Attachment 14_Section M_12Nov2024.pdf

BASIS FOR AWARD (Section M)

1. Basis of Award Determination:

a. An award will be made to the offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government, with appropriate consideration given to four (4) evaluation factors: Factor 1- Technical Performance, Factor 2 - Past Performance, Factor 3 - Cost/Price and Factor 4 - Small Business Participation.

The relative order of importance for these Evaluation Factors is as follows:

Factor 1- Technical Performance is more important than Factor 2 – Past Performance. Factor 2 – Past Performance is more important than Factor 3 - Cost/Price. Factor 3 - Cost/Price is more important than Factor 4 - Small Business Participation. All evaluation factors other than cost or price, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3 - Cost/Price. Offerors shall be cautioned that the award may not necessarily be made to the lowest priced proposal.

2. Factors and Subfactors to be Evaluated:

1. Factor 1 – Technical Performance: This factor is further divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach

b. Subfactor 2 – Management Approach

Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactor 2.

The evaluation of the offeror’s proposal shall address each Technical subfactor as it applies to the Performance Work Statement (PWS). A detailed explanation of the criteria for the evaluation is set forth in the “Evaluation Approach,” section. The Government will assign each Technical subfactor an adjectival rating and write a narrative evaluation reflecting the identified findings when evaluating each proposal.

2. Factor 2 – Past Performance: Each offeror’s past performance will be reviewed to determine recency, relevancy, and quality.

3. Factor 3 – Cost/Price: The resulting award will be a C-type contract with FFP, Cost, and CPFF CLINs. Cost realism will be utilized in the evaluation of Cost Reimbursable efforts. Price reasonableness will be utilized in the evaluation of the Firm-Fixed Price effort.

4. Factor 4 – Small Business Participation: Each offeror’s level and degree of commitment to utilize small business in execution of the requirement will be evaluated.

b. General Notes:

1. To receive consideration for award, a rating of no less than “Acceptable” must be achieved for the technical factor (to include all subfactors) and the Small Business Participation factor.

2. Any “other than small business offeror” must have an acceptable Small

Business Subcontracting Plan to receive an award in accordance with FAR 19.702(a).

3. The Government’s expectation is that the proposals shall be clear, concise, and include sufficient detail for effective evaluation and for substantiating the validity of stated assertions. The proposal shall be specific, detailed and complete as to clearly and convincingly demonstrate that the Offeror has a thorough understanding of the requirements and associated risks, and is able, willing, and competent to devote the resources necessary to meet the requirements and has valid and practical solutions for all requirements. Mere reiteration of the requirement or standard reference material is inadequate It’s the Offeror’s responsibility to present enough information to be meaningfully evaluated without discussions. Features offered beyond the requirement of this solicitation will be incorporated into the awardee’s contract award.

4. Offerors shall assume that any data previously submitted in response to another solicitation, whether submitted to the Program Executive Office for Simulation, Training and Instrumentation, ACC-Orlando or to another agency, shall be assumed to be unavailable during this proposal evaluation and source selection process. Proposal data shall not be incorporated into the proposal by referring to another proposal or other source.

5. Offerors shall assume that the Government has no prior knowledge of their facilities and experience. The Government will base its evaluation on only the information presented in the Offerors proposal. In presenting material in their proposal, Offerors are advised that quality information is more important than quantity. Statements that the prospective offeror understands, can or will comply with the PWS, and statements paraphrasing the requirements or parts thereof are unacceptable.

6. In accordance with FAR 52.215-1, Instructions to Offerors – Competitive Acquisition, the Government intends to make award without discussions (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be necessary.

The Government will evaluate all proposals in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.305(a), and if discussions are to be conducted, establish a competitive range comprised of all of the most highly rated proposals, based upon the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation factors and subfactors. The decision to establish a competitive range will be made at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer. After evaluating all proposals in accordance with FAR Subpart 15.305(a), the Contracting Officer may also determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which efficient competition can be conducted. Offerors are therefore advised that the Source Selection Authority, for purposes of efficiency, may also limit the number of competitive range offerors, at their sole discretion. In accordance with FAR 15.306(d), discussion sessions with each offeror may be held. Should discussions take place, all offerors in the competitive range will be allowed a minimum of 14 calendar days to submit Final Proposal Revisions.

7. Offerors should be cautioned that each Factor and Subfactor will be reviewed on a stand-alone basis. Therefore, offerors are cautioned that cross-referencing shall be avoided.

