DRAFT_-_AIT-6_Section_M_(2019-03-22)-POSTED.pdf

W52P1J-19-R-0054 Attachment 0006

Section M

SECTION M – EVALUTION FACTORS FOR AWARD

This section is intended to explain the rationale and precise criteria by which proposals resulting from this solicitation will be evaluated. Offerors are advised that, with the exception of Page Limitations, an Offeror is not restricted as to what is presented in its proposals, as long as sufficient material is provided to allow evaluation of specific proposal elements.

M.1.BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD:

M.1.1.This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror(s) who is deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9.1 whose proposal conforms to the solicitation requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and represents the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. The resulting base IDIQ contract(s) will consist of one 36-month ordering period followed by 2, 1-year option ordering periods for a total period of performance not to exceed 5 years.

M.1.2. The Government intends to make award without discussions or negotiations but may elect to do so at the discretion of the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO);

therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a Price, Technical/Management, and Past Performance standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions or negotiations if necessary. The Government reserves the right to: award without discussions; or make no award should no vendor prove to be an acceptable Offeror based on the criteria set forth in the solicitation.

M.1.3. The Government will make award (IAW FAR) to the responsible Offeror(s) whose proposal adhere to the solicitation and are determined to be the most advantageous to the Government. The solicitation requirements include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and other information required by Section L of this solicitation (reference Section J, Attachment 0005).

M.1.4. 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. NUMBER OF CONTRACT AWARDS:

M.2.1 The Government intends to award up to three (3) Firm Fixed Price (FFP), Indefinite Quantity Indefinite Delivery (IDIQ) contracts. The Government reserves the right to make no award, less than three awards, or may make additional awards (more than 3) as deemed appropriate by the Procuring Contracting Officer. The Government

D R

A F T

Section M will select awardees with the lowest evaluated price from among those meeting the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

M.3. EVALUATION FACTORS:

M.3.1 The evaluation factors are as follows:

FACTOR 1: Price FACTOR 2: Technical/Management FACTOR 3: Past Performance

M.3.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY:

M.3.2.1. A price evaluation will be performed for all Offerors IAW this section and section 3.3 below. Proposals will be ranked from lowest to highest price based on a Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

M.3.2.1.1 Technical/Management and past performance evaluations will be performed beginning with the lowest priced Offeror(s).

M.3.2.1.2 If a sufficient number of Offeror(s), as determined by the Government, have Technical/Management acceptable rating and have Past Performance acceptable rating, and meet all other requirements of this solicitation, award may be made to those Offerors without discussions or evolution of the remaining proposals.

M.3.2.2 Under the scenarios described above, it is possible that higher priced offers will not be evaluated for Technical/Management and Past Performance acceptability. It is possible that higher priced offers may receive an award if lower priced offers are not rated acceptable for other than price factors.

M.3.3. PRICE FACTOR (Proposal Volume 1)

M.3.3.1 The pricing criteria used for evaluation include (1) Reasonableness, (2) Balance, and (3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

M.3.3.2 Reasonableness – The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained, or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using analysis of the provided information, additional information IAW FAR 15.4 may be required to support the an Offeror’s proposed price.

M.3.3.3 Balance – Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more price elements such as divisions are significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR 15.404-1. The Government shall analyze

D R

A F offers to determine whether there is unbalanced pricing within the proposals. IAW FAR 15.404-1, offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M.3.3.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) – The AIT-6 Price Model (reference Section J, Attachment 0003) will calculate an Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price. The Price Model sums all Contract Line Item Number/Sub-Line Item Number (CLIN/SLIN) by the price and quantity to calculate a CLIN/SLIN total, then further sums all the CLIN/SLIN totals to arrive at the TEP.

M.3.3.4.1 The TEP will be evaluated, but will not be assigned a rating.

M.3.3.4.2 The Government will sum all hardware, software, and expedited delivery CLINs/SLINs for a Total Hardware and Software plus Expedited Delivery price and sum all Technical Engineering Services, training, incidental materials, and travel and per diem CLINs/SLINs for a Total Technical Engineering Services and Training plus Incidental Materials and Travel and Per Diem price. Weighted prices will be calculated by multiplying the Total Hardware and Software plus Expedited Delivery price and the Total Technical Engineering Services and Training plus Incidental Materials and Travel and Per Diem price by each of its respective weights. The TEP is the sum of the weighted prices and any other price related factors required by the solicitation.

M.3.3.4.3. FAR Clause 52.219-4 (Notice of Price Evaluation Preference for HUBZone Small Business (HUBZone) Concerns) is included by reference at FAR Clause 52.212- 5, Contract Terms and Conditions Required to Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items. FAR Clause 52.219-4 is applicable to the supplies portion of this acquisition.

M.3.3.4.4.IAW paragraph (b)(1) of FAR Clause 52.219-4, subject to specified conditions, a 10% price adjustment will be applied to the total evaluated price of the supply CLINs/SLINs of those competing Offerors that do not qualify for the price evaluation preference. There is a provision for certification, applicable to all Offerors, in FAR Provision 52.212-3, Offeror Representations and Certifications—Commercial Items, which is included in this solicitation.

M.3.3.4.5. In order for the price adjustment identified in M.3.3.4.3) to be applied, certain criteria must be met. There must be an offer from a HUBZone concern that has not waived the adjustment. In addition, different criteria apply to Offerors that are HUBZone concern manufacturers and Offerors that are HUBZone concern non-manufacturers, as set forth in (d)(2) and (f) of the clause.

