Draft Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award(3).docx

M.1 Basis of Award

M.1.1 The Government intends to award a 5-year contract with 5 option years, single award, Cost-Plus Fixed-Fee and Firm-Fixed Price, Requirements type contract. An award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government in accordance with the criteria set forth below, and is eligible for award.

M.1.1.1 There are three evaluation factors, one of which has sub-factors:

a. Primary Technical Factor

i. Production Process Sub-Factor

ii. Technology Enhancement and Architecture Sub-Factor

iii. Source Control Content Sub-Factor

b. Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) Factor

i. Evaluated Contract Cost/Price

ii. Technology Evaluation Process

iii. Use of Existing Government Furnished Property (GFP)

c. Small Business Factor

M.1.1.2 Proposal selection will be made utilizing the trade-off process, considering the evaluation Factors and Sub-Factors and their relative order of importance (see Section M.4), to identify the proposal which represents the best value and is most advantageous to the Government. The Government will weigh the Non-Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price Factors against the Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price to the Government. As part of the best value determination, the relative strengths, weaknesses, and risks of each proposal shall be considered in selecting the offer that is most advantageous and represents the best overall value to the Government. The Government reserves the right to choose not to award a contract if such action is in the Government’s best interest.

M.1.1.3 Importance of Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP)

Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government and is otherwise eligible for award. This may not be the offeror with the lowest evaluated VATEP. However, the closer offerors’ evaluations are to each other in those Factors other than the VATEP Factor, the more important VATEP becomes in the decision. Notwithstanding the relative order of importance of the evaluation Factors stated herein, cost/price may be controlling when:

(a) Proposals are otherwise considered approximately equal in non-price factors; or

(b) An otherwise superior proposal is unaffordable, in accordance with M.3.2.1; or

(c) The advantages of a higher rated, higher priced proposal are not considered to be worth the price premium.

M.1.2 Eligibility for Award. Award will only be made to an offeror who is eligible for award. To be eligible for award:

(a) The offeror must be determined responsible (See Section M.3.6)

(b) The proposal must not contain a Deficiency(s) (per FAR Part 15.001); and

(c) The offeror must be registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) - see provision 52.204-7,

(d) The offeror must have at least an interim SECRET Facility Clearance (FCL)

(e) The proposal must be affordable (see Section M.3.2.1)

M.2 Rejection of Offers

M.2.1 The Government may reject any proposal if in the Government's best interest at any time after receipt of proposal. Examples include, but are not limited to, the following proposal conditions:

(a) The proposal fails to meaningfully respond to the instructions in Section L of this solicitation (examples include, but are not limited to: a proposal provides some data but omits significant material data and information required by Section L; the offeror fails to submit pricing Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix in accordance with the instructions; or the proposal fails to follow key proposal instructions or format requirements in Section L).

(b) A proposal merely offers to perform work according to the solicitation terms or fails to present more than a statement indicating its capability to comply with the solicitation terms and does not provide support and elaboration as specified in Section L of this solicitation.

(c) The proposal proposes exceptions to the RFP requirements, attachments, exhibits, enclosures, or solicitation terms and conditions.

(d) The proposal contains one or more Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs) that cannot be avoided or mitigated. Refer to Section L paragraph L.2.4 of this solicitation, "Organizational Conflict of Interest."

(e) The proposal is unbalanced as to price. See Section M.4.2.1.4.

(f) The proposal submitted is for less than all the requirements called for by the solicitation.

(g) The proposal’s acceptance period does not meet the Government’s required minimum acceptance period, or the offeror fails to provide a proposal acceptance period (Refer to Section L.1.2).

(h) The proposal is not in English (American Standard) or in US Dollars.

(i) The proposal is unaffordable (Refer to Section M.3.2.1).

(j) The offeror does not have at least an interim SECRET Facility Clearance at time of proposal.

(k) The proposal offers a product or service that does not meet all stated material requirements of the solicitation.

(l) The offeror’s proposal is evaluated to have an adjectival rating of Unacceptable in accordance with the criteria in M.4.1.1 or M.4.1.2.

M.3 Source Selection Process

M.3.1 Compliance Review

After receipt of proposals, but prior to the evaluation process, the Government will perform a compliance review of the offeror’s proposal to determine the extent of compliance to the solicitation instructions, and whether the proposal meets any of the conditions listed in M.2, Rejection of Offers.

