Section_M.pdf

SECTION M: EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-1

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

Range and Network Division

Systems Engineering and Integration

FA8806-14-R-0001

5 March 2015

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-2

[This page intentionally blank]

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-3

Table of Contents

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.2 Discussions

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.2 Factor 1: Technical

2.2.1 Technical Rating

2.2.2 Technical Risk Rating

2.2.3 Subfactor 1: Integration

2.2.3.1 Criteria T1-1: Approach for Performing Integration 8

2.2.3.2 Criteria T1-2: Specific Integration Support for Three Scenarios 8

2.2.4 Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering

2.2.4.1 Criteria T2-1: Evolution of SE Processes 8

2.2.5 Subfactor 3: Domain Knowledge

2.2.6 Subfactor 4: Program Management

2.2.6.1 Criteria PM-1: Program Management Plan (PMP) 9

2.2.6.2 Criteria PM-2: Key Personnel and Staffing 9

2.2.6.3 Criteria PM-3: Transition Plan 9

2.2.7 Efficiency Table

2.3 Factor 2: Cost/Price

2.3.1 Total Evaluated Price

2.3.2 Reasonableness

2.3.3 Realism

2.3.4 Evaluation of Options

2.3.5 Unbalanced Pricing

2.4 Factor 3: Past Performance

2.5 Professional Employees Compensation

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-4

TABLES

Table 1 Technical Ratings

Table 2 Technical Risk Ratings

Table 3 Past Performance Ratings

Table 4 Relevancy Criteria

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-5

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Pro-cedures, 4 March 2011. These regulations are available electronically at http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of

Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance, and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the

Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the

Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence the Offeror will best meet the requirements. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation as described below. While the

Government Source Selection Team will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. This best-value decision shall be based on a comparative assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation, considering recommendations and minority opinions presented to the SSA. While the SSA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the source selection decision shall represent the SSA’s independent judgment.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to make a single contract award as a result of this solicitation. How-ever, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract depending on the quality of the proposals submitted and the availability of funds.

1.2 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror submittals in response to the request for Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that would deem the Offeror’s proposal unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

a. The evaluation factors and subfactors below will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the

Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-6

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Integration

Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering

Subfactor 3: Domain Knowledge

Subfactor 4: Program Management

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

b. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being significantly more important than Factor 2

(Cost/Price). Factor 3 (Past Performance) is the least important factor and will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis. Within Factor 1 (Technical), the subfactors are in descending order of importance. When combined, the Technical and

Past Performance factors are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

2.2 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical

Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

2.2.1 Technical Rating

The technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, shown in Table 1, below. These factors focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the Offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the

Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Table 1 Technical Ratings

Color Rating Definition

Blue Outstanding

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of requirements. Proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good

Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable

Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal

Proposal does not clearly meet requirements and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-7

Color Rating Definition

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

The definitions of strengths and deficiencies are as follows:

a. A “strength” is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit on specified performance or capability requirements in a way that is advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

b. A “deficiency” is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of Significant Weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccess-ful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consid-eration, i.e., assign a “strength,” for performance in excess of threshold requirements.

2.2.2 Technical Risk Rating.

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es) and significant weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk Ratings described in DoD

Source Selection Procedures, shown in Table 2 below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any risks identified by the Offeror, the evaluation shall address the Offeror’s proposed mitigation for potential risks the

Offeror has identified in its proposal and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

The Government’s assessment of Technical Risk is completed for each subfactor in the

Technical Factor.

Table 2 Technical Risk Ratings

Rating Definition

Low

Has little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Can potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

Is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

The definitions of weakness and significant weakness are as follows:

a. A “weakness” is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-8

b. A “significant weakness” is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

2.2.3 Subfactor 1: Integration

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

2.2.3.1 Criteria T1-1: Approach for Performing Integration

a. Demonstrates an effective integration approach that addresses all areas of integration tasks and stakeholder concerns in Performance Work Statement (PWS) paragraphs 4.1 through 4.8.

b. Demonstrates an understanding of the major integration issues and risks which could impact timely operations acceptance including Information Assurance/cybersecurity issues and risks for each RN program over the entire lifecycle of the enterprise and address how those risks and issues will be mitigated.

c. Applies common SE&I processes and tools effectively to accomplish integration tasks and address integration risks.

