ATCH 30 - Section M.pdf

FA8823-23-R-0001 Attachment 30 Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION CRITERIA

FOR

COMMAND & CONTROL SYSTEM -

CONSOLIDATED (CCS-C)

SUSTAINMENT AND RESILIENCY (C-SAR)

VERSION 1.0 – 22 MARCH 2023

1.0 GENERAL INFORMATION

1.1 Basis for Awarding Contract

This is a Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. The Government intends to competitively award this IDIQ contract and associated Task Order 1 utilizing the tradeoff source selection procedures as described herein, with award made to the Offeror whose proposal represents the best value to the Government. The best value determination will be based on an integrated assessment of Combined Technical/Technical Risk, Cost/Price, Past Performance, and Small Business Utilization as set forth below.

In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the United States Space Force the greatest assuredness that it will best meet or exceed our 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 that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will consider the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective;

therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

In accordance with Section L Instructions to Offerors (ITO) paragraph 4.4.2, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements. This includes stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, technical requirements, and all other information as specified within the ITO of this solicitation.

The Government reserves the right not to award a contract if the SSA makes the determination that it is in the Government’s best interest.

1.2 Discussions/Clarifications

The Government’s intent is to award a single award IDIQ contract and Task Order 1 without discussions. Therefore, each initial proposal should represent the Offeror’s best terms from both a technical, cost/price, past performance, and small business utilization standpoint. Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award an IDIQ contract and Task Order 1 without the opportunity for proposal revision. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

If the Government conducts discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation. This may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and, thus, ineligible for award.

1.3 Data Sources

All Offerors are to note that in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use data provided by the Offeror as well as additional data obtained from other sources.

Furthermore, the Government reserves the right to verify information contained within Offeror submissions.

1.4 IDIQ Contract and Task Order Documentation

The CO must receive the complete proposal no later than the submission due date and time as specified in the C-SAR ITO (IDIQ Attachment 15). All required documentation must be included in the Offeror submission as specified within the C-SAR ITO and all data must be complete and accurate. Proposal content and format must be submitted as instructed. In addition, the proposal must be signed by an authorized individual.

1.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan In the event an actual or potential OCI(s) with respect to the performance of itself or its subcontractors or teammates exists, the Offeror’s proposed OCI Mitigation Plan must be determined acceptable to the Government. Any proposed avoidance or mitigation techniques shall be consistent with FAR 9.5 and the most recent decisions of the Government Accountability Office and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The OCI Mitigation Plan will be evaluated in accordance with FAR Part 9 and against the OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist (Section L Attachment L-2) to ensure all OCIs are sufficiently avoided, neutralized, or mitigated. Ongoing exchanges may take place regarding OCI concerns, questions or clarifications; these exchanges will not constitute discussions.

1.6 Responsibility

No award shall be made unless the CO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet each of the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1.

1.7 Compensation for Professional Employees

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR 52.222-46. The Professional Employee Compensation Plan will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Plans indicating unrealistically low professional employee compensation may be viewed as evidence of the Offeror’s failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements and assessed adversely as one of the factors considered in making an award. The Plan must address that the Offeror understands the types of technical professionals needed to accomplish the work and understands what is required to perform the work. Failure to comply with these provisions may constitute sufficient cause to justify rejection of a proposal.

2.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

2.1 Factors, Subfactors, and Relative Importance

a. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: System Knowledge Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering Subfactor 3: Transition Processes

Factor 2: Cost/Price

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Small Business Participation

b. Relative Importance: Technical (Factor 1) is more important than Cost/Price (Factor 2).

Cost/Price is more important than Past Performance (Factor 3), and Past Performance is more important than Small Business Participation (Factor 4). All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are more important than cost or price. The three technical evaluation subfactors - System Knowledge, Systems Engineering, and Transition Processes – are listed in descending order of importance.

2.2 Factor 1: Technical

Each Offeror’s written technical volume shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below (in paragraph 2.2.2), to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of both the IDIQ and Task Order 1 Performance Work Statements (PWSs) and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The C-SAR bidders library contains information that will aid the Offeror in preparing their written technical volume.

2.2.1 Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, degraded performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each Technical/Technical Risk subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings provided below in Table 1a, which focuses on the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the Technical/Technical Risk subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical/Technical Risk factor.

Table 1a Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Color Rating Description Blue Outstanding 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.

In addition to the above rating method, the Combined Technical/Technical Risk subfactor ratings will be based on the following risk descriptions.

Table 1b Technical Risk Rating Method

A “significant strength” is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with appreciable merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

Purple Good 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.

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

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

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

Adjectival Rating

Description

Low Proposal may contain weaknesses which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have a high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

A “strength” is an aspect of an offeror's proposal with merit or will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

A “weakness” means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A "significant weakness" in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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 unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

2.2.2 Subfactor Evaluation Assessment

2.2.2.1 Subfactor 1: System Knowledge Assessment

The subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of system changes required to add a first-in-family MILSATCOM satellite to CCS-C. The discriminators are the following:

-Comprehensive identification and explanation of first and second order changes to existing CCS- C architecture, subsystem components, and interfaces.

