Attachment 2 - ABAD Section M.pdf

FA5641-21-R-0001

Attachment 2

TRADEOFF BETWEEN COST/PRICE AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a competitive best value source selection conducted as a subjective Tradeoff in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)

15.3 as supplemented. Competing Offerors’ technical proposal will be evaluated as significantly more important than cost or price. FAR 15.101 states that best value is obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches.

1.0.1 The Government will evaluate all proposals via Acceptable/Unacceptable Technical criteria for Past Experience (subfactor 1) and the Ramstein Air Defense System Integration Lab (RADSIL) Task Order (subfactor 2). All Offerors’ proposals determined Technically Acceptable on the initial evaluations of subfactors 1 and 2 will then be evaluated on their oral proposals. The Government will evaluate the technical approach to the given the Scenario (subfactor 3) using a separate technical and risk rating process.

The evaluation team will also evaluate cost and price at this time. After completing the evaluations of technical and cost/price, the Source Selection Authority shall make an integrated assessment best value award decision by trading off between the technical approach to the Scenario (subfactor 3) and cost/price, with the Oral Proposal Scenario considered significantly more important than cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgement is inherent to the selection process.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Air Base Air Defense (ABAD) Program. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.2 IDIQ Ceiling

The ceiling of the IDIQ is $953M. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount.

1.3 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order

The RADSIL task order (Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001) will be awarded to the IDIQ awardee. The RADSIL task order shall satisfy the minimum order requirement. The Contractor that is awarded the ABAD IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond the RADSIL task order.

1.3 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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 Final Proposal Revisions are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation.

Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims for even a single evaluation criterion may result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposal is unqualified and render that proposal unawardable.

1.6 Responsibility

No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

1.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual, potential, or perceived OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive the award of this contract. Failing to provide an acceptable OCI Analysis in accordance with the Section L criteria, or an adequate OCI mitigation plan when determined necessary by the Government as a result of the Government or Offeror’s OCI Analysis, may result in the Offeror being considered ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Past Experience Subfactor 2: RADSIL Task Order Subfactor 3: Scenario

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. Subfactors 1 and 2 will both be evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable. Subfactor 3 will be evaluated as a separate technical and risk rating process. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

2.2.1 Technical Factor

First, The Government will evaluate all written proposals for technical acceptability on Technical Subfactors 1 (Past Experience) and 2 (RADSIL Task Order). Then, the Government will invite Offerors determined acceptable for Technical Subfactors 1 (Past Experience) and 2 (RADSIL Task Order) to provide oral proposals on Technical Subfactor 3 (Scenario). The Government will evaluate Technical Subfactor 3 (Scenario) as a separate technical and risk rating process for all proposals previously evaluated as technically acceptable.

Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. For a subfactor to be rated as “Acceptable,” the Government must determine in its evaluation that all aspects for that subfactor are acceptable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

2.2.2 Pricing Factor

The Government will evaluate the Cost/Price Factor for all Technically Acceptable offers. The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s initial task order cost/price proposal, to include any option years, for reasonableness, completeness, balance, and cost realism. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government will evaluate the cost/price proposals of all proposals determined to be technically “Acceptable” in accordance with Section M 4.0: Cost/Price. The offeror’s initial Task Order price/cost will be the only discriminator evaluated under the pricing factor. The SSA will make an integrated assessment best value award decision. In doing so, the SSA may tradeoff Cost/Price with Technical Subfactor 3, the Scenario, with Subfactor 3 being considered as significantly more important than Cost/Price.

3.0 Factor 1: Technical

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors.

3.1 Subfactor 1: Past Experience

The Past Experience evaluation considers each Offeror’s provided record of experience in supplying the types of supplies/services required in the ABAD solicitation. In conducting the Past Experience evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the Offeror, as well as other sources available to the Government to ensure the given Past Experience meets the requirements. The Offeror’s proposal shall fully address the areas identified in Section L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents” 5.2.1 “Subfactor One (Past Experience).”