M.3.3.4.6. If there is a HUBZone concern Offeror that meets the eligibility criteria and has not waived the adjustment, it will not be subject to the price adjustment. For Offerors that have waived the adjustment, the price adjustment will be applied IAW paragraph (c) of the clause to the total evaluated price of an Offeror’s supply CLINs/SLINs.

D R

A

M.3.4 TECHNCIAL/MANAGEMENT FACTOR (Proposal Volume 2)

M.3.4.1 The Technical/Management Factor will be evaluated for Technical Acceptability.

Proposals that do not meet Technical Acceptability will be considered Technically Unacceptable, and not further considered for award. The proposals will be evaluated for acceptability IAW the criteria set forth in this section. The Technical/Management proposal must convey to the Government that the Offeror possesses adequate technical expertise and experience, sufficient resources, and is able to deliver those resources in a coordinated and timely fashion to meet the needs of the Government. The Government may make a final determination as to the Offeror’s capability to perform based on the proposal as submitted without requesting further information from the Offeror.

M.3.4.2. Hardware. The Government will evaluate the hardware capabilities offered in the proposal against the requirements of this Solicitation. The Government will accept an Offeror’s tabular statement that its proposed product meets a technical requirement;

therefore, no additional narrative is required

M.3.4.3. Software. The Government will evaluate the software capabilities offered in the proposal against the requirements of this Solicitation. The Government will evaluate the ease of use of the proposed software both from an end user and administrator perspective. The Government will evaluate the suitability of the software to operate in the operational environments as outlined in the AIT-6 Performance Work Statement (PWS) (reference Section J, Attachment 0001). The Government will accept an Offeror’s tabular statement that its proposed product meets a technical requirement;

therefore, no additional narrative is required.

M.3.4.4. AIT-6 System Requirements. The Government will evaluate the AIT-6 System Requirement capabilities offered in the proposal against the requirements of this Solicitation.

M.3.4.5. Security Requirements. The Government will evaluate the Security requirements offered in the proposal against the requirements of this Solicitation.

M.3.4.6. Methodology Process for Turnkey Solutions. The Government will evaluate the methodology proposed for the implementation of Turnkey solutions. This will include but is not limited to the assumptions proposed, the utilization of hardware, software, AIT architecture, and integration with automated information systems to demonstrate the goal of an end-to-end solution.

M.3.4.7. Bill of Materials. The Government will evaluate the Bill of Material (BOM) proposed for each hardware and software CLIN. The Government will review the BOM for thoroughness and adequacy against the AIT-6 stated requirements.

M.3.4.8. Technical Proposal Matrix. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s

D R

A responses within the Technical Proposal Matrix against the requirements stated in each paragraph of the AIT-6 PWS Technical sections.

M.3.4.9 AIT-6 Product Demonstration Requirements. If required, the Government will conduct the AIT-6 Product Demonstration evaluations, as outlined in the Product Demonstration Requirements (reference Section J, Attachment 0002), against the requirements of this solicitation. The Product Demonstration evaluation shall be used to assist the Government in determining if an Offeror's AIT-V6 hardware and software addresses specific requirements of the AIT-6 PWS. The demonstration will be used to assess products against requirements and will result in a ‘pass/fail' of the product offering.

M.3.4.10 Graphical Technical Interface Diagrams. The Government will evaluate the graphical technical interface diagrams for the following CLINs 0001DA (wireless and batch modes), 0001EA (wireless and batch modes), and 0011AA. The diagrams will be used to assess products against requirements and will result in an ‘Acceptable/Unacceptable' evaluation of the product offering.

M.3.4.11 Technical Acceptability. The Government Technical/Management evaluation team will evaluate the Technical/Management proposals by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable”. The Technical/Management factor as a whole will be rated “Unacceptable” if any single sub-factor is rated “Unacceptable” (as outlined in paragraphs M.3.4.2 through M.3.4.10).

Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. Offeror is reminded that the Government intends to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions; however, the Government may hold discussions if in the Government’s best interest.

Rating – Technical/Management Description

Acceptable

Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

M.3.5. PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR (Proposal Volume 3)

M.3.5.1 Past performance information will be gathered from the Offeror’s proposal, Government databases such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reports System (CPARS) and/or through the use of Government and commercial customer interviews and Past Performance Questionnaires. Only recent and relevant Past Performance information will be considered to assess an Offeror’s Past Performance Acceptability Rating.

D R

A

M.3.5.1.1 Recent contract references are defined as prime contracts, task orders, delivery orders, or subcontracts where services or deliverables were performed, or still being performed, anytime within three (3) years of issuance of the AIT-6 solicitation release date. The Government reserves the right to consider any significant past performance after the solicitation closing date and prior to award.

M.3.5.1.2 For the AIT-6 solicitation, Relevant means performance that demonstrates the Offeror has performed work on Recent contracts that have an average annual dollar value of more than $100,000.00 that encompasses the same or similar scope of effort as the AIT-6 solicitation hardware, software, and work-related services.

M.3.5.2 Past performance will be rated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis using the following ratings.

Rating – Past Performance Description

Acceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the Offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below).

Unacceptable Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the Offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on Past Performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful Past Performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)); therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown Past Performance. In the context of Acceptability/Unacceptability, “Unknown” shall be considered “Acceptable.”

M.4 DISCUSSIONS

M.4.1 It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions; therefore, it is imperative that Offerors submit its best terms initially; however, the Government reserves the right to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs); if issued, will be considered in making the source selection decision.

M.5 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS (Proposal Volume 4)

D R

A

M.5.1 Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements as detailed in the AIT-6 PWS, in addition to those identified as evaluation factors or sub-factors.

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.

D R

A