ATTACHMENT 10 IDIQ SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS.pdf

Acquisition Delta, Innovation and Prototyping Space Test Program (STP)

Space Test Experiment Platform 2.0 (STEP 2.0)

Attachment 10 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

RFP: FA8809-24-R-B001

Version 1.0 Space Systems Command

Acquisition Delta, Innovation and Prototyping DoD Space Test Program

(SSC/SZIS)

Kirtland Air Force Base Albuquerque, NM 87117

ATTACHMENT 10 SECTION M EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD FA8809-24-R-B001

Acquisition Delta, Innovation and Prototyping Space Test Program (STP)

Space Test Experiment Platform 2.0 (STEP 2.0)

SUBMITTED BY:

Date Signed

DAVID J. LORE, Major, USSF Program Manager, STEP 2.0

APPROVED BY:

BRIAN A. SHIMEK, Lt Colonel, USSF Director, DoD Space Test Program

Date Signed

Change History

Version Effective Date Prepared by Changes

1.0 10 May 2024 Maj LORE, DoD STP Document Creation

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded M.1.2 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers M.1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals M.1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions M.1.4.1 Contractor Responsibility

M.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

M.2.1 General M.2.1.1 Evaluation Criteria M.2.1.1.1 Factor 1: Gateway Questionnaire M.2.1.1.2 Gateway Questionnaire Evaluation Criteria M.2.1.1.3 Factor 1: Prior Customer Questionnaire M.2.1.1.4 Factor 2: Small Business (SB) Evaluation M.2.1.1.5 Contracts

Tables of Tables

Table M - 1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

M.1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

This source selection is conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent a technically acceptable proposal to all qualifying Offerors (FAR 2.101) to the Government. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgement is implicit throughout the entire process.

M.1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded In accordance with FAR 15.304(c)(1)(ii), the Government intends to award a Multiple Award Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to all qualifying Offerors determined to be capable of meeting Space Test Experiments Platform (STEP 2.0) requirements. See paragraph M.1.4 for responsibility determination details. Each proposal will be assessed IAW the methodology outlined herein. The Government reserves the right to make less awards or no awards at all. All qualifying Offerors awarded a basic contract will be awarded a Space Craft (SC) and Ground Technical Specification Sheet (SGTSS) Delivery Order, which satisfies the minimum order requirement.

M.1.2 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be noncompliant in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or technically unacceptable such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of proposals.

The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. The Government intends to award without discussions.

The Government, however, reserves the right to conduct discussions if deemed in its best interest. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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 IAW FAR 52.215-1(f)(4).

However, 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 of discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined unacceptable and ineligible for award. Clarifications and communications as defined in FAR 15.306 do not constitute discussions.

M.1.4 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) analysis results, other information required, representation and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror’s proposal being determined ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

In accordance with Section 1612 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (P.L. 115-91) and SSC Instruction (SSCI) 64-101, the Contracting Officer may not award a contract to a contractor included on the CRWL without making a determination of responsibility and obtaining the approval of the SSC Commander. A contractor that has been notified that it has been added to the CRWL may respond to this solicitation but must submit documentation in this volume describing how it has addressed the conditions that resulted in its inclusion on the CRWL and why those conditions will not impact performance on a contract resulting from this solicitation. Proposed subcontractors must notify the prime Offeror if they receive notification from the SSC Commander that they have been added to the CRWL.

In order to be considered for a subcontract, a proposed subcontractor that has been added to the CRWL must submit documentation describing how it has addressed the conditions that resulted in its inclusion on the CRWL and why those conditions will not impact its performance on a subcontract to a contract resulting from this solicitation. The Contracting Officer will consider this information as well as other available information in making the determination of responsibility or non-responsibility required by FAR 9.103.

In addition, in accordance with Section 1612 of the NDAA for FY18 (P.L. 115-91), SSCI 64- 101, and either 52.212-4 (if commercial) or the SSC Class Deviation of FAR clause 52.244-2, Subcontracts (if non-commercial), in this solicitation, the offeror must receive written consent of the Contracting Officer prior to subcontracting with any contractor on the CRWL for any subcontract valued in excess of $3M or 5% of the prime contract value, whichever is lesser. The Contracting Officer may not provide this consent without obtaining the approval of the SSC Commander. Offerors must inform proposed subcontractors that the proposed subcontractors must notify the offeror if the proposed subcontractors have been notified by the SSC Commander that they have been included on the CRWL.

M.1.4.1 Contractor Responsibility No award shall be made unless the Contracting Officer makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror must meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1 and DFARS 209.104-1.

M.2. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

M.2.1 General The Government will conduct the source selection utilizing a streamlined approach. Evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal based upon an acceptable/unacceptable assessment.

Each Offeror’s proposals will be evaluated independently, on its own merit, according to the evaluation criteria stated in the RFP.

M.2.1.1 Evaluation Criteria

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Gateway Questionnaire(s) Subfactor 2: Prior Customer Questionnaire(s) Factor 2: Small Business Participation

Factor 1 (Technical) will be rated at the subfactor level as either acceptable or unacceptable. Factor 2 (Small Business Participation) will be rated as the factor level as either acceptable or unacceptable.