Offerors are cautioned to submit Past Experience information as specified in the Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to explain certain aspects of their Past Experience proposal (e.g., how the Past Experience falls within the scope of the ABAD requirement). Past Experience will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. The table below outlines minimum requirement for each rating.

If the Government determines that Past Experience being provided to meet this criteria resulted in a Termination for Cause or a Termination for Default, the Past Experience shall not be considered acceptable.

Only recent Past Experience as defined in sections 3.1.1.1, 3.1.2.1, and 3.1.3.1 will be evaluated to determine whether the work falls within the scope of the ABAD requirement. The Past Experience information in the proposal will be used to establish the relevancy of Past Experience. Information obtained from other sources may be used to establish the relevancy of Past Experience. An acceptable scope is defined at paragraphs 3.1.1.2, 3.1.2.2 and 3.1.3.2.

An acceptable scope of an effort in which the Offeror participated as a subcontractor or under a joint venture arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the Offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the Offeror performed, this effort may not be considered within the scope of the ABAD requirement.

Past Experience is acceptable when it clearly meets the following criteria:

3.1.1 Integration

3.1.1.1 Recency

The Offeror provided information on contract efforts that completed a minimum of two (2) years of experience during the past five (5) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Past Experience information that fails to meet this criterion will not be further evaluated and will be considered Unacceptable.

3.1.1.2 Scope

An acceptable scope in regards to magnitude includes contracts with a contract value of $10,000,000 or greater. An acceptable scope in regards to the work and complexity includes performance similar to the ABAD requirement, which includes at least two instances of integrating radar, electro-optical, mobile sensing, command and control, and/or multimodal sensor systems into a larger architecture. A “larger architecture” is defined as at least three systems within the scope of the ABAD requirement above networked together in the same command and control architecture.

TABLE 1M – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.1.2 Program Management

3.1.2.1 Recency

of three (3) years of experience during the past five (5) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Past Experience information that fails to meet this criterion will not be further evaluated and will be considered Unacceptable.

3.1.2.2 Scope

An acceptable scope in regards to magnitude includes contracts with a contract value of $20,000,000 or greater. An acceptable scope in regards to the work and complexity include Program Management duties on a Government operation and maintenance contract. “Program Management” is defined as managing the cost, schedule, and performance of a contract.

3.1.3 EUCOM Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) Experience

3.1.3.1 Recency

of two (2) years of experience during the past five (5) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Past Experience information that fails to meet this criterion will not be further evaluated and will be considered Unacceptable.

3.1.3.2 Scope

An acceptable scope in regards to magnitude includes contracts with a contract value of $5,000,000 or greater. An acceptable scope in regards to the work and complexity includes any service contract in which the Offeror was responsible for successfully being accorded SOFA status for its personnel from foreign governments in the EUCOM. To be consider successful in obtaining SOFA in the EUCOM the Offeror must provide proof of SOFA approval, and a list/description of positions that received SOFA or equivalent agency, (e.g., Department of State) approval.

3.2 Subfactor 2: RADSIL Task Order

The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a thorough technical approach to how it will meet Section L’s “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents” 5.2.2 “Subfactor Two (RADSIL Task Order).” The Offeror must demonstrate that it has a thorough understanding of the requirement, and specifically provide the actual methodologies that will be used to accomplish/satisfy the ABAD requirement.

The RADSIL Task Order will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. The table below, which is the same as the one used for Subfactor 1: Past Experience, outlines minimum requirement for each rating.

For a proposal to be determined acceptable the Offeror shall provide a system engineering plan, a staffing plan, a maintenance and sustainment plan, and an ABAD operation support plan that meet the criteria below.

The system engineering plan shall contain the following: (1) the Offeror’s plan for understanding of the Ramstein Air Defense System Integration Laboratory (RADSIL), (2) how the contractor will document the RADSIL, and (3) how they will develop the theater wide ABAD system, (4) a plan for how the Offeror will take the theoretical three phase ABAD plan and turn it into an executable program, (5) how the Offeror will onramp emerging technologies and determine their relevance to mission performance, and (6) the Offeror’s system engineering approach to executing studies.