M.3.2 Evaluation Process

Selection of the successful offeror will be made following an assessment of each proposal not otherwise rejected, based on the response to the information called for in Section L of this RFP, and against the solicitation requirements and the evaluation criteria described herein. Proposals not otherwise rejected will be evaluated as specified herein, to include developing narrative support for the evaluation conclusions under each Factor.

M.3.2.1 Affordability The Government will review the Offeror’s Contract Cost/Price Proposal to verify the Offeror’s proposal is affordable. No proposal will be considered for award if unaffordable. Affordability will be calculated by Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix based on (1) the Government’s Available Funding (M.3.2.1.1) and (2) the Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC) (M.3.2.1.2). Failure to meet either of the Affordability requirements described in M.3.2.1.1 and M.3.2.1.2 below will render an offeror ineligible for award.

M.3.2.1.1 Available Funding

Proposed prices which result in exceeding any of the Then-Year Dollars (TY$) affordability limits identified in Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix, will be considered unaffordable and ineligible for award.

M.3.2.1.2 Average Unit Manufacturing Cost (AUMC)

A proposal containing an AUMC greater than $250,000 in Base-Year 2011 Dollars (BY11$) as calculated in Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix (Attachment 0170)will be considered unaffordable and ineligible for award. AUMC is defined as average cost to the Government to buy JLTV Family of Vehicle Mission Package Configurations (per C.1.1.2) (plus installed Baseline Integration Kits). The unit manufacturing cost reflects the projected vehicle contract price for each JLTV configuration to include all direct and indirect cost. The unit manufacturing costs includes all overheads applicable to vehicle contract prices including General and Administrative (G&A), Cost of Money, and Profit. Non-recurring costs must be accounted for and may be amortized over the vehicle quantity buy. The recurring costs include the costs of material, labor, and other expenses incurred in the fabrication, checkout, and processing of parts, subassemblies, and major assemblies and subsystems needed for the final system. The manufacturing cost also includes recurring costs of subcontractors and purchased parts and equipment. The manufacturing cost further includes recurring costs of the efforts to integrate and assemble the various subassemblies into a working system, recurring costs to install special and general equipment, and recurring costs to paint and package the system for shipment to its acceptance destination. It also includes moves in order to assemble into a final system. This is the price of the vehicle rolling off the line in its basic configuration, including Baseline Integration Kit, before B-Kit armor or other kits, as defined in the Attachment 0101 - JLTV Purchase Description (JLTV PD) are added.

M.3.3 Source Selection Authority

The Source Selection Authority (SSA) is the official designated to direct the source selection process and select the offeror for contract award. A Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) will provide a written comparative analysis of the proposals and an award recommendation for the SSA prior to the selection decision.

M.3.4 Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

The Government established an SSEB to evaluate proposals in response to this solicitation. The SSEB is comprised of technically qualified individuals selected to conduct this evaluation in accordance with the evaluation criteria for this solicitation. All proposals not otherwise rejected will be given careful, full and impartial consideration by a team of Government personnel in the evaluation, pursuant to the criteria in this solicitation.

M.3.5 Award with Discussions

This solicitation includes FAR Provision 52.215-1 Instructions to Offeror’s – Competitive Acquisition (ALT I) in Section L, which advises the Government intends to conduct discussions with offerors in the Competitive Range. Discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR Part 15.306. Since any exchanges with offerors are limited prior to any competitive range determination (FAR Part 15.306 (c)), it is vitally important that offerors’ initial proposals are complete and comprehensive.

M.3.6 Determination of Responsibility

Per FAR Part 9.103, a contract will be placed only with the offeror that the Contracting Officer determines to be responsible. To be eligible for award for this acquisition, prospective offeror(s), must be able to demonstrate that they meet standards of responsibility set forth in FAR Part 9.104. In addition, the Government may assess the offeror's financial and management capabilities to meet the solicitation requirements. The Government reserves the right to conduct a Pre-Award Survey on any or all offeror(s) or their subcontractors to aid the Contracting Officer in the evaluation of each offeror's proposal and ensure that a selected offeror is responsible. No award can be made to an offeror determined to be not responsible by the Contracting Officer. To make sure that an offeror meets the responsibility criteria at FAR Part 9.104, the Government may:

(a) Arrange a visit to the offeror’s facility and perform a necessary Pre-Award Survey. The offeror's refusal to authorize the Government to visit its facility may result in a determination that the offeror is not responsible.

