factor:

1) The Government will assess the offeror’s Configuration Management Process for its completeness and adequacy in the following areas:

(a) The offeror’s configuration management organizational structure which will be utilized for the technical management of the supplier’s technical data packages and how well the roles and responsibilities of the key technical personnel are identified; the capability of the technical personnel to manage and execute changes to subcontractors technical data packages.

(b) The extent to which the offeror’s implemented configuration management procedures, processes, methods and resources adequately manage their internal processes and subcontractors and how the offeror intends to maintain control of sub-contractors and suppliers technical data packages.

(c) The offeror’s configuration management analytical tools and processes that are utilized to initiate, assess, validate, verify and support all changes made to the technical data and to ensure that control of documentation within the configuration management process is present.

Technical Factor Rating:

The Technical sub-factors will be independently evaluated and each assigned a combined technical/risk rating. Since the Technical Description sub-factor is slightly more important than the Configuration Management sub-factor, the Technical Description adjectival rating will be given slightly more value when combining the ratings for the overall Technical Factor rating.

Combined technical/risk ratings shall be as follows:

Table 2 - Combined Technical/Risk Ratings Color Rating Definition Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is un-awardable.

VOLUME III. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR:

The Government will evaluate the offeror's record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the solicitation requirements.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the questionnaire set forth in Appendix D, Section J (Attachment 009 of the RFP).

b. USG and/or commercial contracts for the prime offeror and each major subcontractor in performance or awarded during the past three years from the issue date of this solicitation which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation will be evaluated. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources, but is not compelled to rely on all of the information available.

c. The offeror and its major/key subcontractors will be evaluated on the quality of their relevant and recent past performance, as it relates to the probability of success on this contract. Both independent data and data provided by offerors in their proposals may be used to evaluate the offeror’s past performance. A single confidence rating will be established.

d. For the purpose of evaluating proposals, Recent contracts are defined as prime contracts, delivery orders, or subcontracts where services or deliverables were performed, or are still being performed, anytime within three years of issuance of this RFP. The Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

Relevant means performance that demonstrates the offeror has supplied and delivered multiple variants of NSA, ammunition related items, and NSMWS throughout the world that are the same or similar in scope, complexity, and magnitude as described in the RFP. The degree to which contracts are of a comparable complexity, dollar value, contract type, degree of subcontract/teaming, size or value to the proposed effort may also be considered in determining a level of relevance.

e. This evaluation will encompass all aspects of schedule, performance and supportability, including the offeror’s detailed record of: 1) compliance of products, services, documents, and related deliverables to specification requirements and standards of good workmanship, 2) commitment to customer satisfaction and business-like concern for customer’s interest, and 3) timeliness of performance for services and product deliverables, including the administrative aspects of performance.

f. Based on the offeror’s previous and current experience and performance on same or similar items (maximum 3 years), including the frequency of cost growths and schedule delays, the Government will assess those risks associated with the offeror’s past performance. The Government will focus its evaluation on the offeror’s record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, and quality of product, timeliness of performance, business practices, and customer significant achievement. Offerors are cautioned that the Government may use data obtained from other sources.

g. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are two aspects to the past performance evaluation:

relevancy and performance confidence assessment.

RELEVANCY: The first aspect of the past performance evaluation is to assess the offeror’s past performance to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 3 - 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.

QUALITY ASSESSMENT: The Government will assess the quality of the offeror’s past performance on those recent efforts that were determined relevant by determining how well the contractor performed on the contracts. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT: The final step is the performance confidence assessment for the offeror. This rating considers the assessed quality of the relevant/recent efforts gathered.

VOLUME IV. PRICE FACTOR:

The Government will evaluate offers based on Total Evaluated Price (TEP) proposed for all Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). For each proposal, the Government will calculate a TEP by multiplying the proposed unit prices of all CLINS by their respective maximum quantities for each of the five ordering periods and summing the totals for all five ordering periods. If an offeror fails to submit unit prices for all ordering periods for all CLINs, its proposal may be considered unacceptable and the Government may reject the proposal.

Price Analysis shall be used to determine price reasonableness. Additional analysis techniques may be used as determined necessary by the PCO. As part of the evaluation, proposals may be reviewed to identify any significant unbalanced pricing found between CLINs and/or ordering periods. In accordance with 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 Government.

Table 4 - 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.

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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

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.