03. DRAFT Hemisphere Section M.pdf

Space Domain Awareness & Combat Power (SDACP) Hemisphere Section M

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

Hemisphere 3

Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity 4

Section M: Evaluation Criteria 6 for 7

Space Systems Command 8

Space Domain Awareness & Combat Power 9 and 10

Battle Management Command, Control & Communications 11

30 June 2023 19

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

Source Selection 1

1.1. Basis for Award 2

This is a source selection wherein the Government will select all technically qualified offers for the 3 Hemisphere Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) award based on an assessment of Technical 4 Risk. This approach allows the Government to establish an IDIQ pool of multiple qualified contractors 5 when awarding individual Task Orders. 6

The Government intends to award a minimum order to all Offerors who are deemed responsible in 7 accordance with the FAR 9.5, as supplemented and the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 8 August 2022, who meet the capabilty gate stated in Technical Subfactor 1: Staffing (reference Section L 9 paragraph 4.2.1 and paragraph 3.1 of these Evaluation Criteria), whose proposals conform to the 10 solicitation’s requirements as delineated in Section L and are determined, based on the evaluation 11 factors and subfactors, to be technically qualified according to the Government. A technically qualified 12 offer is considered one that meets evaluation criteria ratings per Section 2.3. While the Government 13 source selection evaluation team and Source Selection Authority (SSA) will strive for maximum 14 objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and therefore, professional 15 judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 16

1.2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions 17

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representation 18 and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors/subfactors. 19 Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being 20 ineligible for award. 21

1.3. Discussions 22

The Government may award without discussions and as such, Offerors are strongly advised to submit 23 their best effort as their initial proposal. If the Government determines that discussions are in its best 24 interest, discussions will be conducted consistent with FAR 15.306 and Offeror responses to Evaluation 25 Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection 26 decision. If the proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any 27 changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk 28 that the proposal will be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. 29

1.4. Responsibility 30

No award will be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of 31 responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet, at a minimum, each of the general 32 standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the 33 Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility. 34

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

2. Evaluation Factors 1

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors 2

The following evaluation factor and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal as summarized in 3 Table 1: 4

TABLE 1. EVALUATION CRITERIA

EVALUATION

FACTOR

SUBFACTORS TECHNICAL/RISK RATING

FACTOR 1:

TECHNICAL

1: Staffing (Capability Gate)

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

2: Quality Assurance Plan

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

3: Transition and Start-Up Plan

Outstanding

Good

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

FACTOR 2:

CONTRACT

DOCUMENTATION

1: Small Business Participation Plan

Acceptable

Unacceptable

2.2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Scale 6

The technical evaluation utilizes a combined Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating scale. This 7 combined scale includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, 8 significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Risk considers a 9 potential for disruption to schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, and/or the need for 10 increased Government oversight. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal in terms of 11

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

strengths, deficiencies, and weaknesses, as defined in DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 1 2022: 2

• A significant strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed 3 specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the 4 Government during contract performance. 5

• A strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance 6 or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during 7 contract performance. 8

• A deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 9 combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful 10 contract performance to an unacceptable level. 11

• A weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 12 performance. 13

• A significant weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of 14 unsuccessful contract performance. 15

Each technical subfactor will be evaluated on a color-coded scale, ranging from “Blue” (Outstanding) to 16 “Red” (Unacceptable); see Table 2. A proposal is considered technically qualified if the Technical/Risk 17 Rating is “Green” for each Subfactor (Staffing, Quality Assurance Plan, and Transition Plan). 18

Table 2. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding

Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good

Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Reference: DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022 19

3. Factor 1: Technical 20

3.1. Subfactor 1: Staffing (Capability Gate) 21

The requirement is met when the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix identifies resources corresponding to 22 the positions in one, and only one, of the three tabs of Attachment L1, Sample Government Reference 23