8. The ultimate source selection decision will not be made by the application of a predefined formula, but rather by the conduct of a tradeoff assessment among the evaluation criteria, and by the exercise of sound business judgment on the part of the Source Selection Authority (SSA). The contract will be awarded to the offeror whose proposal represents the best overall value to the Government based on the evaluation criteria set forth herein.

9. If an offeror’s proposal offers a method or approach that exceeds the Government’s advertised requirements in some manner, the Government reserves the right to modify the final contractor prior to award in such a manner as to make those proposed enhancements the minimum Government requirement upon award.

10. To be eligible for award, the offeror is required to meet all solicitation requirements, including all terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements. The Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

11. The Government may reject any proposal that it evaluates to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, assumptions, or unrealistically high or low cost or price as assessed by the Government, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

12. 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 may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

13. Government exchanges with Offerors after receipt of proposals must be conducted through the Contracting Officer and do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer unless such a determination is made by the PCO.

14. All proposals shall be subject to evaluation by a team of Government evaluators, advisors, and non-Government support. Scientific, Engineering, and Technical Assistance (SETA) Contractors may assist the Government throughout the performance of any resulting contract in a support capacity.

Government Contractors supporting the evaluation process will be required to sign and submit Source Selection Participation Agreements (SSPAs) and must disclose any associated financial interests to the Government. These individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary for them to perform their respective duties. Such firms are expressly prohibited from competing on the subject acquisition. In accomplishing their duties related to the source selection process, employees of contractor firms may require access to proprietary information contained in the Offerors’ proposals. Therefore, pursuant to FAR 9.505-4, the below firms must execute an agreement with each Offeror that states that they will (1) protect the Offerors’ information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary, and (2) refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. In accordance with FAR 9.505-4(b), copies of these agreements shall be submitted as part of the administrative volume. The point of contact (POC) information for each of the firms will be provided to offerors upon request.

3. Evaluation Approach:

a. Summary: The Source Selection Team (SST) will evaluate all proposals. The SST will not evaluate proposal pages that exceed the page count specified in Table 1.A (from Section L). The Government, at its discretion, will remove excess pages over the maximum allowed. The following pages will not be removed:

Cover, Summary/Overview, Table of Contents, Table of Figures, Table of Tables.

1. The overarching evaluation approach for all factors and subfactors is as follows:

a. Adequacy of Response. The proposal will be evaluated to determine whether the offeror’s methods and approach have adequately and completely considered, defined, and satisfied the requirements specified in the RFP. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which each requirement has been addressed in the proposal in accordance with the proposal submission section of the RFP.

b. Feasibility of Approach. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the proposed approach is workable and the end results achievable. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which successful performance is contingent upon proven devices and techniques. The proposal will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror is expected to be able to successfully complete the proposed tasks and technical requirements within the required schedule.

2. Factor 1 – Technical Performance. This factor is divided into the following subfactors:

a. Subfactor 1 (Technical Approach): This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Technical Approach. Marginal levels of overall Technical Approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Government will evaluate the risk of Offeror’s unsuccessful contract performance for each of the items on this Sub-Factor. The evaluation will focus on the offerors:

1. System Availability. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed approach to meet the TADSS availability (Ao=95%) and the contracted mission requirements.

2. Configuration Management. The Government will evaluate the

Offeror's approach for maintaining technical documentation, configuration management (hardware and software), and system status updates. The Government will assess the robustness of Offeror’s process, including the tools and systems used, for managing changes and maintaining configuration integrity; and will assess the effectiveness of the Offeror’s approach for ensuring proper documentation and system updates are tracked and communicated to stakeholders.

3. New Site Activation. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's process for activating new training sites. The Government will evaluate the clarity and feasibility of the activation process, ensuring it is well-organized and addresses potential risks and challenges; will assess the logistics planning, including staffing, transportation, installation processes, and coordination with site personnel; and will assess the timelines proposed for the activation and the scalability of the solutions to handle multiple site activations simultaneously.

4. Cybersecurity. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's process for obtaining and maintaining an Authorization to Operate (ATO) and Authorization to Connect (ATC) for TADSS devices and support equipment. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s security policies, procedures, and practices for ATO/ATC certification, including the associated timelines and documentation;

will evaluate the effectiveness of the offeror’s approach for mitigating cybersecurity risks and ensuring ongoing compliance with security standards; and will evaluate the Offeror’s process for ensuring continuous monitoring, incident response, and remediation.

5. Supply Chain. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to provide effective solutions to forecast, identify, monitor, and resolve deficiencies due to supply chain challenges, Diminishing Manufacturing Sources (DMS), obsolescence, material shortage issues and systemic problems within the current TADSS.