All Technical subfactors and the Small Business factor must be rated as acceptable in order for an offer to be eligible for award. They are considered to be of equal importance.

M.2.1.1.1 Technical Subfactor 1: Gateway Questionnaire

The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award. 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.

Table M - 1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

*This evaluation methodology applies to the Gateway and Prior Customer Questionnaires as both are Technical subfactors.

a) The Offeror provided a Gateway Questionnaire in accordance with (IAW) the instructions in

Section L of this solicitation, showing the Offeror's ability to meet the minimum requirements to be eligible for award.

b) The Offeror responded to each question in the Gateway Questionnaire and responses are evaluated as Acceptable. Offeror shall select one checkbox for each question in column (B) and/or (C) where applicable. The Government will evaluate Gateway Questionnaire responses based upon the direct answer to each question and the narratives in each section that are used to validate the response. Each question must be deemed Acceptable for an Offeror to be eligible for

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

award. All Gateway questionnaire questions will be evaluated as either “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined by the DoD Source Selection Procedures, reflected in Table M-1 above.

c) If multiple Gateway Questionnaires are received, the responses in each questionnaire must be evaluated individually as acceptable. If any response on one questionnaire is deemed unacceptable, it renders the entire subfactor as unacceptable.

M.2.1.1.2 Gateway Questionnaire Evaluation Criteria

Question specific evaluation criteria for a response to be “Acceptable” are defined below.

(1) In Question 1, the Offeror selected “Yes.” The Government substantiated that the proposed SC has a form factor at or between the sizes of a 6U CubeSat and the maximum mass and volume of a Multi-Manifest Design Specification (MMDS) Rev 1.0a Class 2 SV. CubeSat form factors mass and volume shall follow the latest revision of the California Polytechnic State University CubeSat Design Specification.

(2) In Question 2;

a. The Offeror selected “No” that the SC identified in Question 1 has not had any significant system modifications or changes since the last flight that established the flight heritage.

OR

b. The Offeror selected “Yes” and provided sufficient information that any Class 1 changes to the Offeror’s flight proven, heritage baseline design have been verified or there is a detailed plan for verification of these changes.

(3) In Question 3;

a. The Offeror selected “Yes.” The Offeror provided evidence to substantiate its response via an applicable mission that the SC identified in Question 1 performed on-orbit PL operations including PL commanding and distribution of PL data to the PL operations center for a minimum of 365 days consecutively.

OR

b. The Offeror selected “No,” but the Offeror provided evidence to substantiate that

i. The Offeror’s SC is currently on-orbit and will reach 365 days of on-orbit operation within 30 days following release of this solicitation.

OR

ii. PL mission requirements were less than 365 days, but the SC continued to operate for the full 365 days.

(4) In Question 4, the Offeror shall have knowledge of the spectrum process demonstrated by providing the Government with one of the following:

a) The Offeror selected “Yes.” An approved FCC License or equivalent document for the spacecraft to be proposed. The Offeror provided identification of the mission in which the Offeror had spectrum responsibility.

b) The Offeror selected “No” and provided a sufficient knowledge of the process to achieve spectrum certification and frequency authorization.

(5) In Question 5;

a. The Offeror selected “US Entity.” Any teaming partner(s) are a United States (US) entity.

b. The Offeror selected “US Subsidiary.” The Offeror proceeds to answer questions 5-1 through 5-3 in accordance with the below.

(5-1) Question 5-1 of the Gateway Questionnaire is applicable only to Offerors that are a US subsidiary of a foreign entity.

a. The Offeror has selected “Yes.” The Offeror has integration and testing facilities within the US. The Offeror has all engineering and technical support personnel necessary to perform integration and testing within the US and composed of US citizens and has provided Department of State/Directorate of Defense Trade Controls registration number.

b. The Offeror has selected “N/A.” This is only acceptable if Question 5 has been answered “US Entity.”

(5-2) Question 5-2 of the Gateway Questionnaire is applicable only to Offerors that are a US subsidiary of a foreign entity.

a. The Offeror has selected “No.” The Offeror does not require one or more export authorizations, such as a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA), between the Offeror and PL(s) to be hosted onto the SC.

b. The Offeror has selected “N/A.” This is only acceptable if Question 5 has been answered “US Entity.”

(5-3) Question 5-3 of the Gateway Questionnaire is applicable only to Offerors that are a US subsidiary of a foreign entity.

a. The Offeror selected “No.” The Offeror does not require one or more export authorizations, such as a Technical Assistance Agreement (TAA), between the Offeror and the US launch organization provided by the Government for launch of the SV.

b. The Offeror has selected “N/A.” This is only acceptable if Question 5 has been answered “US Entity.”

(6) In Question 6;

a. The Offeror selected “Yes.” The government substantiated, based on the Offeror’s submittal of applicable missions and Prior Customer Questionnaire, that the proposed SC has operated on-orbit for a minimum of 365 days, with a launch date within the past five years from the date of the proposal.

b. The Offeror selected “No.”

i. The PL mission requirements were less than 365 days, but the SC continued to operate for the full 365 days.

