3_-_FTUAS_Addendum_to_52_212-2_Evaluation_-_Commercial_Items_-_Final.pdf

W911QY-18-R-0048 – Instructions to Offerors

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 and 3.104

For Official Use Only

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following are applied in addendum of FAR 52.212-2, Evaluation – Commercial Items

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

Contract awards will be made to those offerors whose proposals offer the best overall value using Trade-Off procedures based on an integrated assessment of written proposals and performance at the Fly-Off. The evaluation factors include: Technical, Price, Program Management, and Past Performance. The factors will be rated using color coding and adjectival scales IAW the evaluation factors provided within this RFP. They can be found in

Section 3 of this addendum.

The Government intends to evaluate proposals and award contracts without Discussions with offerors. However, the

Government reserves the right to conduct discussions and request proposal revisions if the Contracting officer later determines them to be necessary.

Competitive Range Determination for the Fly-Off event will be based on the total evaluation of Price and Non-Price factors. The competitive range may be limited to the greatest number of proposals that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

The Government intends to issue Multiple Award Indefinite-Delivery, Indefinite-Quantity (MAIDIQ) contract awards to those offerors whose proposals provide Best Value to the Government based on the Tradeoff Source

Selection Process.

The Government reserves the right not to award any contract(s).

Offerors must meet a minimum rating of “ACCEPTABLE” on all non-Price Factors to be considered for award.

2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Evaluation factors, in order of importance, are 1) Technical – most important, 2) Price, 3) Program Management, and 4) Past Performance. Subfactors are equally important within their relative factors.

When all non-price factors are combined, they are more important than price. Adjectival Ratings and their definitions can be found in Section 3 - Adjectival Rating Definitions.

Offerors will be evaluated based on their written proposals and their product’s performance during the Fly-Off. The competitive range will be determined based on the written proposals, and only those in the competitive range will be extended an invite to the fly-off.

2.1 WRITTEN PROPOSAL EVALUATION

Written proposals are due by the RFP end date and time. All proposals are going to be evaluated on the Adjectival

Ratings as defined in Section 3 of this addendum. The proposals will be evaluated using Trade-Off procedures and will be used to determine a competitive range. Those who enter the competitive range will be provided with instructions for the Fly-Off which will be used to determine the awardees.

Offerors who submit multiple proposals will have their proposals evaluated individually as a standalone proposal.

An offeror may have multiple proposals within the competitive range to demonstrate at the flight-off.

The order of importance for the factors within the written proposal are Technical, Price, Program Management, and

Past Performance. Non-Price factors, when combined are significantly more important than price. Subfactors are equally important within their relative factor.

2.2 FLY-OFF EVALUATION

Offerors who are invited to the Fly-Off must bring their proposed system to the Fly-Off or will be rated as

“Unresponsive” to the Fly-Off portion and removed from competitive range. Offerors who have submitted multiple proposals must bring only the systems that have been determined in the competitive range.

The Fly-Off will be used to evaluate the system's loadout size/weight, single vehicle endurance, system and antenna range, and aural (noise) detection at operational and standard altitudes in accordance with the PWS and supporting technical documents. The rating scale will be the same as the written technical rating scale using the Unacceptable -

Outstanding adjectival ratings found in Section 3. This rating will supplement the written technical rating for a final technical rating. The final technical rating will be used for award determination, with the written technical rating and fly-off rating being equally important.

Rating cards will be provided to Offerors who are invited to the event on the day of the event to ensure equal preparation to all participants.

3.0 ADJECTIVAL RATING DEFINITIONS

Adjectival Rating Definitions. The following rating definitions will be utilized in the evaluation of the technical factors.

Figure 1 – Technical Ratings

Technical/Risk Ratings

Color Rating Description

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.

Past performance Factor Rating Definitions. A Rating of Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, No or Unknown confidence (as defined below) will be assigned to the Past Performance Factor.

