08_Evaluation_Criteria_30_Sep_2015.pdf

FA8811-15-R-0001Evaluation Criteria

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

Attachment 6

Evaluation Criteria

30 September 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), Air Force FAR Supplement (AFFARS), and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 4 Mar 2011. 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 a technically acceptable proposal 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 may be ineligible for award. If during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the 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 the Offeror’s proposal may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

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.

III 3-sigma injection accuracy (defined as 99.73% probability at 50% confidence) utilizing data from Table 6-1 and Table 6-2 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1 supports a perigee altitude target of ≥1,000 km and an accuracy of ± 25 km.

6.1.1.3 Inclination: The 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 6-1 and Table 6-2 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1 supports an inclination target of 55 deg and an accuracy of ± 0.1 deg.

6.1.1.4 Right Ascension of Ascending Node: The 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 6-1 and Table 6-2 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1 supports a Right Ascension of Ascending Node target of 268.85 deg and an accuracy of ± 0.25 deg.

6.1.1.5 Argument of Perigee: The 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 6-1 and Table 6-2 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1 supports an Argument of Perigee target of 270 deg and an accuracy of ± 0.5 deg.

6.1.1.6 Spin Rate: The requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III Separation Parameter accuracy utilizing data from Table 6-3 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1(2) 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: The requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III Separation Parameter accuracy utilizing data from Table 6-3 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1(2) supports a Pointing Accuracy of +Zsv axis target of Negative Ecliptic Normal (NEN) and an accuracy of ≤ 5 deg.

6.1.1.8 Transverse Angular Rate (Root Sum Square [RSS]) of the rates about the Xsv and Ysv axes (deg/sec): The requirement is met when the Offeror’s approach to meeting the GPS III Separation Parameter accuracy utilizing data from Table 6-3 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1(2) 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 for each historical mission when orbital injection accuracy flight data falls within the required 3-Sigma orbit injection dispersions utilizing data from Table 6-4 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1(3).

6.1.1.10 The requirement is met for each historical mission when orbital injection accuracy flight data falls within the predictions utilizing data from Table 6-4 of Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.1 (3).

6.1.2 SUBFACTOR 2: MASS-TO-ORBIT

6.1.2.1 Mass-to Orbit: The requirement is met when the results of the Offeror's analysis, described in Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2 and based on Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2(4), demonstrates the capability to lift the total mass provided in Attachment 5 Table 6-5 to the orbit in Attachment 5 Table 6-1 with a performance margin greater than or equal to zero. The Offeror’s selected “Max SV Mass Used” shall be greater than or equal to the maximum SV mass indicated in MRA section III.K (Mass Properties [separated SV]) for the Offeror’s selected integration type (vertical or horizontal) with the appropriate adjustment to the SV mass for the Offeror’s selected perigee value.

6.1.2.2 Flight Performance Reserve: The requirement is met when the mass-to-orbit analysis includes an upper stage flight performance reserve value as described in Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2(1).

6.1.2.3 Upper Stage Disposal: The requirement is met when the mass-to-orbit analysis includes compliance with Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices (ODMSP) and a ≥90% probability of success for completing the planned upper stage disposal, as described in Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2(2).

6.1.2.4 Flight Mission Profile: The requirement is met when the GPS III mission profile, as specified in Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2(2), is supported by evidence provided for flight demonstrated mission profile portions as well as engineering and risk analyses provided for undemonstrated mission profile portions identifying unproven capabilities, potential failure modes, consequences, and mitigations as identified in Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2(3).

6.1.2.5 Ground Trace and Impact: The requirement is met when the ODMSP expected casualty requirement is satisfied and substantiated by the Offeror’s provided analysis description and plots as described in Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2(5). Nominal jettisoned body impacts must occur over water and, as applicable, the upper stage reentry location shall be in a broad ocean area.

6.1.2.6 Historical Data: The requirement is met when the historical flight data or engineering analysis supports the trajectory predictions or acceptable supporting rationale to explain differences between flight results and predictions, as described in Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.2(6).

6.1.3 SUBFACTOR 3: LAUNCH OPERATIONS CONCEPT OF OPERATIONS (CONOPS)

6.1.3.1 The requirement is met when the CONOPS proposed under Attachment 5 paragraph 6.1.3 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. A schedule will be determined high risk if unable to meet the criteria as specified in Subfactor 1, paragraph 6.2.1. Additionally, 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

The requirement is met when the results from the schedule risk assessment demonstrate at least an 80% probability of meeting the ILC +30 days or earlier and the schedule meets the criteria below.

1) The requirement is met when the schedule reflects activities sufficient to support the ILC.

The ILC date for purposes of evaluation under this section is 15 May 2018

2) The requirement is met when the tasks durations are deemed credible.

3) The requirement is met when the schedule risk assessment task distributions are deemed credible and reasonable based on Offeror’s historical performance data.

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 Attachment 5 paragraph 6.2.2 , demonstrates the ability to close by L-12 months, unless an exception for specific task was pre-coordinated with the Government.

2) 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;

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.