2.2.3.2 Criteria T1-2: Specific Integration Support for Three Scenarios

Each of the three scenarios will be evaluated according to the following criteria:

a. Integration approach demonstrates a clear understanding of the integration support required from RN SE&I contractor to ensure capabilities developed by sustainment and development contractors for each scenario program will be operationally acceptable.

b. The proposed integration approach ensures that those items and risks that impact successful operational acceptance and turnover have been identified and presented to the Government in a timely manner.

2.2.4 Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

2.2.4.1 Criteria T2-1: Evolution of SE Processes

a. Proposed process changes demonstrate a viable path to evolve to SE process maturity level 4C (common, optimized and efficient processes) for Requirements Management.

This includes proposed modifications to current RN SE&I Requirements Management processes necessary to achieve this evolution.

b. Identifies key risks associated with the migration of Requirements Management process-es and provides reasonable risk mitigation.

c. Proposed process changes demonstrates a viable path to evolve to SE process maturity level 4C (common, optimized and efficient processes) for Configuration Management.

This includes proposed modifications to current RN SE&I Configuration Management processes necessary to achieve this evolution.

d. Identifies key risks associated with the migration of Configuration Management processes and provides reasonable risk mitigation.

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-9

2.2.5 Subfactor 3: Domain Knowledge

Demonstrates adequate depth and breadth of relevant technical expertise, along with knowledge of the LTRS and AFSCN, or equivalent/similar functional areas required to successfully execute

PWS tasks.

a. Depth and breadth for LTRS involves a familiarity with safety critical LTRS operation’s functions (Command Destruct/Positive Control; Telemetry; and Range Safety

Subsystems); and at least four of the eight other subsystems: Communications; Data

Handling; Optics; Planning and Scheduling; Radar; Surveillance; Timing and

Sequencing; or Weather for performing Range Safety.

b. Depth and breadth for AFSCN involves a familiarity at the functional level with TT&C ground systems, including tracking stations, network operation, ground communication, interface to satellite operations centers, and interface to satellites.

Familiarity with a system is demonstrating that the Offeror has corporate knowledge or employs personnel with knowledge earned while being an SE&I provider, developer, sustainer, or operator of a respective or similar system.

2.2.6 Subfactor 4: Program Management

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror:

2.2.6.1 Criteria PM-1: Program Management Plan (PMP)

a. The PMP demonstrates an effective means of coordinating and executing tasks through-out multiple locations.

b. Demonstrates a flexible personnel management approach in the PMP that accommodates new/urgent priorities.

2.2.6.2 Criteria PM-2: Key Personnel and Staffing

a. Demonstrates that key personnel meet the required standards as defined in Section L paragraph 5.2.5.2, and Table 8.

b. Demonstrates adequate staffing and experience skill mix to accomplish the work in the

PWS.

2.2.6.3 Criteria PM-3: Transition Plan

The proposed transition plan adequately describes readiness activities for a smooth start-up and transition to support PWS requirements in the first 60 calendar days after contract award as defined in Section L, paragraph 5.2.4.3. Additionally, the plan adequately describes appropriate strategies to mitigate each identified risk and all transition requirements to demonstrate that the

Offeror can accomplish all contract requirements on schedule.

2.2.7 Efficiency Table

The efficiency table sufficiently describes the rationale and benefit for the proposed efficiencies.

Efficiency Matrix:

a. The Government shall evaluate each efficiency proposed by the Offeror in the matrix as either Likely (100%) or Unlikely (0%).

1. If the efficiency is determined by the Government to be Unlikely, then the cost identified in the matrix will be added into the Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-10

2. If any savings identified in the technical proposal are not identified in the Efficiency matrix or if any efficiency element lacks sufficient justification, then the factor(s) associated with the efficiency may be rated as a risk in the technical section.

An efficiency with adequate and reasonable justification will be rated as Likely.

2.3 Factor 2: Cost/Price

2.3.1 Total Evaluated Price

The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes based on the TEP computed by the Government for the basic contract and all options. The Government’s evaluation will be based upon the TEP and may differ from the Offeror’s proposed cost/price.