-Comprehensive identification and explanation of key schedule and technical risks (rank ordered

– highest to lowest), and the associated mitigations of these risks.

2.2.2.2 Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering Assessment

The subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of system changes required to replace the Archive Browser and Extractor (ABE) trending application. The discriminators are the following:

-Comprehensive identification and explanation of first and second order changes to existing CCS- C architecture, subsystem components, and interfaces.

-Comprehensive identification and explanation of key technical risks (rank ordered – highest to lowest) and associated mitigations.

-Ability to use innovative tools or techniques to maintain CCS-C while minimizing system down-time, ensuring data migration, and preventing outages.

2.2.2.3 Subfactor 3: Transition Processes Assessment

The subfactor is met when the Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to transition, accredit, and make operational the software/hardware integration labs within the transition period as well as an effective transition approach for assuming responsibility for CCS-C contract activities. The discriminators are the following:

-An effective plan (including innovative tools, techniques, or approaches) to maintain software updates and system development efforts during the lab transition (e.g. avoiding gaps in planned product support hardware/software deliveries).

-Comprehensive identification and explanation of key transition risks (rank ordered – highest to lowest) and associated mitigations

2.3 Factor 2: Cost/Price Factor Evaluation

a. The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and unbalanced pricing. In the evaluation, 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. For all CLIN types, the evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with the solicitation. Incomplete price submissions may not be evaluated and the proposal may be eliminated from consideration. The Government-calculated Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be presented to the Source Selection Authority for the best value trade-off decision. The TEP is the summation of the maximum prices for the CLINs as shown in Table 2 below.

b. Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, realism, or non-presence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror.

c. The Government will compare the information the Offeror provides in the Model Contract to the information the Offeror provides in Volume 2 to ensure the information in the former is identical to that in the latter. The Government reserves the right to determine that, if any inconsistency exists between the Model Contract and Volume 2, the Model Contract will take precedence. In the event there is inconsistency, the value in the Model Contract will be used in the TEP calculation.

2.3.1 Evaluation Area Details

The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government evaluation of the following areas: Price Reasonableness, Cost Realism and Unbalanced Pricing.

a. Price Reasonableness

(i) The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for price reasonableness, where reasonableness is an assessment of whether the price is too high. The price is reasonable, if, in its nature and amount, does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Reference FAR 31.201-3.

(ii) In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more analysis techniques described in, but not limited to, FAR 15.404-1.

(iii) A determination of unreasonableness will render the proposal un-awardable.

(iv) In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be technically unacceptable are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made for technically unacceptable, un-awardable proposals.

b. Cost Realism

(i) Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal. (FAR 15.404-1(d) (1).

(ii) The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; the assessment will analyze whether the proposed price is too low.

(iii) The Offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Price Volume will be evaluated via a cost analysis approach. This process involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s price/cost. Any proposed cost element may be adjusted based upon the Government analysis of each proposed cost element.

1) The cost analysis will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach.

2) Cost adjustments will consider weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs.

3) Cost adjustments will also consider missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed solution.

4) Cost adjustments will consider any Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical hours/costs.

5) It is the intent that all cost adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments.

6) The cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost (MPC) that will become part of the TEP calculation for best value consideration.

(iv) No MPC adjustment will be made for deficiencies; however, deficiencies may render your proposal unrealistic.

(v) Over-proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment but may result in an unreasonableness determination.

(vi) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of realism poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Unbalanced Pricing

(i) The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing IAW

FAR 15.404-1(g).

(ii) Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

(iii) An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.3.2 Total Evaluated Cost/Price (TEP)

The Government will calculate the Offeror’s TEP by incorporating the Government’s Most Probable Cost. The Government-calculated TEP will be used in the best value decision process.

Note, the technical assessment of the sample “Add MILSATCOM Satellite” task order and sample “Software Upgrade” task order will be reviewed as part of the Technical Volume. The Technical Volume does not require any information regarding the sample “Antenna Study” task order. The sample “Antenna Study” task order will be assessed as part of the Cost/Price Volume. The labor hours and categories for the sample “Antenna Study” task order will be technically evaluated for appropriateness, but just so it can be properly assessed as part of the Cost/Price Volume.

Additionally, CLIN X006 and X008 rates will be evaluated (in accordance with paragraph 2.3.1) but will not be included in the TEP.