And/or;

(b) Request an offeror provide financial, technical, production, or managerial background information. If the requested information is not submitted within seven calendar days from the date of the receipt of the request, or if an offeror refuses the Government access to its facility, the Government may determine the offeror non-responsible. If the Government visits the offeror's facility, please ensure that current data relevant to the solicitation is available for Government personnel to review.

M.3.7 Consistency

Each volume of the offeror’s proposal shall be consistent with the other proposal volumes and shall demonstrate the understanding and ability to perform according to the statement of work of the contract. The offeror shall provide supporting documentation in sufficient detail to permit a complete evaluation of the proposal. The Government may conduct a crosswalk between the information provided in offeror’s proposal volumes to assess whether the offeror submits consistent proposal information.

M.4 Evaluation Criteria

There are three evaluation factors:

a. Primary Technical Factor

i. Production Process Sub-Factor

ii. Technology Enhancement and Architecture Sub-Factor

iii. Source Control Content Sub-Factor

b. Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP) Factor

i. Evaluated Contract Cost/Price

ii. Technology Evaluation Process

iii. Use of Existing Government Furnished Property (GFP)

c. Small Business Factor

The relative order of importance of these three factors is as follows:

The Primary Technical Factor is slightly more important than the VATEP Factor. Within the Primary Technical Factor, the Production Process Sub-Factor is slightly more important than the Technology Enhancement and Architecture Sub-Factor, which is significantly more important than the Source Control Content Sub-Factor.

The VATEP Factor is significantly more important than the Small Business Factor.

The non-VATEP Factors, when combined, are more important than the VATEP Factor.

M.4.1 Factor 1: Primary Technical

M.4.1.1 Sub-Factor 1: Production Process

M.4.1.1.1 The Production Process Sub-Factor will evaluate the offeror’s approach to these two items: (1) The offeror’s production process approach within 10 specific production process attributes (M.4.1.1.2), and (2) the risk of unsuccessful performance (M.4.1.1.3). These two items will be combined into a single Production Process Sub-Factor rating (M.4.1.1.4). The Production Process Sub-Factor will be evaluated based upon the offeror’s written proposal (as submitted under L.4.1.2) and a 2 day site visit during which Government personnel will evaluate the offeror’s chosen final assembly process . The site visit will evaluate the 10 specific production process attributes at six assembly stations. Of these six assembly stations, the offeror shall select three assembly stations, and the Government will select the remaining three assembly stations to be evaluated. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the plan identified in Attachment 0173 – Production Process Site Visit Plan.

M.4.1.1.2 The offeror’s approach in 10 specific production process attributes will be evaluated based upon the offeror’s proposal and information obtained from the site visit (see M.4.1.1.1). A finding of Strength or Weakness may be assigned to each of the 10 specific production process attributes identified in L.4.1.2.2 which best fits the findings from evaluation of the proposal and the findings of the site visit. Findings will be assigned based upon the criteria in Attachment 0171 – Production Process Attribute Rating Criteria. As a part of the evaluation of the criteria in Attachment 0171, an offeror’s proposal may receive a strength or weakness in a specific production process attribute based on evaluation within and across manufacturing stations.

Individual strengths and weaknesses that correspond to each feature which may provide strength or weakness to the production process attribute, as defined in Attachment 0171, will not be assessed within each of the 10 production process attributes in the written proposal and site visit. Rather, the evaluation findings from the offeror’s written proposal and the site visit will be evaluated collectively against the criteria in Attachment 0171 to determine the appropriate finding for each of the 10 production process attributes.

There will only be up to 10 strengths or weaknesses assigned, one for each of the 10 production process attributes. For example, in the best case, an offeror would receive 10 strengths, zero findings of strength nor weakness, and zero weaknesses; in the worst case, an offeror would receive zero strengths, zero findings of strength nor weakness, and 10 weaknesses.

M.4.1.1.3 The risk of unsuccessful performance will be evaluated based upon the offeror’s written proposal (submitted under L.4.1.2) and information obtained during the site visit (see M.4.1.1.1). The following conditions may impact the assessment of risk:

(a) In general, demonstrating production processes attributes at manufacturing stations which are used to manufacture an automotive vehicle may decrease risk. For the purposes of this evaluation “automotive vehicle” is defined as a vehicle capable of legally operating on public roads at highway speeds greater than 65 mph.