The TEP will be based on the “Total Price” of Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs) found in the

RN SE&I Contractor Cost Price template and include the following:

a. The Government’s estimate of anticipated performance cost and proposed target fee for all Cost-plus-incentive-fee (CPIF) CLINs.

b. The Government’s estimate of anticipated performance cost and proposed fixed fee for all Cost-plus-fixed-fee (CPFF) CLINs. The proposed special studies fully loaded composite rate will be multiplied by the hours provided in Attachment 6, Special Studies to calculate the total estimated cost and fixed fee for each period. The sum of the total

CPFF amounts will be added into the TEP calculation.

c. The Offerors proposed price for the Firm-Fixed-Price CLINs.

d. The costs associated with Attachment 5, Rights in Data, will be included in the TEP calculation.

e. The costs of efficiencies in attachment T4, Efficiencies Matrix that the Government has determined as Unlikely, will be added in the TEP calculation.

f. The cost as defined by FAR 52.217-9, Option to Extend Services is calculated in the tab labeled "Summary by WBS" of the Cost Price template.

g. The TEP shall include any additional costs to the Government such as Government

Furnished Equipment (GFE)/Government Furnished Information (GFI) beyond what the

Government is providing, as included in Attachment 7, GFE/GFI. The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of

GFE/GFI by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.201) of those resources when determining the Offeror's TEP.

2.3.2 Reasonableness

Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed cost/price will be evaluated using one or more proposal analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(b). If the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition has not been obtained, reasonableness will be evaluated using cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1(c).

2.3.3 Realism.

a. The Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror's proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(1), for all CPIF and CPFF CLINs. This process includes independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost/price to determine whether the proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-11 unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

b. TEP adjustments will be determined by the Government based on their detailed evaluation of the Offeror’s basis of estimate (BOE) for each cost element and will consider the technical/management risks (weaknesses) identified during the evaluation of the proposal. In addition, when costs are judged to be unrealistic and the Offeror fails to explain these unrealistic costs, the Government will quantify the impact in dollars and include in the TEP.

c. For the special studies CLINs, the Government will assess the realism of the Offeror’s proposed wrap rates by evaluating the rationale provided in the BOE supporting the skill mix and by performing rate verifications. If necessary, the Government will make adjustments to the wrap rates based on the most current information available which may include DCMA or DCAA recommendations and inputs from Government technical evaluators. The total TEP adjustment will be calculated based upon any hourly rate differences applied to the total hours in the special studies CLINs.

d. When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistic compared to the anticipated costs of performance and the Offeror fails to explain these costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk rating, the Offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactor.

2.3.4 Evaluation of Options

Evaluation of options does not obligate the Government to exercise options.

2.3.5 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with

FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4 Factor 3: Past Performance

a. This factor will assess an Offeror’s likelihood of successfully performing the required effort. Each proposal will receive either an acceptable or unacceptable rating as described in Table 3 below. An Offeror’s proposal must be assessed as acceptable regarding Past Performance to be considered for award. In conducting the Past

Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Contractor

Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). Offerors may be given the opportunity to address any negative past performance information received during this evaluation. The Government reserves the right to request clarification of adverse or incomplete past performance information. When it is appropriate and in the best interest of the Government, Offerors are allowed to submit proposals that include classified or

SCI past performance information.

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-12

b. The Government will determine the acceptable or unacceptable rating in accordance with

AFFARS Part 5315 and IG 5315.305(a)(2). The rating will consider two key factors:

1) the Relevancy of the Offeror’s past performance information as defined in Table 4

Relevancy Criteria, and 2) the quality of the Offeror’s past performance (Quality of

Performance).

Information submitted in the Offeror’s proposal to the Government must meet the recency requirement by having occurred within the past five years from the date of solicitation release. Material defining performance within the past five years will then be considered and assessed for Relevancy. The Government will also seek relevant past performance information from CPARS and others sources if necessary (e.g. DCMA channels, interviews with program managers and Contracting Officers, award fee letters, benchmarking data, etc). As such, in determining the Past Performance rating, the

Government may use both data provided by the Offeror and data obtained from other sources. This information may include data on efforts performed by other divisions, major or critical subcontractors, teaming partners, or joint venture partners if such resources will be brought to bear or significantly influence the performance of the proposed effort. The Government will not evaluate performance on an awarded contract of an effort that concluded more than five years prior to this solicitation.