The staffing plan shall contain the following: (1) all necessary personnel with qualifications and a plan on how the personnel will operate and maintain the RADSIL, (2) a personnel mix with qualifications within a personnel matrix that shows all the required skills identified within the RADSIL Task Order PWS are being met, (3) identification of any additional skills being provided that are not identified in the PWS, and (4) a plan to operate and maintain the RADSIL with the necessary manpower to operate and maintain the system during the normal duty day (Monday-Friday from 0730-1630 Central European Time).

The maintenance and sustainment plan shall contain the following: (1) how the Offeror will maintain and sustain the RADSIL hardware and software architecture, (2) how the Offeror will return the system to full mission capability during any hardware or software failures as identified in Sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 of the RADSIL TO PWS, and (3) how the Offeror would develop and manage the Obsolescence Management Plan as identified in Sections 3.1.6 and 3.5 of the RADSIL TO PWS. Commercial techniques for provisioning COTS and custom software may be used.

The ABAD operations support plan shall contain: (1) how the Offeror will support threat system/equipment modifications, upgrades, modernizations, additions, replacements, and removals, (2) how the Offeror will adapt to new techniques and technology to keep the Ramstein ABAD capabilities abreast of mission requirements, and (3) a description on how the Offeror will meet sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the RADSIL TO 0001 PWS.

TABLE 2M – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.3 Subfactor 3: Scenario

Subfactor 3 shall describe the Offeror’s capability to implement a successful response to the given scenario that meets or exceeds all stated thresholds. Failure to fully address the required information may render the proposal unacceptable. Subfactor 3 will be evaluated as significantly more important than cost/price. The Offeror’s oral proposal shall fully address each of the areas identified in Section L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents” 5.2.3 “Subfactor 3: Scenario.” In evaluating an Offeror’s oral proposal, the Government will only consider the information and slides covered by the Offeror in its oral presentation. In other words, any chart that is not briefed during the established time limit will not be evaluated, and any information contained on the slides that was not orally briefed will not be evaluated. The Offeror’s oral proposal shall be evaluated based on the following performance criteria:

• Cruise missiles are detected at a distance of over 100 kilometer (km) (Threshold), 150 km (Performance Objective) from the base.

• Cruise missiles are identified/categorized at a distance of over 50 km (Threshold), 65 km (Performance Objective) from the base.

• Cruise missiles are engaged/destroyed at a distance of over 1 km (Threshold), 5 km (Performance Objective) from the base.

• Must have a probability of detection of 90% (Threshold), 95% (Performance Objective) for the cruise missiles.

• Must have a probability of kill of 90% (Threshold), 98% (Performance Objective) for the cruise missiles.

• Must have a probability of detection of 90% (Threshold), 95% (Performance Objective) for the UASs.

• Must have a probability of kill of 90% (Threshold), 98% (Performance Objective) for the UASs.

• Must cost less than $40M to procure as well as less than $10M to operate and maintain per location per year (Threshold), $15M to procure as well as less than $7M to operate and maintain per location per year (Efficiency Objective);

alternatively, must cost less than $40M (Threshold), $15M (Efficiency Objective) to lease, operate, and maintain per location each year.

• Must be sustained by no more than 15 personnel (Threshold), 10 personnel (Efficiency Objective). This includes 24/7/365 days a year operation.

• Must be operated by no more than 16 personnel (Threshold), 12 personnel (Efficiency Objective). This includes 24/7/365 days a year operation.

In accordance with Table 3M, Proposals will be rated as Outstanding, Excellent, Acceptable, Marginal, and Unacceptable.

Table 3M Technical Rating Method for Scenario Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Excellent Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

In accordance with Table 4M, Proposal Risk will be rated as Low, Moderate, High, and Unacceptable.

Table 4M Risk Rating Method for Scenario

Risk Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may 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 Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which 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.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

The Offeror’s Risk Rating, evaluated in accordance with Table 4M, shall be factored into each adjectival rating provided in accordance with Table 3M through the definitions for an ‘exceptional approach,’ ‘thorough approach,’ and ‘adequate approach. The sections below provide the definitions used within Tables 3M and 4M.