(b) In general, a proposal which does not provide the required information in sufficient detail may increase risk.

(c) In general, demonstrating production processes at a component (e.g. engine, transmission, etc) manufacturing facility or at a facility which does not produce an automotive vehicle may increase risk.

(d) In general, an inability to demonstrate production processes and relying upon the written proposal only may increase risk.

(e) In general, demonstrating processes at an inactive production facility, demonstrating processes at a facility that is not owned and operated by the offeror or its parent company, or demonstrating production processes at a facility in which special vehicles are being built for proposal evaluation purposes may increase risk.

(f) In general, demonstrating processes at a facility whose annual production volumes are substantially less than the projected JLTV annual production volume (~3000 vehicles/year) may increase risk.

(g) In general, weaknesses identified during the evaluation performed in M.4.1.1.2 may increase risk.

The degree to which each of the above conditions increase or decrease risk will be determined during the evaluation of the offeror’s written proposal and the site visit.

M.4.1.1.4 The outputs of M.4.1.1.2 and M.4.1.1.3 will be combined into a single adjectival rating of Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable for the Production Process Sub-Factor.

M.4.1.1.5 In the event of a conflict between the findings of the site visit and the written proposal, the findings of the site visit will be evaluated as the most credible data for the evaluation. Subsequent proposal revisions and responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) will be evaluated as less credible. Demonstrating a production process during the site visit that is not proposed to be utilized for JLTV FoV (excluding the trailer and kits) production may cause that process to not be considered as substantiating data in the evaluation.

M.4.1.2 Sub-Factor 2: Technology Enhancement and Architecture

M.4.1.2.1 The Technology Enhancement and Architecture Sub-Factor will evaluate the likelihood the offeror will successfully meet the proposed level of performance for each proposed Technical Enhancement and the Architecture ECP. In total, four areas will be assessed: Architecture Engineering Change Proposal (L.4.1.3.1), Corrosion (L.4.1.3.2.1), Driver Assist (L.4.1.3.2.2) and Fuel Efficiency (L.4.1.3.2.3). These four items will be combined into a single Technology Enhancement and Architecture Sub-Factor rating.

M.4.1.2.2 The Government may assign strengths or weaknesses to proposals. For example, a strength may be assigned to proposals that provide complete, specific and credible (IAW L.4.1.3.1.1 and IAW L.4.1.3.3) substantiating data to mitigate risk or provide substantial margin against threshold level of performance as defined in Attachment 0101 – JLTV Purchase Description (JLTV PD) and associated annexes for all proposed technology enhancements. A weakness may be assigned to proposals that fail to provide substantiating data, provide data of low credibility, lack detail, or otherwise increase the risk of unsuccessful performance.

M.4.1.2.3 The Government will separately assess Architecture Engineering Change Proposal (L.4.1.3.1 – 1 assessment), Corrosion (L.4.1.3.2.1 – 1 assessment), Driver Assist (L.4.1.3.2.2 – 8 assessments) and Fuel Efficiency (L.4.1.3.2.3 – 2 assessments). In total, if the accelerated architecture ECP and all Technology Enhancements are proposed the Government will combine all 12 assessments into a single adjectival rating for the Technology Enhancement and Architecture Sub-Factor. If all are not offered, only those proposed will be included in the combined rating. Choosing to not offer the accelerated Architecture ECP or a particular Technical Enhancement will not adversely impact the rating. If the offeror does not propose any Technical Enhancements or the accelerated Architecture ECP, the sub-factor will receive a rating of Acceptable.

M.4.1.3 Sub-Factor 3: Source Control Content

M.4.1.3.1: The Source Control Content Sub-Factor will evaluate the likelihood offeror’s proposed deviations from the approved sources of supply for the source controlled content found within the JLTV FoV Technical Data Package and Computer Software Package (JLTV FoV TDP and CSP) will maintain or exceed existing performance.

M.4.1.3.2: The risk of the offeror’s proposed substitutions of source controlled components to meet the specified requirements within the JLTV FoV TDP and CSP will be evaluated based upon the offeror’s proposal.

M.4.1.3.2.1: The following conditions may impact the assessment of risk:

(a) In general, proposing a lower number of components which deviate from the approved source of supply in the JLTV TDP may decrease risk.