The Government will assess the robustness and proactive nature of the Offeror’s supply chain management strategy; will evaluate the Offeror’s plans for tracking and resolving supply chain issues in real time and the tools they employ to manage this process; and will evaluate the Offeror’s approach to meet supply chain demands without impacting the operational readiness of TADSS systems.

b. Subfactor 2 (Management Approach): This subfactor evaluates the offeror’s proposed Management Approach. Marginal levels of overall Management Approach could indicate a lack of understanding concerning mission requirements and may result in the entire proposal receiving an unfavorable rating and/or being eliminated from the competitive range. The Government will evaluate the risk of Offeror’s unsuccessful contract performance for each of the items on this Sub- Factor. Major emphasis will be placed on the following:

1. Organizational Structure. The Government will evaluate the

Offeror's organizational structure (inclusive of subcontractors) to ensure that the Offeror understands the labor resources required to effectively handle technical requirements, contract management, administrative responsibilities, and scope of the contract.

2. Roles and Responsibilities. The Government will evaluate the

Offeror's organization flowchart to ensure the offeror has clearly defined lines of responsibility, clearly defined levels of decision authority, clearly defined location of personnel, and adequate and efficient communications/interfaces.

3. Management Strategy. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Management strategy to hire and retain proposed specialized and technical skills, staffing level, and knowledge base required to achieve requirements through the life of the contract.

This plan shall address the Offeror’s mitigation strategy for handling potential funding shortfalls and subsequent reprioritization of manpower and logistics resources.

4. Surge. The Government will evaluate Offeror's approach to overtime, surge, and prioritization of manpower resources.

5. Transition Risk Mitigation.

a. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan to ensure the offeror understands the scope and complexity of this contract.

b. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan and milestone chart to gain confidence that the Offeror has demonstrated a detailed understanding of the transition required during the phase-in period and will be fully operational at the completion of the phase-in period.

c. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s transition plan and milestone chart that describes how the Offeror intends to implement and support transition activities during the transition phase out-period at the end of the contract.

d. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed contract key transition milestones to ensure the Offeror addresses minimum necessary activities and proposes realistic execution timeframes.

e. The Government will evaluate Offeror’s identified contract transition risks (such as transfer of classified information, GFP/GFI, etc.) and proposed mitigation approach to ensure offeror understands the specific risks for this transition.

6. Subcontract Management Approach. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s subcontract management approach, including minor mods and annual service and support agreements.

7. Government Furnished Information and Property. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach to managing support resources, technical data, spares, support equipment, maintenance, Government-Furnished Property (GFP) accountability, device status reporting, minor modifications, and technicians to ensure normal and surge trainer availability requirements.

8. Inventory Control. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach to purchasing, inventory control, and inventory reporting.

c. Offerors shall address all elements within Subfactor 1 (Technical

Approach) within Subfactor 1 (Technical Approach). All elements within Subfactor 2 (Management Approach) shall be addressed within Subfactor 2 (Management Approach). These are separate evaluation areas that will be evaluated on a stand-alone basis.

d. In accordance with the Army Source Selection Supplement (AS3), Section 3.1, the Army methodology for evaluating Technical Approach and Related Risk is the Combined Technical/Risk Rating, (see Table 1 below). This methodology considers risk, in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.

3. Factor 2 – Past Performance Factor. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s record of past and current performance to ascertain the probability of successfully performing the required efforts of the PWS.

a. Evaluation of past performance shall be in accordance with this plan utilizing the forms and questionnaires set forth in Appendix D.

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one 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/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is not awardable.

b. The Government will focus its inquiries on the offeror’s (and major subcontractor’s) record of performance as it relates to all solicitation requirements, including cost, schedule, performance, management of subcontractors and compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. For the purposes of this SSP/Requirement, major subcontractors are defined as members of an offeror’s overall team who are expected to perform twenty percent (20%) or more of the proposed effort. A significant achievement, problem, or lack of relevant data in any element of the work can become an important consideration in the evaluation process. Therefore, offerors will be reminded to include the most recent and relevant efforts (within the past three years) in their proposal. Absent any recent and relevant past performance history or when the performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will be assigned a “neutral confidence rating” and its proposal will not be evaluated either favorably or unfavorably on past performance. The Government may use data provided by the offeror in its proposal and data obtained from other sources, including data in Government files or data obtained through interviews with personnel familiar with the contractor and their current and past performance under Federal, State or Local government or commercial contracts for same or similar services as compared to the NAICS 541330 Exception 01.

c. Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) Government and/or commercial contracts which are relevant to the efforts required by this solicitation and were performed or awarded during the past three (3) years from the issue date of this solicitation. Of the five contracts, offerors shall submit no more than three (3) for the prime offeror and no more than two (2) for major subcontractors. The Government may consider a wide array of information from a variety of sources but is not compelled to rely on all the information available.

d. The past performance factor considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract requirements. There are three (3) aspects to the past performance evaluation: recency, relevancy, and quality.