OR

ii. The Spacecraft will reach on-orbit operations of 365 days by the proposal submission deadline.

(6-1) Question 6-1 of the Gateway Questionnaire provides information that the Offeror performed an applicable mission in the following items and can be substantiated by the Prior Customer Questionnaire:

(I) held the responsibility (prime or subcontractor) for all roles listed:

a. Spacecraft/bus manufacturer

b. Conducted SV Integration and Test (I&T)

c. Conducted space vehicle to launch vehicle interface

d. Conducted pre-launch operation support and launch support

e. Conducted on-orbit space vehicle checkout

f. Mission operator

(II) Operated in either Low Earth Orbit (LEO) or a Geosynchronous Orbit (GEO) in an applicable mission. An Offeror’s response of “Other” may be deemed acceptable by the Government if the orbit was in a Geostationary Transfer Orbit (GTO) or in a Geosynchronous disposal orbit for an applicable mission.

(III) The Offeror shall, at a minimum, have one mission listed applicable to the SC identified in Question 1 in the corresponding Gateway Questionnaire. The Offeror may use missions from a non-proposed SC to fulfill this question in mission tables two and three, or choose to do all for the proposed SC.

M.2.1.1.3 Technical Subfactor 2: Prior Customer Questionnaire

The Offeror provided a Prior Customer Questionnaire (PCQ) with the submittal of the proposal in accordance with (IAW) the instructions in Section L of this solicitation, substantiating the Offeror’s responses and ability to meet the minimum requirements to be eligible to receive an award. The rating methodology follows that outlined for the Gateway Questionnaire in Table M.1 above. Failure to submit the PCQ will deem the proposal non-responsive and immediately disqualify the Offeror from award consideration. The Offeror is responsible for providing the completed PCQ from their prior customers as part of their proposal submittal.

Sections I, IIA, IIB will be evaluated on completeness of the information. Section IIC must reflect no less than 365 days on-orbit upon the time of proposal submission. The launch date must be within the last five (5) years. The orbit should signify either LEO or GEO to support the Question 6-1 of the Gateway questionnaire.

Section III must show that the offeror performed each responsibility area as either the prime contractor or subcontractor. In the event of multiple PCQs, each questionnaire will be evaluated on its own. If any response on one questionnaire is deemed unacceptable, it renders the entire subfactor as unacceptable.

M.2.1.1.4 Factor 2: Small Business (SB) Participation

a) Similar to both subfactors in Factor 1, the SB Participation Factor evaluation will result in

Offeror ratings according to the following methodology of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as depicted in Table M-2 below.

Table M – 2 Small Business Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Model

RATING DESCRIPTION

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

b) The Offeror’s proposed small business participation in the Small Business Participation

Commitment Document (SBPCD) reflects a good faith plan to meet the desired threshold of 2% of the total of the STEP 2.0 IDIQ value. The contractor will also provide the methodology used to construct SBPCD goals. The contractor will be evaluated on the criteria listed below.

1. The extent to which such firms are specifically identified in proposals;

2. The extent of commitment to use such firms (for example, enforceable commitments are to be weighted more heavily than non-enforceable ones)

3. The complexity and variety of the work small firms are to perform

4. The extent of participation of such firms in terms of the value of the total acquisition and

5. The realism of the proposal

c) The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must correspond to the SBPCD and not create a conflict. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan must adhere to the requirements found at FAR 19.704(a). The Small Business Advisor will assist in the Evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting Plans.

M.2.1.1.5 Contracts

The proposal documentation contained in Volume II will be reviewed to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation, and the provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the Procurement Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility and to determine eligibility for award. This will include the evaluation of potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCIs). Acceptable OCI Mitigation Plan(s) will be officially incorporated into the contract at time of award.

Representations, Certifications and Other Statements of Offerors

The Offeror shall complete all certifications and representations required by this RFP.

Contractor Responsibility

The Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) will make a responsibility determination in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 9.104-1 as supplemented, after the evaluation of proposals to determine whether an Offeror is eligible for contract award. In accordance with Section 1612 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 (P.L. 115-91) and SSC Instruction (SSCI) 64-101, the PCO will not award a contract to a contractor included on the Space Force Space Contractor Responsibility Watch List (CRWL) without the approval of the SSC Commander.

Contractor will be evaluated upon timely proposal submission of all Volumes (I-III) through the proper PIEE module and, if necessary, adherence to Classified Information submission directions. Additionally, the evidence of team member companies or commercial financial agreements provided should be acknowledged by all parties involved.

Conflicts of Interest

The Government will review the Offeror’s OCI Mitigation Plan and OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist to ensure compliance with DAFFARS 5352.209-9000 ALT II, III, IV, & VI (Oct 2010). To receive an affirmative responsibility determination, the Contracting Officer must conclude that the otherwise successful Offeror’s proposed OCI Mitigation Plan is acceptable.

Executive Summary

The Government will not evaluate the Executive Summary Vol III.

Date3_af_date: 5/16/24