Attach 4 - Tracking Layer T0 WFOV Evaluation Factors (Draft).pdf

Solicitation HQ085020R0003 Section M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR THE 1

SDA TRACKING LAYER TRANCHE 0 (T0) 2

WIDE FIELD OF VIEW (WFOV) PROGRAM 3

Draft Dated May 11, 2020 4

1 Basis for Contract Award 5

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition 6 Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures 7 dated 31 March 2016. The Government will select at least two of the most highly rated Offerors that 8 represent the overall best value to the Government. 9

The successful Offerors will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, as 10 supplemented by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and proposals must 11 conform to the solicitation’s requirements to be eligible for award. While the Government strives for 12 maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, 13 therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. 14

1.1 Evaluation Methodology 15

The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. 16

Table 1. Factors and Rating Methodology 17

Factors Rating Methodology Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 1 Schedule

2 Price Reasonable Not Reasonable

3 Technical

Subfactors Combined Technical and Technical Risk Rating Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

1 Space Vehicle Technical Solution

2 Mission & System Engineering

3 Data Rights

4 Past Performance – Confidence Substantial Satisfactory Neutral Limited None

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 5 Small Business Utilization

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors 19

Factors 1 - 5 are listed in descending order of importance; and Factors 1, 2 and 3 directly correspond to 20 priorities of the T0 WFOV program. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the combined Factors 1, 3, 4 21 and 5 are more important than Factor 2, Price. Within Factor 3, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal 22 importance and both are more important than Subfactor 3. 23

2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded 24

Given no unforeseen challenges the Government will present at least two awards to the most highly 25 rated Offerors. The Government reserves the right to make less than two awards or make no awards at 26 all. 27

3 General Instructions 28

The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this document, information that the Offeror provides 29 in response to Section L, Proposal Instructions. Proposals must conform to this Request for Proposal 30 (RFP). Any submitted proposal that does not adhere to the requirements in this RFP may be eliminated 31 from the competition and ineligible for award. 32

3.1 Discussions 33

The Government anticipates participating in discussions after it makes a competitive range 34 determination of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all 35 evaluation criteria (FAR 15.306(c)). The Government intends to request Final Proposal Revisions 36 (FPR) from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range (see Competitive Range below). Any 37 proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified above and in Section 5 38 through Section 9. 39

3.2 Solicitation Requirements 40

Offerors are required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, e.g. terms and conditions, small 41 business subcontracting plan submissions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, 42 in addition to those identified as Factors or Subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions 43 of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government reserves the 44 right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation. 45

4 Competitive Range 46

In accordance with FAR 15.306, an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time 47 during discussions if the Offeror is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated. This 48 elimination can occur whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or if the 49 Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision. The Contracting Officer may 50 limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an 51 efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals. 52

5 Evaluation of Factor 1: Schedule 53

The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives 54 contained in Section C, Statement of Work (SOW), based on information provided by the Offeror in its 55 proposal. This assessment will include the Offeror’s ability to enable launch of the T0 WFOV space 56 vehicles and the reasonableness and realism of the proposed schedule to meet these objectives within the 57 specified period of performance. The evaluation will be based on the Offeror’s proposed schedule, 58 supporting explanatory text, and identified schedule risks. These artifacts will be evaluated on their 59 ability to demonstrate understanding of tasks and activities required to accomplish the work, sequencing 60 of these tasks and activities, identified dependencies and other schedule relationships, identification of 61 critical path activities, and milestones and other schedule performance criteria to manage progress 62 against the baseline schedule. 63

The Government will assign an overall Factor 1 - Schedule rating as described in Table 2 below. 64

Table 2. Schedule Ratings 65

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal greatly exceeds the required schedule and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is Low.

Good Proposal exceeds the required schedule and contains at least one strength, and risk of unacceptable performance is Low to Moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets the required schedule and risk of unsuccessful performance is no greater than Moderate.

Marginal Proposal may meet the required schedule and risk of unsuccessful performance is High.

Unacceptable

Proposal does not meet the required schedule, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and risk of unsuccessful performance is Unacceptable. Proposal is ineligible for award.

