08_Attachment_6_Draft_Evaluation_Criteria_(updated_15_Jul_15).pdf

FA8811-15-R-0001 Evaluation Criteria

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) Phase 1A Competitive Acquisition for GPS III Launch Services

Attachment 6 Evaluation Criteria

15 July 2015

1 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense FAR Supplement (DFARS) and the Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS). The Government intends to award a contract to the Offeror that the Government deems capable of meeting Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) mission requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications and all other information required by the Instructions to Offerors of this solicitation) based on a best value determination. The Offeror will also need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented by DFARS and AFFARS, and their proposal must conform to the solicitation’s requirements and be judged acceptable, based on the evaluation factors. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions if it is in the best interest of the Government. However, the Government may conduct discussions with Offerors after establishing a competitive range based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria.

The Government will award one contract to the Offeror with acceptable technical compliance and the lowest Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

2 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

The Government will evaluate against all information the Offeror provides in accordance with Attachment 5 Instructions to Offerors. Submission of insufficient information may result in the Offeror being unresponsive and therefore unawardable.

3 NUMBER OF AWARDEES

The Government intends to award to one Offeror all requirements of this contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

4 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of proposals.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an Offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range. However, the Government may make an award to an Offeror who’s proposal is deemed awardable and which represents best value to the Government at any time during evaluations.

5 COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE FROM USE OF GOVERNMENT

PROPERTY

If the Offeror proposes the use of Government Property (GP), the rental equivalency cost of the GP will be incorporated into the TEP based on the unit acquisition cost of each item requested. As defined by FAR 45.1, the Government may assess a different unit acquisition cost of any GP stated by the Contractor if the Government’s evaluation supports another value. See section 7 of this document.

6 EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AND SCHEDULE FACTORS

The Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated utilizing the ratings defined in Table 6-1.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal for compliance with the Performance and Schedule subfactors per Section 6.1 & 6.2. An Unacceptable rating in any subfactor will result in an unawardable proposal.

TECHNICAL RATING

The technical rating provides an assessment of the acceptability of the Offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s threshold requirements. All Performance and Schedule subfactors, will receive one of the ratings described in Table 6-1 – Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Ratings per DFARS 215.300. All subfactors are equally important.

TABLE 6-1 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

6.1 FACTOR 1: PERFORMANCE

6.1.1 SUBFACTOR 1: ORBITAL ACCURACY

6.1.1.1 Apogee Altitude: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III 3-sigma injection accuracy (defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence) utilizing data from Table 6-2 and paragraph 6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports an apogee altitude target of 20,181 km and an accuracy of ± 100 km.

6.1.1.2 Perigee Altitude: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III 3-sigma injection accuracy (defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence) utilizing data from Table 6-2 and paragraph 6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports a perigee altitude target of ≥1,000 km and an accuracy of ± 25 km.

6.1.1.3 Inclination: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III 3-sigma injection accuracy (defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence) utilizing data from Table 6-2 and paragraph 6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports an inclination target of 55 deg and an accuracy of ± 0.08 deg.

6.1.1.4 Right Ascension of Ascending Node: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III 3-sigma injection accuracy (defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence) utilizing data from Table 6-2 and paragraph 6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports a Right Ascension of Ascending Node target of 296.23 deg (Plane A) and an accuracy of ± 0.25 deg.

6.1.1.5 Argument of Perigee: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III 3-sigma injection accuracy (defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence) utilizing data from Table 6-2 and paragraph 6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports an Argument of Perigee target of 270 deg and an accuracy of ± 0.5 deg.

6.1.1.6 Separation Rate: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III Separation Parameter accuracy utilizing data from Table 6-3 and paragraph 6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports a Spin Rate target of +0.6 deg/sec and an accuracy of ± 0.3 deg/sec.

6.1.1.7 Pointing Accuracy of +Zsv axis: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III Separation Parameter accuracy utilizing data from Table 6-2 and paragraph

6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports a Pointing Accuracy of +Zsv axis target of NEN and an accuracy of ≤ 5 deg.

6.1.1.8 Transverse Angular Rate: This requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III Separation Parameter accuracy utilizing data from Table 6-3 and paragraph 6.1.1 of Attachment 5 supports the Transverse Angular Rate target of 0 deg/sec and an accuracy of ≤ 1.8 deg/sec.

6.1.1.9 The requirement is met when the detailed supporting rationale behind any changes to the dispersions or methodology used in generating the predicted accuracies for either the historical elliptical transfer orbit launches or the most recent launches pursuant to paragraph 6.1.1 supports the proposed approach to meet the orbital insertion targets and accuracy requirements described in Table 6-1 of Attachment 5.