(b) In general, source control drawing redlined updates which meet the requirements of ASME Y14.24 (including but not limited to complete form, fit, function, performance, and interface data) may decrease risk.

(c) In general, submitting more thorough substantiating data may decrease risk. For example including subcontractor documentation, analysis, component level testing, and system level testing with a proposed change may decrease the risk of that change.

(d) Failing to provide sufficient substantiating data may increase risk.

(e) In general, failing to provide all required information as defined in L.4.1.3 may increase risk.

(f) In general, proposing new components which do not require changes to the vehicle to interface and function as designed may decrease risk. Proposing new components which require changes to interface and function with the JLTV may increase risk depending on the complexity of the proposed change(s).

(g) In general, submitting substantiating data which does not support that the proposed componentmeets or exceeds the requirements of the existing component documented within the JLTV FoV TDP and CSP may increase risk.

(h) In general, submitting substantiating data which supports that the proposed component exceeds the requirements of the existing component documented within the JLTV FoV TDP and CSP may decrease risk.

The degree to which each of the above conditions increase or decrease risk will be determined during the review of the offeror’s written proposal. Data which the Government determines is not relevant to the proposed component changes may result in the data not being considered as substantiating data in the evaluation.

M.4.1.3.3 Should the offeror choose to propose a detailed design to replace an existing source control component with data rights which degrade the Government’s existing data rights (as outlined in L.4.1.4.2), the Source Control Content sub-factor may be evaluated as a Deficiency (see M.1.2).

M.4.1.4: Primary Technical Factor Overall Rating

The three evaluated adjectival ratings of M.4.1.1 (Sub-Factor 1, Production Process), M.4.1.2 (Sub-Factor 2, Technology Enhancement and Architecture)and M.4.1.3 (Sub-Factor 3, Source Control Content) will be combined into a single adjectival rating (Outstanding, Good, Acceptable, Marginal, or Unacceptable) for the Primary Technical Factor utilizing the weighting criteria in M.4.

M.4.2 Factor 2: Value Adjusted Total Evaluated Price (VATEP)

The Government will evaluate offerors for award by summing the Evaluated Contract Cost/Price (M.4.2.1) and the adjustments detailed in M.4.2.2 through M.4.2.3 below.

The VATEP is equal to the offeror’s Evaluated Contract Cost/Price as defined in M.4.2.1, modified by the Technology Enhancements Adjustment (M.4.2.2), and the Use of Existing Government-Furnished Property Price Adjustment (M.4.2.3).

VATEP = Evaluated Contract Cost/Price (M.4.2.1) – Technology Enhancements Adjustment (M.4.2.2) + Use of Existing Government-Furnished Property Price Adjustment (M.4.2.3).

The VATEP, rather than the offeror’s Proposed Contract Cost/Price, will be used in the trade-off evaluation to determine best value.

M.4.2.1 Contract Cost/Price

The Contract Cost/Price evaluation will result in a determination of the Evaluated Contract Cost/Price, price reasonableness, cost realism of the cost-reimbursement CLINs only, and unbalanced pricing. The Evaluated Contract Cost/Price may differ from the Proposed Contract Cost/Price. The Evaluated Contract Cost/Price, rather than the Proposed Contract Cost/Price, will be used in calculating the offeror’s VATEP.

M.4.2.1.1 Evaluated Contract Cost/Price

The Evaluated Contract Cost/Price will equal the proposed Contract Cost/Price as calculated in Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix, and then adjusted for any cost realism adjustments made by the Government to the Cost-Reimbursement CLINs (per M.4.2.1.3). The resulting amount in TY$ is the Evaluated Contract Cost/Price to be used for calculating VATEP.

M.4.2.1.1.1 Weighted Average Unit Price

For CLINs with range pricing, the Government will calculate a weighted average unit price for each CLIN by first multiplying the unit prices proposed for each quantity range by the weighting percentages as stated in Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix. Weighted average unit prices will be the summation of the proposed unit prices for each range multiplied by the weighting percentages. The total evaluated price of each such CLIN will be based on multiplying the weighted average unit price by the estimated CLIN quantities as stated in Attachment 0170.

M.4.2.1.1.2 Evaluated TDP Prices

If the offeror elects to propose a TDP in response to L.4.2.3 it shall propose a price for each option year. The offeror may propose a different TDP price for each option year in TY$. The evaluated TDP price included in the Evaluated Contract Cost/Price will be the average proposed TY15 price per the calculation in Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix for the duration of the contract.