The Government will assign strengths, significant strengths, and/or deficiencies to the Offeror’s 67 proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 1 – Schedule rating. Strengths, significant strengths, 68 deficiencies, weakness, and significant weakness are defined as follows, in order of decreasing value to 69 the Government and decreasing likelihood that the Offeror remains within the competitive range: 70

• Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that exceeds the specified schedule or 71 capability requirements in a way that will be very advantageous to the Government during 72 contract performance 73

• Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds the specified schedule or 74 capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract 75 performance 76

• Weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract 77 performance 78

• Significant Weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of 79 unsuccessful contract performance 80

• Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 81 combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful 82 contract performance to an unacceptable level 83

Offerors receiving a Factor 1 - Schedule rating of Unacceptable will be ineligible for award. 84

6 Evaluation of Factor 2: Price 85

The Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness. The Offeror’s proposed use of 86 commoditized buses or approach to commoditize a bus will be evaluated as a contributor to overall price 87 reasonableness. 88

The Government may use data external to the Offeror's proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing 89 reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial 90 data when evaluating price reasonableness. 91

Proposals that are determined to be “Not Reasonable” will be ineligible for award 92

Based on the table to be included in Volume II, SDA will evaluate each offeror’s reasonable prices for 93 Non-Recurring Engineering, space vehicles #1 through #8, and the total price. Lower prices will be 94 evaluated more favorably. 95

7 Evaluation of Factor 3: Technical 96

The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives in the 97 SOW and TRD based on information provided by the Offeror in its proposal. The Government will 98 evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and technical risks and their understanding and 99 approach to implementing T0 WFOV requirements while ensuring tracking mission integration with 100 interfacing systems, as defined and evaluated by the following technical Subfactors. Subfactors 1 and 2 101 are of equal importance and both are more important than Subfactor 3. 102

• Subfactor 1 – Space Vehicle Technical Solution 103

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed overall space vehicle engineering approach 104 and technical solution, with emphasis on the OPIR system performance. This evaluation will 105 focus on the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of all objectives in the SOW and TRD and 106 the technical risks in the Offeror’s proposed technical solution to satisfying those objectives. 107

• Subfactor 2 – Mission & System Engineering 108

The Offeror will be evaluated on integration and interoperability with other Tracking Layer 109 Tranche 0 systems, the SDA Transport Layer, and OPIR enterprise architecture and Missile 110 Defense System constituents; system, sustaining and mission engineering performance; 111 technology readiness; and, test, evaluation, and risk reduction and mitigation plans. The 112 evaluation will focus on the technical and programmatic risks to demonstrating and verifying the 113 ability to achieve on-orbit and ground-based integration and interoperability of T0 WFOV 114 mission data as well as the likelihood of program success enabled or hindered by the Offeror’s 115 proposed mission, system, sustaining and/or risk engineering processes and tools. 116

• Subfactor 3 – Data Rights 117

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for rights in technical data. The 118 evaluation will focus on how the proposed solution is enabled or hindered by any limitations in 119 technical data rights proposed by the Offeror. While the Government understands that 120 commercial items do not convey the same level of data rights as items developed under 121 Government funding, SDA expects that Offerors will make every effort to ensure that continued 122 dependence on commercial hardware and software does not burden SDA with excessive costs for 123 maintenance and operations over the lifetime of the SVs. 124

Each technical Subfactor will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating. The combined Technical/Risk 125 rating will include consideration of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant 126 weaknesses, and deficiencies. The combined Technical/Risk evaluation utilizes the combined 127 Technical/Risk ratings listed in in Table 3 below. 128

Table 3. Subfactor Technical / Risk Ratings 129

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding 1. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Proposal contains a significant strength or multiple strengths/ significant strengths, and

3. Risk of unsuccessful performance is Low.

Good 1. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements, and either

a. Proposal contains at least one significant strength, or multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is Moderate, or

b. Proposal contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is Low.

Acceptable 1. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is no greater than Moderate.

