ATCH 7_NITE-STAR CD IDIQ_Section M_20260310_FINAL.pdf

National Space Test and Training Complex (NSTTC) Innovative Technology & Engineering - Space Test and

Range (NITE-STAR)

Capability Development

Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ)

FA2553-26-R-B001

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS

FOR AWARD

10 March 2026

Solicitation # FA255326RB001, NITE-STAR Capability Development IDIQ Attachment 7 Section M

Table of Contents

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.2 Discussions/Clarifications

1.3 Use of Supporting Information

1.4 Proposal Documentation

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

4. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL FACTOR

4.1 General

4.2 Technical Factor Rating

4.3 Gated Technical Factor Evaluation

4.3.1 Subfactor 1 (Gate 1) – Security Compliance Requirements

4.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Qualifying Relevant Projects (QRPs)

5 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1 General

5.2 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

5.3 Contractor Responsibility

1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This acquisition will be conducted pursuant to the source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-2 and 15.3 as supplemented by Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures referenced in Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.300 and Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for Qualifying Offerors. The result of this source selection is a Multiple Award (MA) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract vehicle. The Government will award contract(s) to those Offeror(s) whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements and are determined, based on the evaluation factors, to be a Qualifying Offeror. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

The Government will review all documents for compliance and completeness with Section L instructions and evaluate proposals based on the evaluation factors and subfactors. Offerors must furnish adequate and specific information in its response. A Qualifying Offeror is one that is determined to be a responsible source and submits a technically acceptable proposal.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii)(A), the Government intends to award a MA IDIQ contract to all Qualifying Offerors determined to be capable of meeting the NITE-STAR Capability Development requirements. The Government reserves the right not to award any contracts under this solicitation. All Qualifying Offerors awarded a basic contract will also be awarded a $10,000 Task Order for a Post Award Kickoff Conference (reference Attachments 9 and 10), which will satisfy the minimum order requirement.

1.2 Discussions/Clarifications

The Government intends to award without discussions and as such, Offerors are strongly advised to submit their best proposal. 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 Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) reserves the right to award IDIQ contracts without the opportunity for proposal revision. The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest.

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.

1.3 Use of Supporting Information

All Offerors are to note that in conducting this source selection, 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 Proposal Documentation

The PCO must receive the complete proposal no later than the submission due date and time as specified in Section L (Attachment 6). All required documentation must be included in the Offeror submission as specified within Section L (Attachment 6) and all data must be complete and accurate. Proposal content and format must be submitted as instructed in Section L (Attachment 6). In addition, the proposal must be signed by an authorized individual.

2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

If the Offeror’s proposal is evaluated against the first technical subfactor and does not receive a pass rating, then it will not be considered for further evaluation or award. The Government intends to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) as a tool to assist in the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation. The AI tool(s) will be used to support the human evaluators in assessing proposals against the evaluation criteria established in Section M of this solicitation.

3. EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

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

Factor 1: Technical (Acceptable/Unacceptable) Subfactor 1 (Gate 1): Security Compliance Review (Pass/Fail) Subfactor 2: Qualifying Relevant Project (Pass/Fail)

4. VOLUME II – TECHNICAL FACTOR

4.1 General

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

Technical Factor

Subfactor 1 (Gate 1): Security Compliance Requirements Subfactor 2: Qualifying Relevant Projects (QRPs)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical proposal and assign a rating of Pass or Fail for each of the subfactors listed above. Only one rating will be assigned to the Technical Factor.

4.2 Technical Factor Rating

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the Offeror’s ability to meet the Government’s requirements. One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. To be considered technically acceptable and eligible for award, a proposal must receive a “pass” rating in each technical subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “fail” will render the entire proposal unacceptable, and therefore, ineligible for award.

4.3 Gated Technical Factor Evaluation

The Government will evaluate an Offeror’s proposal utilizing a gated technical evaluation approach. If the Offeror’s proposal does not pass Gate 1, then the proposal will not be further evaluated or be considered eligible for award. The rating scale for technical subfactors will be Pass/Fail.

4.3.1 Subfactor 1 (Gate 1) – Security Compliance Requirements

The Government will evaluate if the Offeror demonstrated a minimum facility clearance (FCL) of TOP SECRET and possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) at time of proposal submission and demonstrated the ability to perform cyber security and risk management framework (RMF) type of work IAW National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) SP 800-37 and NIST SP 800-53 regulations.