The Government will assess Relevancy based on the demonstrated record of performance of each Offeror’s team in areas which are relevant to the three technical criteria and the

Cost/Price Performance criteria as defined in Table 4 Relevancy Criteria. Past performance of the Offeror as a prime contractor, a subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner on recent, similar efforts or commercial work will first be evaluated for relevancy and then be evaluated for quality of performance. The Government will consider the team’s demonstrated record of contract compliance, including technical, schedule, and cost in supplying products and services. The Past Performance assessment will include determining a Relevancy rating for each of the three technical criteria areas and the Cost/Price Performance criteria.

Table 3 Past Performance Ratings

Assessments Definitions

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.

Unacceptable

Based on the Offeror’s performance record, the

Government has no reasonable expectation that the

Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

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

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-13 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.”

c. Contracts involving tasks and products that resemble the work that the contractor, subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner will accomplish during the RN

SE&I program will result in a relevancy determination as discussed below. The

Government will limit its determination of the Past Performance rating to relevant contracts.

d. Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/ services performed under those contracts relate to the Integration, Systems Engineering and Program Management technical criteria and Cost/Price Performance criteria.

The following relevancy table outlines the criteria to be used for evaluating contract relevance and provide performance assessment guidelines. Unless otherwise specified in the Table 4, all elements listed apply to both the Offeror and all team members. The criteria detailed in the Relevancy Criteria Table 4 will be used to establish Relevancy for each of the four assessment areas within each contract past performance.

Table 4 Relevancy Criteria

Integration Systems

Engineering

Program

Management

Cost/Price

Performance

Contract past performance demonstrates the

Offeror’s team has experience on a DoD or

DoD-like (e.g., Federal

Aviation

Administration (FAA), National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

(NASA)) program of similar or greater complexity to the RN program as a member of a Government integration team.

Contract past performance demonstrates the

Offeror’s team has experience on a

DoD or DoD-like

(e.g., FAA, NASA) program of similar or greater complexity to the

RN program as a member of a systems engineering team addressing the spectrum of systems engineering.

Contract past performance demonstrates the

Offeror’s team has experience on a DoD or DoD-like (e.g., FAA, NASA) program of similar or greater complexity compared to the RN program as a member of a program management addressing the spectrum of program management.

Contract past performance demonstrates the

Offeror’s team has experience as a member of a team managing costs and setting prices for a

DoD-like (e.g., FAA, NASA) program of similar or greater complexity compared to the RN’s programs

(at system and subsystem levels)

SE&I effort.

A contract will be deemed relevant if at least one of the relevancy criteria has been met.

The Government may evaluate the Offeror's entire team’s past performance to determine overall rating.

SECTION M: RFP FA8806-14-R-0001 Page-14

The Government will evaluate all contracts submitted by the Offerors in their Volume IV and any other pertinent information, to include CPARS data for relevancy at the Techni-cal and Cost/Price criteria using the Relevancy Criteria tables described in Table 4 to determine relevancy. The Government will use the relevancy ratings to identify contracts that are most comparable in scope or complexity to the proposed effort. The Government will seek performance information on relevant contracts.

e. With respect to past performance information identified by the Offeror in Volume IV

(Past Performance) of its proposal that the Government deems relevant, the Government will assess the Quality of the Offeror’s Performance. The Quality of Performance will be assessed using the same scale and definitions as used in CPARS. Ratings of “Marginal” or below may be rated as Unacceptable.

f. Assigning Ratings. The Government will determine the Offeror’s Technical and Cost/

Price performance criteria rating for all relevant contract submissions and determine a quality rating for each category. The Government will then determine a Past Perform-ance rating for the Past Performance factor. This rating will represent an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

2.5 Professional Employees Compensation

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s/subcontractor(s) total compensation plan(s) in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional

Employees. The Government will ensure that Offerors provide adequate Total

Compensation Plan(s), surveys and studies, and assessment(s) in accordance with

Section L instructions for this solicitation. The Government will consider the results of the analysis under contractor responsibility determination.