M.4.2.1.2 Price Reasonableness

The Government shall evaluate whether or not the offeror’s proposed price is reasonable in accordance with the definition in FAR 15.404-1 and 31.201-3. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. The Government may make a determination of reasonableness by any means allowable under FAR 15.404-1.

M.4.2.1.3 Cost Realism (Cost-Reimbursement CLINs only)

For the cost-reimbursement CLINs only, the evaluation will include a cost realism assessment. Cost Realism will be assessed as described below. Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) may be requested to verify rates and projections.

(a) Cost Realism: The Government shall evaluate realism by independently reviewing and evaluating the specific elements of the offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic. The result of the realism evaluation will be a determination of the most probable cost to the Government (which consists of cost and fee) of performance for the offeror. The most probable cost will be determined by adjusting the offeror’s proposed cost in TY$ to reflect any additions or reductions to cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. Any cost realism adjustments will be applied at the sub-CLIN level in Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix.

M.4.2.1.4 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal for unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable Evaluated Contract Cost/Price, the price of one or more contract line items or ranges is significantly over- or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. Offeror’s are cautioned that a proposal the Government assesses to be unbalanced as to price, may either be rejected or determined unacceptable for award. See FAR 15.404-1(g) for more information on unbalanced pricing.

M.4.2.2 Technology Evaluation Process Adjustment

The Technology evaluation process will be used to determine the Evaluation Credit to the Evaluated Contract Cost/Price. This adjustment is automatically calculated by Attachment 0175 – VATEP Adjustment Calculator based on the offeror’s input to the proposed level of technology enhancements, data rights and the application of credit multipliers as defined by the VATEP formula. The VATEP Evaluation Credit calculated by Attachment 0175 will be subtracted from the offeror’s Evaluated Contract Cost/Price as part of the VATEP calculation to credit the offeror for the integration of technology enhancements per L.4.2.3.1.1 Corrosion, L.4.2.3.1.2 Driver Assist and L.4.2.3.1.3 Fuel Efficiency. For each technology enhancements proposed, the associated PDFOVs will be incorporated into the base contract via Attachment 0101 – JLTV Purchase Description. The Government reserves the right to adjust the Evaluation Credit calculations resulting from errors, omissions, risk based on level of substantiating data and level of data rights proposed.

M.4.2.2.1 Evaluation Credit Formula

The Evaluation Credit is calculated in Attachment 0175 – VATEP Adjustment Calculator. For each technology, the Government has defined a Technology Enhancement Value which is the level of credit that an offeror will be given for proposing a particular technology. This value is then adjusted using credit multipliers that increase or decrease the credit provided based on the amount of technology, data rights and target cost. The Government will use the following formula to determine evaluation credit:

- Technology Credit 1 (Corrosion) = TC1 = Technology Enhancement Value *

- Technology Credit 2 (Driver Assist) = TC2 = sum1-N (Technology Enhancement Value N *) *, where N corresponds to the driver assist technology offered.

- Technology Credit 3 (Fuel Efficiency) = TC3 = sum1-N (Technology Enhancement Value N *) *, where N corresponds to the fuel efficiency technology offered.

- Technology Credit 4 (Architecture) = TC4 = Technology Enhancement Value *

- Total Evaluation Credit = ((TC1 + TC2 + TC3 + TC4) * Data Rights Multiplier * Target Cost Multiplier * Truck Quantity) – Adjusted Technology Data Rights Proposed Cost

The Adjusted Technology Data Rights Proposed cost represents the Proposed TDP Price * the TDP Price Adjustment Factor found and calculated in Attachment 0175.

M.4.2.2.2 Target Cost

The Target Cost multiplier will be used to adjust the Evaluation Credit based on the calculated AUMC in Attachment 0170 – Pricing Matrix and depicted in Attachment 0175 – VATEP Adjustment Calculator. The AUMC will be calculated based on the definition in M.3.2.1.2. In order to qualify for the Target Cost Multiplier, offerors must propose a minimum of one technology enhancement in the VATEP framework. The Target Cost multiplier is included within Attachment 0175.

M.4.2.2.2.1 Target Cost Multiplier

In general, the Target Cost Multiplier will be assigned as follows:

(a) 1.00 Target Cost Multiplier: A 1.00 Target Cost Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that some or all of the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes no technology enhancements.