Rating Description

Pass

Offeror demonstrated all the following criteria at time of proposal submission:

• Minimum TOP SECRET FCL

• Possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to TS/SCI

• Ability to perform cybersecurity and RMF type of work

IAW NIST SP 800-37 and NIST SP 800-53 regulations

Fail

Offeror did not demonstrate all the following criteria at time of proposal submission:

• Minimum TOP SECRET FCL

• Possession of a facility that is accredited for performing and safeguarding work up to TS/SCI

• Ability to perform cybersecurity and RMF type of work

IAW NIST SP 800-37 and NIST SP 800-53 regulations Table 1 – Security Compliance Requirements Ratings

4.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Qualifying Relevant Projects (QRPs)

The Government will evaluate two (2) QRPs and determine if the Offeror’s work experience demonstrates a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance within the past ten (10) years as from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

If the Offeror’s work experience is outside the required time period, it will not be further evaluated.

QRPs beyond the two (2) required will not be evaluated.

When evaluating the work experience submitted for the QRPs, the Government will only consider work experience performed as the prime contractor.

The Offeror must have manufactured the vehicle or payload, and have been responsible for overall system integration and mission operations. In accordance with Table 2 and 3 below, the QRPs will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

4.3.3 Space System QRP:

The work experience must include, at a minimum, system development (vehicle or payload) and integration. Additionally, the space system must have the following attributes or have demonstrated the following capabilities:

Operating in one (1) of the following regimes: Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Geostationary Orbit (GEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), or Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO)

Single vehicle mass at or above 100kg Design life threshold of at least one (1) year Sensing capabilities:

- In-situ

- Communication relay, or remoting sensing capabilities in any phenomenology Completion of uplink and downlink for Telemetry, Tracking & Commanding

(TT&C) and mission data via commercial or Government-owned satellite control networks

The Space System QRP demonstrated a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance that occurred during the past ten (10) years as of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

AND

Work experience for the Space System QRP includes, at a minimum, the following criteria:

• Offeror served as Prime contractor responsible for system development (vehicle or payload) and integration

• Offeror demonstrated the attributes or capabilities outlined in section 4.3.3

Fail

The Space System QRP demonstrated less than six (6) months of continuous contract performance and/or performance did not occur during the past ten (10) years as of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

OR

Work experience for the Space System QRP did not include, at a minimum, the following criteria:

• Offeror served as Prime contractor responsible for system development (vehicle or payload) and integration outlined in section 4.3.3

Table 2 – Space QRP Ratings

AND

4.3.4 Ground System QRP:

The work experience must include, at a minimum, development, integration, testing, and operational support of ground system software that supports on-orbit spacecraft or mission operations. Additionally, the ground system must have the following attributes or have demonstrated the following capabilities:

Spacecraft Command and Control (C2):

o Experience developing or integrating spacecraft C2 capabilities, including command & telemetry frameworks, visualization tools, and interfaces supporting command uplink and telemetry downlink with spacecraft.

o Capabilities must demonstrate support for real-time or near real-time mission operations.

The QRP demonstrated a minimum of six (6) months of continuous contract performance that occurred during the past ten (10) years as of the date of issuance of this solicitation.

AND

Work experience for the Ground System QRP includes, at a minimum, the following criteria:

• Development, integration, testing, and operational support of ground system software that supports on-orbit spacecraft or mission operations outlined in section 4.3.4

Fail

The QRP demonstrated less than six (6) months of continuous contract performance and/or performance did not occur during the past ten (10) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

OR

Work experience for the Ground System QRP did not include, at a minimum, the following criteria:

• Development, integration, testing, and operational support of ground system software that supports on-orbit spacecraft or mission operations

• Offeror demonstrated the attributes or capabilities outlined in section 4.3.4

Table 3 – Ground QRP Ratings

5 VOLUME III – CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

5.1 General

The proposal documentation contained in Volume III will be reviewed to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation. The provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility and to determine eligibility for award. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

5.2 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

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 9 and against the OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist (Attachment 8) 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.

5.3 Contractor Responsibility

No award shall be made unless the PCO 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 as supplemented by DFARS and DAFFARS.