Marginal 1. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is High.

Unacceptable 1. Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation and, contains one of more deficiencies, and/or

2. Risk of unsuccessful performance is Unacceptable.

3. Proposal is ineligible for award

The Government will assign strengths, significant strengths, and/or deficiencies to the Offeror’s 131 proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 3 – Technical rating. Strengths, significant strengths, 132 deficiencies, weakness, and significant weakness are defined as follows in order of decreasing value to 133 the Government and decreasing likelihood that the Offeror remains within the competitive range: 134

• Significant Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified 135 performance or capability requirements in a way that will be very advantageous to the 136 Government during contract performance 137

• Strength is an aspect of an Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or 138 capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract 139 performance 140

• Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance 141

• Significant Weakness is a flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of 142 unsuccessful contract performance 143

• Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement or a 144 combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful 145 contract performance to an unacceptable level 146

Offerors receiving a Factor 3 - Technical rating of Unacceptable will be ineligible for award. 147

8 Evaluation of Factor 4: Past Performance 148

The Government will evaluate Factor 4 based on information provided with the proposal as specified in 149 Section L, Proposal Instructions. They may also use the following sources to evaluate past performance: 150

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) 151

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS) 152

• Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS) 153

• Interviews with Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials 154 or other customer personnel fulfilling insight/oversight roles 155

• Past performance questionnaires completed by customers from whom the Offeror has received 156 previous contract awards 157

• Submitted résumés of proposed Key Personnel 158

8.1 Relevancy Rating 159

The Government will evaluate the performance and quality of the Offeror’s recent (within 5 years) and 160 relevant record of past performance as a means of ascertaining its ability to accomplish the tasks 161 identified in Attachment 1, SOW. The Government will review recent, relevant performance 162 information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities 163 described in the Attachment 1 – SOW. The Government will also consider the source of the 164 information, context of the data, and general trends in Offeror’s performance. The following ratings will 165 be assigned for relevancy: 166

Table 3. Past Performance Relevency Ratings 167

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by most of the same personnel involving the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by some of the same personnel involving similar scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Somewhat Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by a few of the same personnel involving some of the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Not Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by very few or none of the same personnel involving little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

8.2 Past Performance Confidence Rating 169

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s 170 past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns 171 (if applicable). This quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined 172 as past performance information that results in an unsatisfactory rating on any formal rating system (e.g. 173 CPARS) or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Based on 174 the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from the list as 175 defined in Table 4 below. 176

Table 4. Past Performance Confidence Ratings 177

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral No recent/relevant performance record is available, or the Offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of Past Performance.

Limited Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

None Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort. Proposal is ineligible for award

Offerors that receive a Factor 4 – Past Performance Confidence rating of None will be ineligible for 179 award. 180

9 Evaluation of Factor 5: Small Business Utilization 181

The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include Service-Disabled, 182 Veteran-Owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged 183 business concerns, and Women-Owned small business concerns) are identified in Attachment 4 - the 184 Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum 185 quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent of the total 186 proposed contract value (to include options). The Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) (if 187 applicable) will be assessed in accordance with FAR 19.704 and must reflect the level of small business 188 participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors are free to submit only a SBPCD, only a SBUP, or both, 189 as long as all information required by Attachment 4 and a thorough discussion of identification, 190 selection and utilization of small business concerns for more than simply administrative purchases is 191 contained therein. Careful consideration will be given to offerors’ dependence on small business 192 for critical technical aspects of their overall bid. The inclusion of significant engineering or 193 technical elements from small business and other than traditional defense and aerospace 194 contractors is considered a strength by SDA. 195

Table 5. Small Business Participation Ratings 196

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach to small business utilization and understanding of small business objectives

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach to small business utilization and understanding of small business objectives

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach to small business utilization and understanding of small business objectives

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an approach to small business utilization or understanding of small business objectives

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet MQR. Proposal is ineligible for award

Offerors that receive a Factor 5 – Small Business Participation rating of Unacceptable will be 198 ineligible for award. 199

9 Evaluation of Factor 5: Small Business Utilization