Table 2 Total Evaluated Price Ordering

Period Task Order CLIN # CLIN Title Contract

Type Costs

Profit/Fee

Total CLIN

Amount

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

Base Ordering Period

TO1 0001,1001,2001,

3001,4001*

Sustainment and Operation Support

FFP N/A N/A Offeror’s Amount

TO1 0003,1003,2003,

3003,4003*

Sustaining Engineering

CPFF Gov’t

MPC

Proposed Fixed Fee

Provided by the Gov’t

(D+E) TO1 0013 Transition Phase-in (Labor) CPFF Gov’t

MPC

Proposed Fixed Fee

Provided by the Gov’t

(D+E) TO1 0014 Transition Phase-in (Lab Transition)

CPFF Gov’t

MPC

Proposed Fixed Fee

Provided by the Gov’t

(D+E) Add

MILSATCOM

Satellite

X004 Constellation Capacity

CPFF Gov’t

MPC

Proposed Fixed Fee

Provided by the Gov’t

(D+E) Software Upgrade

X005 Operations Resiliency

Enhancement

CPFF Gov’t

MPC

Proposed Fixed Fee

Provide by the Gov’t

(D+E) Antenna Study X007 Special Study PFF Gov’t

MPC

Proposed Fixed Fee

Provide by the Gov’t

(D+E) Option Ordering

TO # TBD 5001,6001,7001* Sustainment and Operation

FFP N/A N/A Offeror’s Amount

Period Support TO # TBD 5003,6003,7003* Sustaining

Engineering CPFF Gov’t

MPC

Proposed Fixed Fee

Provided by the Gov’t

(D+E) Data Rights (if applicable) Offeror’s

Amount Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Summation of Column F *Include one row for each CLIN in the table – for example one row for each of the following CLINs: 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, 4001; 0003, 1003, 2003, 3003, 4003; 5001, 6001, 7001; and 5003, 6003, 7003.

2.4 Past Performance Factor Evaluation

2.4.1 General Information: The past performance assessment will assess the Offeror’s/joint venture members’/critical subcontractors’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. Each Offeror will be given a rating of “acceptable”, or “unacceptable”.

In accordance with Section L, the offeror shall explicitly state whether or not it possesses sufficient past performance history to comply with the Past Performance Volume instructions. In accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)) the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance if past performance information is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned.

2.4.2 Recency: For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts with at least one (1) year of performance within the past five (5) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. Each submitted contract will receive a recency determination – “recent” or “not recent”.

2.4.3 Relevancy: The Government will perform an independent determination of relevancy of the data provided or obtained. Each submitted contract, that is determined recent, will receive a relevancy determination – “relevant” or “not relevant”. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The following relevancy criteria apply and will be assigned to each of the submitted contracts:

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity that this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little to none of the scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity this solicitation requires.

2.4.4 Quality: The Government will perform an independent determination of quality of the recent, relevant contract performance submitted by the Offeror. The Government will use CPARs, Commercial Client Questionnaires (if applicable), and other past performance information to assign a quality rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable”.

Acceptable: During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Not Acceptable: During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

2.4.5 Overall Past Performance Evaluation Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy, quality assessments, the Offeror’s past performance will receive one of the following ratings:

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.

Note: in the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered acceptable.

Unacceptable: Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government does not have a reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

2.5 Small Business Participation Factor Evaluation

a. General: Each offeror’s Small Business Participation Submission shall be evaluated, based on the elements below, to determine if the offeror provides an adequate approach to meeting the objectives of the Small Business Program, and demonstrates an understanding of those objectives.

The Offeror shall ensure that 15% of contract effort/value (before profit or fee is calculated) is performed by a Small Business. Although 15% Small Business (before profit or fee is calculated) is mandatory, the Government recommends that the Offeror make attempts to allocate work across the various categories of Small Business (see example below). However, the Small Business Participation will only be rated based on the overall Small Business requirement of 15% (before profit or fee is calculated).

-Overall Small Business is 15% (15%, before profit or fee is calculated, is mandatory for contract performance)

-Example of potential Small Business breakdown goals

-Small disadvantaged business is 3% -Woman-owned small business is 3% -Veteran-owned small business is 3% -Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) Zone small business is 3%

-Other is 3%

The Government will analyze the information in Table SB in Volume 3 of the Offeror’s proposal and will:

(1) Confirm that the amount stated in cell (A) is consistent with Volume 2; and

(2) Confirm that the amount stated in cell (B) is identical to the amount reported in the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan pursuant to FAR 52.219-9(d)(2)(ii), if required to be submitted; and

(3) Confirm that the amount stated in cell (D) is calculated in accordance with the instructions; and

(4) Determine whether the amount stated in cell (D) is greater than or equal to 15%, PWS paragraph 2.4.2. In making this determination, the Government will not round up to the nearest whole percent; for example, 34.9% is not greater than or equal to 35%.

If the Government is unable to confirm the amount as indicated in (1), then the Government will resolve the discrepancy by revising the amount to be consistent with Volume 2 and the instructions for cell (A).

If the Government is unable to confirm the amount as indicated in (2), then the Government will resolve the discrepancy by revising the amount to be consistent with the Offeror’s Small Business Subcontracting Plan and the instructions for cell (B).

If the Government is unable to confirm the amount as indicated in (3), then the Government will resolve the discrepancy by revising the amount to be consistent with the instructions for cell (D).

If the Government determines that the amount stated in cell (D) – subsequent to any Government-made revisions as described immediately above – is not greater than or equal to 15%, then the Offeror will receive an Unacceptable rating for this Factor.

Small Business Offerors will receive an Acceptable rating for this Factor, irrespective of the amount stated in cell (D).

b. Small Business Participation Rating: The rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s approach for meeting the Government’s Small Business Participation objectives. The offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One rating will be assigned to the Small Business Participation factor based on the below table:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.