5. AFCGI Section M Evaluation Factors.docx

Advanced Fire Control Ground Infrastructure (AFCGI) Attachment 5 – Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award 20 June 2024

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

FA240124R0001 Attachment 5

1 Basis for Contract Award This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures. The Government will select the Offeror that represents the overall best value to the Government. In making its award decision, the Government will use the evaluation Factors shown in Table 1. The Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. The successful Offeror will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, as supplemented by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and proposals must conform to the solicitation’s requirements to be eligible for award. The Government may reject any or all proposals, if such action is in the best interest of the Government and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. While the Government strives 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.

1.1 Evaluation Methodology

The following Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The basis for evaluation for all Factors will be the Offeror’s full proposal. The Government will assign one of the color ratings described for the Factors as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Evaluation Factors

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factors 1 through 5, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 6, Cost/Price. Factors 1 through 4, are in descending order of importance; individually all are significantly more important than Factor 5. Any Offeror receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” or “Not Reasonable” in one or more Factor(s) may be deemed ineligible for award and not be further considered for selection.

2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government will make one (1) award to the Offeror that provides the best value for this requirement in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make no awards at all.

3 General Instructions The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, information that the Offeror provides in response to Attachment 4 and sub attachment – Proposal Instructions. The Government may reject any or all proposals, if such action is in the best interest of the Government and waive informalities and/or minor irregularities in proposals received.

3.1 Solicitation Requirements

An Offeror is required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, e.g., terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan submissions and Representations and Certifications. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

3.2 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and hold discussions with the most highly rated Offerors. The Government may request Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range (see Section 4 – Competitive Range). Any proposal updates will be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified herein. The Government may suggest to Offerors that have exceeded any mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to the design), their proposals would be more competitive if excess language was removed, and the associated cost elements decreased or removed.

As described in FAR 15.101-1, the Government will evaluate offers using a competitive best value tradeoff process among price and the non-price Factors listed herein. Thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offerors, or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. An Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms regarding price and technical capability.

4 Competitive Range In the event the Government determines to establish a competitive range, and in accordance with FAR 15.306, an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time during discussions if the Offeror is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated. This elimination can occur whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or if the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit an FPR. The Contracting Officer (CO) may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

5 Evaluation of Factor 1: Schedule and Schedule Management The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed schedule and the extent to which the proposal provides evidence the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the tools and techniques required to develop, maintain, and adhere to a credible schedule that supports the Advance Fire Control (AFC) program. Additionally, the Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed schedule and schedule management to support:

· Operational readiness of the AFC ground segment to include but not limited to the:

· Demonstration Operations Center (DOC)

· Cloud Environment with Cross-Domain Solution

· Ground Entry Points (GEPs)

· GEP spectrum authorizations

· Space-to-Ground integration testing with up to seven (7) SV Contractors

· Software development including Ground Resource Management (GRM)

· Capability to interface with mission partner networks at multiple security levels

· Risk Management Framework schedule (all required ATOs & ATCs)

· Facilities Clearance

· The Offeror holds a current Top Secret (TS) facility clearance issued by the DCSA in accordance with 32 CFR Part 117 The basis of the assessment will be Volume II – Schedule Management & Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), and all attachments, and any schedule creation, management and/or risk details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in areas that affect schedule realism or contribute to schedule risk management will also be considered in this assessment. The Government will also consider the facilities clearance when determining schedule risk.

The Government will consider the ability of the Offeror to identify primary and secondary critical paths to key delivery dates (milestones, security requirements, internal and external dependencies) to meet the proposed schedule delivery date. The Government will assess the Offerors’ proposed schedule to meet the AFC System-level milestone activities and need dates to meet AFC space segment milestones. The Government will assess the ability of the Offeror to plan, provide, integrate and/or deliver the key deliverables and milestones.

The Government will assign an overall Factor 1: Schedule and Schedule Management rating as described in Table 2.

Table 2 Schedule and Schedule Management Evaluation Factors

Outstanding

1. Proposed schedule is logical, cohesive, complete and supports dynamic integration of new capabilities

2. Proposal indicates an exceptional understanding of schedule interdependencies and clearly identifies critical path(s), risks and opportunities and,

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

Good

1. Proposal indicates a complete understanding of schedule interdependencies and identifies potential critical path(s), most risks and some opportunities and

2. 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.