Figure 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

Figure 3 - Past Performance Confidence Assessments

Past Performance Confidence Assessments

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.

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.

Figure 4 – Small Business Commitment Plan Assessment

Color Rating Adjectival

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.

Definitions:

Strength. An aspect of an offerors’ proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Significant Strength. An aspect of an offeror's proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Uncertainty. Any aspect of a non-price factor proposal for which the intent of the offer is unclear (e.g. more than one way to interpret the offer or inconsistencies in the proposal indicating that there may have been an error, omission, or mistake).

Weakness. A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness. A flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

3.0.1 - RATING METHOD

3.0.1.1 General: The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) will evaluate and rate the factors based upon the definitions and criteria provided above. Technical is the most important factor followed by Price then Program

Management. Technical when combined with Program Management is significantly more important than Price.

Ratings must be “Acceptable” or higher for Technical and Program Management in order to be deemed eligible for award.

3.0.1.2: Small Business Participation Commitment Document and Subcontracting Plan:

Small business participation commitment document evaluation shall be assessed based on the adjectival rating in section 3.0 of this document. The recommended goals are:

SB: 23% SDB: 5% WOSB: 5% HUBZone: 3% VOSB: 5% DVOSB: 3%

3.0.1.2.1: Direction for Acceptable Rating for the Small Business Participation Commitment Document: In order to receive an “Acceptable” rating, the offeror shall:

1. Propose Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) dollars and percentages (TOTAL DOLLARS

ALLOCATED TO EACH SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORY divided by TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE) for all business concerns (SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, and OTSB) (that meet or exceed Government minimum requirements, if applicable), provide market research and detailed explanation/documentation to support its proposed quantitative small business participation for each category, explicitly agree to report achievements through Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL) submissions, and state in its proposal that it will notify the

Contracting Officer of any replacements it makes to its subcontractors that are identified in the proposal, and,

2. Propose socioeconomic category percentages greater than zero percent, and,

3. Address the offeror’s extent of commitment to utilize Small Business concerns, as highlighted by the evaluation criteria listed in this addendum, Small Business Participation Commitment Document Evaluation, and,

4. Address three years of Small Business Past Performance, as highlighted by the evaluation criteria in Section 3 of this document, Small Business Participation Commitment Document Evaluation, and,

5. Provide realistic percentages, as highlighted by the evaluation criteria in Section 3 of this document, Small

Business Participation Commitment Document Evaluation.

3.0.1.2.2: Direction for Unacceptable Rating for the Small Business Participation Commitment Document: In order to receive an Unacceptable rating, the offeror does not:

1. Propose Minimum Quantitative Requirement (MQR) dollars and percentages (TOTAL DOLLARS

ALLOCATED TO EACH SOCIOECONOMIC CATEGORY divided by TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE) for all business concerns (SB, SDB, WOSB, HUBZone, SDVOSB, and OTSB) (that meet or exceed Government minimum requirements, if applicable), provide detailed explanation/documentation to support its proposed quantitative small business participation for each category, explicitly agree to report achievements through Contract

Data Requirements List (CDRL), and state in its proposal that it will notify the Contracting Officer of any replacements it makes to its subcontractors that are identified in the proposal submissions, or,

2. Propose socioeconomic category percentages greater than zero percent, or,

3. Address the offeror’s extent of commitment to utilize Small Business concerns, as highlighted by the evaluation factor ratings in section 3.0, Small Business Participation Commitment Document Evaluation, or,

4. Address three years of Small Business Past Performance, as highlighted by the evaluation factor ratings in this addendum, Small Business Participation Commitment Document Evaluation, or,

5. Provide realistic percentages, as highlighted by the evaluation factor ratings in section 3.0, Small Business

Participation Commitment Document Evaluation.

3.0.1.2.3: Subcontracting Plans: Subcontracting plans, separate from Small Business Participation Commitment

Document, will not be evaluated for source selection purposes.