* The offeror’s proposal is incomplete.

(b) 1.5 Target Cost Multiplier: A 1.5 Target Cost Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that some or all of the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes a minimum of one technology enhancements.

* Annual Calculated AUMC does not exceed the affordability limit in any year.

* The AUMC is between the target cost and 1% below the target cost in Attachment 0175 – VATEP Adjustment Calculator.

(c) 2.0 Target Cost Multiplier: A 2.0 Target Cost Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that some or all of the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes a minimum of one technology enhancements.

* Annual Calculated AUMC does not exceed the affordability limit in any year.

* The AUMC is between 1% and 3% below the target cost in Attachment 0175 – VATEP Adjustment Calculator.

(d) 3.0 Target Cost Multiplier: A 3.0 Target Cost Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that some or all of the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes a minimum of one technology enhancements.

* Annual Calculated AUMC does not exceed the affordability limit in any year.

* The AUMC is between 3% and 5% below the target cost in Attachment 0175 – VATEP Adjustment Calculator.

e) 5.0 Target Cost Multiplier: A 5.0 Target Cost Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that some or all of the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes a minimum of one technology enhancements.

* Annual Calculated AUMC does not exceed the affordability limit in any year.

* The AUMC is greater than 5% below the target cost in Attachment 0175 – VATEP Adjustment Calculator.

M.4.2.2.3 Technical Data Rights Multiplier Evaluation

The TDP Adjustment will evaluate information submitted in response to Section L.4.2.4 to assess the benefit of the data rights proposed for the offeror’s proposed technology enhancements. In general, proposing less restrictive data rights will receive a higher Data Rights Competitive Utility Multiplier as the Government’s ability to utilize the JLTV TDP featuring the proposed technology enhancements for future procurements in unharmed. In general, proposing more restrictive rights will receive a lower multiplier as the Government’s ability to use the JLTV TDP featuring the technology enhancements is harmed.

The information submitted in response to Section L.4.2.4.1.2 (Attachment 0172 – TDP Proposal) will not be evaluated as part of the TDP Adjustment beyond establishing conformance to the requirements of Section L.4.2.4; however it will be incorporated as an attachment in Section J of the resulting contract. If the TDP Option is exercised, the information provided in Part 2 of Attachment 0172 – TDP Proposal will be added to the Assertion of Restrictions submitted in response to DFARS 252.227-7017.

M.4.2.2.3.1 Technical Data Rights Multiplier

The Technical Data Rights Multiplier represents an assessment of the data submitted in Attachment 0172 – TDP Proposal. The Government will not perform a risk assessment as part of the Data Rights Multiplier evaluation. The evaluation will assess the completeness of the data rights proposed as they relate to the proposed technology enhancements as well as the level of data rights proposed to be delivered. The Technical Data Rights Multiplier will be assigned as follows:

(a) 0.00 Technical Data Rights Multiplier: A 0.00 Technical Data Rights Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that any of the following conditions exist:

* The offeror declines to propose a TDP for its proposed technology enhancements.

* The proposed TDP fails to comply with all requirements of L.4.2.3 including failing to identify and propose each unique part number applicable to the technology enhancements proposed.

* The offeror proposes no technology enhancements.

* The offeror’s proposal is incomplete.

* The offeror’s proposal contains any quantity Controlled OEM components.

(b) 0.15 Technical Data Rights Multiplier: A 0.15 Technical Data Rights Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes data rights for all of the technology enhancements proposed, and the most restrictive rights proposed to be delivered for any component is Limited Rights and contains no Controlled OEM Components.

(c) 0.90 Technical Data Rights Multiplier: A 0.90 Technical Data Rights Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes data rights for all of the technology enhancements proposed, and the most restrictive rights proposed to be delivered for any component is Special License Agreement and contains no Controlled OEM Components.

(d) 1.00 Multiplier: A 1.00 Technical Data Rights Multiplier will be assigned if the evaluation determines that the following conditions exist:

* The offeror proposes data rights for all of the technology enhancements proposed, and the most restrictive rights proposed to be delivered for any component is Unlimited Rights or Government Purpose Rights and contains no Controlled OEM Components.

An offeror’s TDP proposal is ineligible for the 0.10, 0.90, and 1.00 Competitive Utility Multipliers if it fails to propose a complete TDP for the proposed technology enhancements or fails to comply with the requirements of Section L.4.2.4 and its subsections.