Acceptable

1. Proposal indicates an understanding of schedule interdependencies and identifies potential critical path(s), some risks and a few opportunities and

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

Marginal

1. Proposal indicates a limited understanding of schedule interdependencies and identifies elements of critical path(s), risks and opportunities and/or

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

Unacceptable

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

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 1: Schedule and Schedule Management rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

· A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

· A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

· A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

· A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

· A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

6 Evaluation of Factor 2: Technical Solution The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical solution and system architecture, including hardware and software systems, cybersecurity, facilities and infrastructure, integration and interoperability of Cloud environment, software development environment, GRM software development, GEP development and deployment, and terrestrial infrastructure deployment, and an operations and maintenance approach for the entire AFCGI provided ground infrastructure. The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding and ability to deliver the integrated SDA AFC ground infrastructure with low risk. The Government will assess the technical solution and system architecture’s ability to deliver GRM operations with integrated and automated contacting scheduling, and other ground segment capabilities as outlined in the Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Attachment 2 – Technical Requirements Document. The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed technical solution to integrate new AFC antennas collocated at planned/current SDA GEP locations (referenced in the SOW), or commercial antennas that meet F2’s requirements.

The Government will assess the extent to which the proposed cloud environment implementation is: 1) adaptable to changes in the surrounding architecture; 2) configurable to incorporate Government and stakeholder direction; 3) facilitates a scalable, resilient, and modular architecture; 4) manages the complexities of operating in multiple security domains; and 5) avoids vendor lock-in and could operate independent of a specific Cloud Service Provider.

The basis of the assessment will be Volume I – Technical Solution and all attachments, as well as any solution details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in technical areas that affect solution viability or contribute to technical risk will also be considered in this assessment.

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s integrated tools, techniques and talent applied to meet or exceed technical requirements and objectives as set forth in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Attachment 2 - Technical Requirements Document. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical processes and approach throughout the entire lifecycle encompassing:

· Development, delivery, and management of AFC ground resources, to include but not limited to GEPs and terrestrial networks;

· Development, delivery, and management of the DOC facility;

· Connecting to Mission Partners and external users;

· Supporting pre-launch and post-launch test activities with each SV Contractor MOC; and

· Operations and Maintenance (O&M) support.

The Government will consider how any unique elements of the Offeror’s technical solution contributes to the development of the AFC Concept of Operations (CONOPS).

The Government will assign an overall Factor 2: Technical Solution rating as described in Table 3.

Table 3 Technical Solution Evaluation Factors

Outstanding

1. Proposed technical solution significantly exceeds system technical requirements and

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

Good

1. Proposed technical solution meets or exceeds system technical requirements and

2. Proposal demonstrates 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.

Acceptable

1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirement and

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

Marginal

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

Unacceptable

1. 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.

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 2: Technical Solution rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

· A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

· A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

· A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

· A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

· A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

7 Evaluation of Factor 3: Technical Management The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Technical Management approach for successful execution against the full AFC Ground Infrastructure scope of work. The evaluation will include proposed key personnel and their availability at contract start; major teammate/subcontractor based on their experience and assigned levels to the program; how those personnel and major teammates/subcontractors are aligned to relevant parts of the program: and the programmatic mechanisms in place to enable those personnel to successfully execute the program.

The Government will assess the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the tools, techniques and talent required to: deliver quality program management across a complex and dispersed architecture; accomplish dynamic system-of-systems engineering with multiple stakeholders; effectively and efficiently operate and sustain an integrated ground and space operational solution; and source, train, and retain geographically dispersed personnel functionally interoperating as a cohesive team.

The basis of the assessment will be Volume I Technical, Tab 2 – Technical Management and all attachments, personnel organization, personnel resumes, personnel clearance status and any management and engineering details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in areas that affect process viability or contribute to programmatic risk will also be considered in this assessment. The Government will also consider any risk associated with foreign ownership and controlling interest (FOCI).

The Government will consider how any unique elements of the Offeror’s management solution will enhance the AFC system of systems and to what extent the Offeror’s management approach seamlessly integrates stakeholders, additional missions and/or external partners. In addition, the Government will consider application of these processes, procedures, and methodologies to: (i) enable or facilitate management of large complex system development and (ii) integration, testing, operations, maintenance, and sustainment activities within the program team and external teammates, associate contractors, and subcontractors. The Government will assign an overall Factor 3: Technical Management rating as described in Table 4.

Table 4 Technical Management Evaluation Factors

Acceptable

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

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 3: Technical Management rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

· A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

· A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

· A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

· A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful management or engineering performance.

· A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a government requirement.

8 Evaluation of Factor 4: Past Performance Confidence The Government will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of work performance on recent and relevant efforts. In addition to the referenced past performance proposed by the Offeror under this section, the panel may also consider any other recent and relevant past performance by the Offeror or a proposed major teammate/subcontractor.