3.3.1 Strength: For a proposal to include a strength, it must provide a benefit to the Government not otherwise identified in the evaluation criteria.

3.3.2 Weakness: For a proposal to have a weakness, the proposal must contain a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance through the disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

3.3.3 Significant Weakness: For a proposal to have a significant weakness, the proposal must contain a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance through the disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance.

3.3.4. Deficiency: For a proposal to have a deficiency, there must be 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 unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

3.3.5 Outstanding: For a proposal to be considered Outstanding, the proposal shall demonstrate an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contain multiple strengths. An “exceptional approach and understanding” shall be defined by a proposal meeting all threshold requirements and meeting at least 8 objective requirements as described in this section, and receiving a Risk Rating of ‘Low Risk’ in accordance with Table 4M. To meet the 8 objective requirement, the proposal shall meet at least 5 performance objective and 2 efficiency objective requirements. The eighth objective can be from either performance or efficiency.

3.3.6 Excellent: For a proposal to be considered Excellent, the proposal shall demonstrate a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contain at least one strength. A “thorough approach and understanding” of the requirements shall be defined by a proposal meeting at least 5 objective requirements as described in this section, and receiving a Risk Rating of ‘Moderate Risk’ or ‘Low Risk’ in accordance with Table 4M. To meet the 5 objective requirement, the proposal shall meet two objective requirements from performance and efficiency each. The fifth objective can be from either performance or efficiency.

3.3.7 Acceptable: For a proposal to be considered Acceptable, the proposal shall demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. An “adequate approach and understanding of the requirements” shall be defined as meeting all of the threshold requirements, and receiving a Risk rating of ‘Moderate Risk’ or ‘Low Risk’ in accordance with Table 4M.

3.3.8 Marginal: For a proposal to be considered Marginal, the proposal shall fail to demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. To receive a rating of Marginal, a proposal shall meet all threshold requirements, yet receiving a Risk Rating of ‘High Risk’ in accordance with Table 4M.

3.3.9 Unacceptable: For a proposal to be considered Unacceptable, the proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable. A proposal may be considered Unacceptable by either a failure to meet one or more threshold requirements, or by receiving a Risk Rating of ‘Unacceptable Risk’ in accordance with Table 4M.

The results of the Scenario evaluations will be provided to the SSA for consideration in making the integrated assessment best value award decision.

4.0 FACTOR 2: Cost/Price

4.1 Ramstein RADSIL CPFF Task Order 0001

a. Reasonableness: The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate cost/price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 to determine cost/price reasonableness.

For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. An Offeror’s initial Task Order cost/price must be determined reasonable to be eligible for award. NOTE: In the event that the Government’s performed cost realism analysis determines the Offeror’s proposal to have a probable cost different than the proposed cost, the probable cost of performance will be used for evaluation purposes.

b. Balance: The Government will analyze the Ramstein RADSIL task order proposals to determine whether CPFF CLINs 0130, 0131, 0132, 0133, and 0134 are unbalanced with respect to yearly cost/prices 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.

c. Completeness: The Government shall review the Offeror’s proposed Ramstein RADSIL task order for completeness based on the requirements contained in Section L of the solicitation.

d. Realism: When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort and to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. The resultant probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value (FAR 15.305(a)(1), 15.404-1(c)(1), and 15.404-1(d)(2)). The Government shall evaluate the proposed labor and subcontract costs to determine cost realism on the initial Ramstein RADSIL Task Order. The Cost/Price team may confer with the Technical Evaluation Team for assistance in determining cost realism. Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001 cost/price proposals deemed by the Government to be unrealistic may not be eligible for award.

e. The Government intends to award the initial Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001, at the Offeror’s proposed cost plus associated fee, with the award of the ABAD Basic IDIQ contract.

f. Fee associated with the initial Ramstein RADSIL TO shall be evaluated in accordance with the statutory fee limitation at FAR 15.404-4(c)(4)(i)(c).

4.2 The results of the Cost/Price evaluation will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in making the integrated assessment best value award decision. The Offeror is solely responsible for substantiating their Cost/Price proposal.