M.4.2.3 Declining to Propose Data Rights

An offeror declining to propose an option for the Government to acquire rights in technical data greater than the rights to which the Government is already entitled, i.e., declining to provide an option to give the Government rights to support competition, will receive a Technical Data Rights Multiplier of 0.00. In accordance with 10 USC 2320 and DFARS 227.7103-1 offeror’s are not required, either as a condition of being responsive to a solicitation or as a condition for award, to sell or otherwise relinquish to the Government any rights in technical data related to items, components or processes developed exclusively at private expense. An offeror that does not propose to sell or otherwise relinquish any rights in technical data related to items, components or process developed exclusively at private expense will still be considered responsive.

M.4.2.4 Technical Data Package (TDP) Price Adjustment

The TDP Adjustment will evaluate information submitted in response to Section L.4.2.3.4 to assess the impact of the offeror’s proposal on the Government’s ability to utilize the offeror’s proposed data rights for future full and open competitive acquisitions. The resulting TDP adjustment will be subtracted from the Offeror’s Evaluated Contract Cost/Price as part of the VATEP calculation.M.4.2.4.1 TDP Price Adjustment Formula The TDP Price Adjustment will be calculated in Attachment 0175 (VATEP Adjustment Calculator) based on the TDP price inputted into Attachment 0170 (Pricing Matrix).

The Government’s estimated value for the TDP is $2,750,000 (TY23$).

Utilizing the $2,750,000 TDP price baseline, the calculation in Attachment 0175 works as follows:

a) TDP Prices that are less than $2,750,000 will receive a 0.9 multiplier to the total TDP price.

b) TDP prices equal to $2,750,000 will receive a 1.0 multiplier to the total TDP price.

c) TDP Prices greater than $2,750,000 but less than $5,000,000 will receive a $250,000 growth factor applied to the total TDP price.

d) TDP Prices equal to or greater than $5,000,000 but less than $20,000,000 will receive a 50.0 multiplier to the total TDP price.

e) TDP Prices equal to or greater than $20,000,000 but less than the calculated VATEP credit in Attachment 0175 will receive a 100.0 multiplier to the total TDP price.

The Adjusted Technology Data Package Price Adjustment cannot create a negative VATEP credit adjustment.

M.4.2.5 Use of Existing Government-Furnished Property Price Adjustment:

The Use of Existing Government-Furnished Property Price Adjustment is to be calculated IAW the instructions included in Attachment 0170 – Use of Existing Government-Furnished Property, and will equal the GFP Price Adjustment that the offeror identifies in Attachment 0170, worksheet “GFP Price Adjustment”.

M.4.3 Factor 3: Small Business

M.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the extent of the offeror’s approach to achieving the Government's objective of providing opportunities in meeting the SBP Factor goals identified in this solicitation. The evaluation will be based on the extent of SBP proposed and credibility of the data provided in the proposal measured against the SBP Factor goals for this solicitation. During its evaluation, the Government will check for consistency within the proposal, and any inconsistencies found may impact the assessed credibility of the offeror’s proposed goal(s) and/or the offeror’s rating in this Factor. As part of this assessment, the Government will consider the offeror’s performance in complying with past Small Business Subcontracting Plans if they were required on prior contracts. Please note the solicitation goals are expressed as a percentage of 'Total Contract Amount', which is defined for this SBP Factor in Section L.4.4.2(c). The Government's small business participation goals for this solicitation are:

15 % Small Business (SB)

2.3 % Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB)

2.3 % Woman Owned Small Business (WOSB)

1.4 % Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone SB)

1.4 % Veteran Owned Small Business (VOSB)

1.4 % Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business (SDVOSB)

For Other Than Small Business offerors ONLY, the Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) goal is BOTH of the following:

2.3 % of ‘Total Contract Amount’ 5 % of ‘Total Subcontracting Amount’

M.4.3.2 Assessment of Proposed Goals Above or Below Each of the Government Goals.

Where the offeror proposes small business participation higher than the Government's goal and the Government has determined that achievement of said small business participation is credible, or where the offeror is assessed as credibly being able to achieve or exceed the Government's goal, the Government may assign the offeror a strength against such proposal. Where the offeror proposes small business participation lower than the Government's goal, or where the offeror is assessed as not credibly being able to achieve the Government's goal, the Government may assign a weakness or significant weakness against such proposal.