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

Staffing Matrix. The Offeror must select only one tab and fill in that spreadsheet of 10 positions with 1 proposed personnel and solutions. Proposed personnel must currently be on staff at the Offeror’s 2 company to ensure that the Offeror can hire cleared individuals with the requisite skillsets and 3 clearances. The Government will compare the resources assigned in the Offeror’s Sample Staffing Matrix 4 and associated resumes to the Sample Gov Ref Staffing Matrix and will also verify clearances. A proposal 5 will be considered green if resumes meet all qualifications provided in the Sample Gov Ref Staffing 6 Matrix. Offerors must meet security requirements associated with the position as listed in Column T, 7 Minimum Security Clearance and will be rated “Red” if any position cannot meet the required security 8 clearance. If the proposal is rated “Red” for Staffing, the proposal will not be considered technically 9 qualified and will not be further evaluated. If the Offeror does not achieve an acceptable rating or 10 higher, they will not meet the capability gate, the Government will not review the proposal any further, 11 and the Offeror will not be considered for award. 12

3.2. Subfactor 2: Quality Assurance Plan 13

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed Quality Assurance approach. 14

The requirement is met when the Offeror submits a Quality Assurance Plan that addresses requirements 15 listed in the Hemisphere PWS, Section 5.9.2 Quality Assurance Plan, and all performance requirements 16 listed in the Hemisphere PWS, Section 5.9.5 Performance Requirements Services Summary: 17

• Contractor monitors and controls non-conformances. 18

• Contractor monitors and controls employee qualifications and certifications, as required by 19 position description. 20

• Contractor provides meaningful and relevant input to programs in all phases of development. 21 Contractor provides input within allocated timeframe with no more than 10% assigned tasks 22 more than 3 days late. 23

• Contractor coordinates resolution of issues, facilitates team communication, and provides 24 engineering expertise to program managers at all assigned system and subsystem level events. 25 Contractor meets requirements of attending assigned program-level events 95% of the time 26 with no more than 10 major events missed per year. Contractor actively participates in meetings 27 by providing technical insight, timely responses, and meaningful solutions. 28

• Contractor drafts, reviews, and advises the Government regarding design documents, 29 requirements documents, contracts documents, enabling concepts, concepts of operations, 30 system training plans, training material, test requirements, work specifications, and other 31 technical documentation, as requested to execute the assigned programs. Contractor provides 32 input within allotted timeframe with no more than 10% assigned tasks more than three days 33 late. 34

• Contractor provides engineering expertise via briefings, reports, and informational analyses as 35 needed. Contractor provides input within allotted timeframe with no more than 10% assigned 36 tasks more than three days late. 37

• Contractor complies with applicable security requirements. No more than two verified security 38 violations per year. 39

• Contractor delivers reports and CDRLs within allotted time with 0 late submissions. 40

• Contractor personnel possess required security clearances. 100% of Contractor personnel 41 possess and maintain required security clearance (Secret up to TS//SCI) and complete 100% 42 annual security training. 43

FA8819-23-R-1000

UNCLASSIFIED

• Contractor provides qualified personnel in a timely manner. New or replacement personnel are 1 identified within 30 days and are in place within 5 days of program clearances being 2 administered. Temporary replacements with appropriate clearances and qualifications are in 3 place within 10 working days of vacancy. 4

The Quality Assurance Plan should contain roles and responsibilities, performance requirements and 5 assessments, and performance reporting. The Government is seeking a Quality Assurance approach that 6 includes consistent surveillance of performance, verification that customers are receiving the 7 performance levels and personnel qualifications required, and verification that individual contractors 8 are working together, across multiple contracts, towards a shared goal of accomplishing the SDACP and 9 BMC3 missions. 10

3.3. Subfactor 3: Transition and Start-Up Plan 11

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed transition and start-up approach. 12

The requirement is met when the Offeror describes their approach to ensuring a smooth transition of 13 services with little to no loss of time and/or productivity. The plan should include obtaining and 14 maintaining their personnel security clearances, location/building badge access, and knowledge transfer 15 as needed from the incumbent workforce. The Offeror should also describe what is needed from the 16 Government and when in order to assist with a timely and efficient transition. 17

4. Factor 2: Contract Documentation 18

4.1. Subfactor 1: Small Business Participation Plan 19

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan in accordance with FAR 20 FAR 15.304 and DFARS 215.304, as supplemented. The requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposal 21 has met the small business subcontracting goal of at least 15% of the total proposed cost. 22