The Government will evaluate Factor 4 based on information provided within proposal Volume III– Past Performance. The Government may consider past performance information not provided by the Offeror including, but not limited to:

· Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

· Publicly available information

· Personal knowledge of contractor’s performance

· Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

· Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

· Interviews with Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or other personnel with managerial or oversight responsibilities related to the cited effort

· Past performance questionnaires completed by customers from whom the Offeror has received previous contract awards The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent (performance was within three (3) calendar years of the proposal due date) and relevant (based on size, scope and complexity) record of past performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Attachment 2 – Technical Requirements Document. More relevant past performance will have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The following ratings, in Table 5, will be assigned to the Offeror’s collective past performance for relevancy:

Table 5 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Once the Government determines the degree of relevance, the Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror was able to effectively meet performance, schedule and cost commitments and the quality in which the Offeror met the program requirements after considering the Offeror’s previously demonstrated:

A. The degree to which the Offeror met the technical and performance requirements B. The degree to which the Offeror met the schedule requirements/performance dates C. The degree to which to Offeror met the negotiated costs of the contract D. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (if applicable).

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from Table 6.

Table 6 Past Performance Confidence Evaluation Criteria

9 Evaluation of Factor 5: Small Business Participation The evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment to the Small Business Program applies to all Offerors, except that Small Businesses are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and will receive an Acceptable rating. The Government will evaluate Factor 5 based on information provided within proposal Volume V. – Small Business Participation.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged business concerns, and Women-Owned small business concerns) are identified in Attachment 4 - the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent (%) of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Government will assess the Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) (if applicable) in accordance with FAR 19.704 and the SBUP must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors are free to submit only an SBPCD, only a SBUP, or both, if all information required by Attachment 4 and a thorough discussion of identification, selection and utilization of small business concerns for more than simply administrative purchases is contained therein. The Government will consider an Offeror’s dependence on small business for critical technical aspects of its overall proposal. The inclusion of significant engineering or technical elements from small business and other than traditional defense and aerospace contractors is considered a strength by SDA.

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will receive a rating from Table 7.

Table 7 Small Business Evaluation Criteria

Description

10 Evaluation of Factor 6: Cost/Price The Government will evaluate Factor 6 based on information provided within proposal Volume VII – Cost/Price and all attachments, and any details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. The Offeror’s cost/price will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Realism and Unbalanced pricing. Proposals that are determined to be Unreasonable or Unrealistic are not awardable. Proposals that are determined to contain Unbalanced pricing may not be awardable.

The Government will conduct cost/price proposal evaluations in accordance with FAR 15.4, “Contract Pricing.” Particular attention shall be given to FAR 15.404-1(b) entitled Price Analysis. Elements of FAR 15.404-1(b) that may be used in the evaluation include: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates; and analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror. The Government may use data external to the Offeror's proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data when evaluating price reasonableness. The Offeror’s cost/price will also be used to assess best value as described in Section 1, with lower cost/prices being evaluated more favorably. The burden of demonstrating cost credibility lies with the Offeror, including subcontract cost/price analysis. The results of the cost evaluation will be considered in performing an integrated assessment leading to selection of a successful Offeror.

10.1 Reasonableness

Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed cost will be evaluated using one or more of the cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. For a cost to be reasonable, it must represent a cost to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business [FAR 31.201-3(a)]. If the CO determines Adequate Price Competition (APC) has not been obtained, reasonableness will be evaluated using cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

10.2 Realism and Most Probable Cost

For Cost reimbursable CLINs, the Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(1). Cost realism analysis is used to determine the probable cost of an Offeror’s unique technical proposal and to ensure the Offeror understands the requirements of the contract. A small difference between the proposed cost and the probable cost indicates a realistic proposal based on the Offeror’s unique technical solution; while a large difference indicates an unrealistic proposal based on that unique technical solution. A cost realism analysis involves independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the cost buildup, e.g., labor and material, of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine:

A. The estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed.

B. Reflect a clear understanding of the scope of work; and C. Are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The cost realism analysis conducted by the Cost Panel determines the Most Probable Cost (MPC) of the proposed contract. MPC adjustments can be made for inconsistencies between the cost proposal and supporting documentation, such as major teammate/subcontractor proposals submitted under separate cover to the Government, math errors, logic errors, unsupported assertions, proposed effort not included in the cost, or inappropriate estimating methods in the Offeror’s proposal. The MPC may or may not differ from the proposed cost and shall reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract most likely to result from an Offeror’s proposal. The MPC shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. A contract will not be awarded based on a proposal with an indeterminable MPC due to missing information or other factors.

10.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable MPC, the price of one or more price inputs in the pricing tables is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a rating from Table 8.

Table 8 Cost/Price Evaluation Criteria

Offerors that receive a Factor 6: Cost/Price rating of Not Reasonable is Ineligible for award.

image1.jpg image2.emf