6.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2: MASS-TO-ORBIT

6.1.2.1 This requirement is met when the results of the Offeror's analysis meets mass-to-orbit requirements in accordance with Table 6-5 of Attachment 5.

6.1.2.2 The requirement is met when the evidence provided as part of the Offeror’s mass-to-orbit analysis supports meeting the 3-sigma upper stage flight performance reserve requirement (defined as 99.865% probability at 50% confidence).

6.1.2.3 The requirement is met when the mass-to-orbit analysis includes compliance with Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) defined as 90% probability of success.

6.1.2.4 The requirement is met when the evidence provided pursuant to paragraph 6.1.2 of Attachment 5, supports the Offeror’s trajectory predictions.

6.1.2.5 The requirement is met when the ODMSP expected casualty requirement is satisfied (if applicable).

6.1.2.6 The requirement is met when the historical flight data or engineering analysis supports the Offeror’s trajectory predictions.

6.1.2.7 The requirement is met when the upper stage impact ellipse supports the ODMSP expected casualty requirement (if applicable).

6.1.3 SUBFACTOR 3: LAUNCH OPERATIONS CONOPS

6.1.3.1 The requirement is met when the CONOPS proposed pursuant to paragraph 6.1.3 of Attachment 5 demonstrates compliance with the requirements of the GPS III Mission Requirements Annex (MRA), paragraph XIV section E, G, and H.

6.2 FACTOR 2: SCHEDULE

The Government considers a high risk schedule to be Unacceptable. An Unacceptable rating in any of the following schedule criteria constitutes a high risk proposal and will be unawardable.

6.2.1 SUBFACTOR 1: INTEGRATED SCHEDULE

1) The requirement is met when the schedule reflects activities sufficient to support the ILC within 30 days or earlier without compromise to compliance of the orbital accuracy and mass-to-orbit requirements.

2) The requirement is met when the results from the schedule risk assessment are at least 80% probability of meeting the ILC within 30 days or earlier.

3) The requirement is met when the tasks durations and associated levels of efforts are deemed credible based on the Schedule Basis Template.

4) The requirement is met when the tasks duration and associated levels of efforts are credible based off schedule risks probability of success.

6.2.2 SUBFACTOR 2: WORK CLOSURE PLANS

1) The requirement is met when the Offeror’s proposed Government-accepted NRE Work Closure Plans, pursuant to paragraph 6.2.2 of Attachment 5, demonstrates the ability to close by L-12 months, unless an exception for specific tasks was pre-coordinated with the Government.

2) The requirement is met when the Offeror provides the Government-accepted Work Closure Plans for open flight and qualification anomalies which supports closure by L-12 months, unless an exception for specific tasks was pre-coordinated with the Government.

3) The requirement is met when the Offeror demonstrates acceptable progress towards closure in accordance with the Government-accepted Work Closure Plans.

7 EVALUATION OF PRICE FACTOR

7.1 FACTOR 3: PRICE

The Offeror’s price will be evaluated for Reasonableness and Unbalanced pricing, as defined below. The Government will use analysis technique(s) identified in FAR 15.404-1 to evaluate the Offeror’s proposed price. The accuracy of the Offeror’s computations of its TEP will be evaluated as well.

7.1.1 REASONABLENESS

Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed price will be evaluated using one or more price analysis techniques, as identified in FAR 15.404-1. In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness. If, after receipt of proposals, the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness, the Offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

7.1.2 UNBALANCED PRICING

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g).

7.1.3 TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

For source selection evaluation purposes only, total evaluated price will be determined by adding together the following from Table 7-1 in Attachment 5:

1. The sum of the firm-fixed prices of CLINs 1000, 2000, and 3000 in the model contract;

2. The calculated value of SMC/LR--H005 QUICK REACTION AND ANOMALY

RESOLUTION; and

3. The total rental equivalency cost of GP proposed in Table 7-2 of Volume III. The source selection team will verify the accuracy of the calculations of the proposed rental equivalency price, and verify that the GP corresponds to the respective data provided in Attachment 8:

Government Property of the Model Contract.

The table below is provided for illustrative purposes only.

CLIN DESCRIPTION PRICE

1000 LAUNCH VEHICLE PRODUCTION

2000 MISSION INTEGRATION/LAUNCH OPS/

SPACEFLIGHT WORTHINESS CERTIFICATION

3000 MISSION UNIQUE

QUICK REACTION/ANOMALY RESOLUTION (H005)

__________ (FIXED PRICE RATE) * 10,000 HOURS

RENTAL EQUIVALENCY OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE

8 RESPONSIBILITY

In addition to the general responsibility matters provided under FAR 9.104-1, the PCO will also consider the SMC Commander's certification of the Offeror's proposed launch system as a certified EELV launch system to determine adequate technical skill to launch Class A National Security

Space missions. The PCO will make a responsibility determination prior to contract award.