1. Recency: The first aspect is to evaluate the recency of the offeror’s past performance. Recency is generally expressed as a time period during which past performance references are considered relevant and is critical to establishing the relevancy of past performance information.

2. Relevancy: The second aspect is to determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the offeror is to the effort to be acquired through the source selection. Relevancy is not separately rated; however, the following criteria (see Table 2) will be used to establish what is relevant which shall include similarity of service/support, complexity, dollar value, contract type, and degree of subcontract/teaming.

Table 2 - Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

3. Quality Assessment: The third aspect assesses the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. Documented results from Past Performance Questionnaires, interviews, CPARS, and other sources form the support and basis for this assessment.

e. Performance Confidence: Utilize the Performance Confidence

Assessment (see Table 3 below) to select the most appropriate confidence level for each Offeror. Ensure the rationale for the conclusions reached are included.

Table 3 - Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

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 Confidence

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 Confidence 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 facto of past performance.

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

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

4. Cost/Price Factor. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated as follows.

a. Completeness. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s and applicable subcontract proposals for completeness. For a cost/price proposal to be complete, it must comply with all requirements of the solicitation and any attachments and exhibits. Incomplete price submissions may be a reason to be eliminated from competition. The offeror shall complete the pricing information for all CLINs for the base period and option periods (include total prices for all periods). Any underlying assumptions including proposed escalation rates between base and subsequent option periods shall be clearly explained.

b. Unbalanced Pricing. The Offeror’s overall Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for unbalanced pricing as defined in FAR 15.404-1(g). An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (see FAR 15.404- 1(g)(1) through FAR 15.404-1(g)(3)).

c. Errors. The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be reviewed for errors. The Offeror may be given an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of their proposal at the sole discretion of the Contracting Officer.

d. Financial Capability. The Government will verify if the Offeror has adequate financial resources to perform the contract or the ability to obtain them in accordance with FAR 9.104-1(a) Contractor Qualifications.

e. Business Systems. The Government will verify the adequacy of the Offeror’s business systems. Per FAR 16.301-3 Limitation’s indicates that all potential awardees with a cost-reimbursable contract, must have an approved accounting system prior to contract award.

f. Basis of Estimate (BOE). The Government will evaluate the detailed BOEs and supporting documentation for the base direct labor rates and indirect rates provided for the fully burdened labor rates proposed.

g. FFP Evaluation. All FFP CLINs will be evaluated for price reasonableness. Price realism will not be performed. For a price to be fair and reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. The Offeror’s proposed fixed-price CLINs may be evaluated using one or more of the techniques described in FAR 15.404-1 to determine if they are fair and reasonable.

h. Price Analysis. All Priced CLINs will be evaluated using the price proposal analysis techniques identified in FAR 15.404-1. Adequate price competition is expected in response to this solicitation, normally resulting in a determination of a fair and reasonable price.

i. Cost Analysis. Cost evaluations of the CPFF CLINs will include the analyses of base direct labor rates, indirect rates, overtime premium, and escalation and the additional Offeror information provided to support these proposed costs. The analyses will be performed in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. The analyses performed will include evaluations of the proposed hours, skill mix, and direct FTEs proposed to support the Offeror’s proposed solutions. Cost realism adjustments may be made based on the Government’s evaluation of proposed costs. No analysis will be performed on Cost CLINs priced using Not-to-Exceed amounts provided by the Government.

j. Total Evaluated Price. A total evaluated price (TEP) will be determined for each offeror. The TEP is an adjustment from the offeror’s total proposed price for evaluation purposes only and does not change the overall proposed price. It ensures an apples-to-apples comparison between the proposals and is a consideration point in the best value award determination. The TEP shall be rank ordered to show the lowest TEP. Please note that the award will not necessarily be made to the offeror with the lowest priced TEP.

The TEP consists of summing the offeror’s proposed FFP CLINs; all Cost type CLINs, plus or minus any adjustments made to the Cost reimbursable (Cost and CPFF) CLINs for the probable cost identified during the Cost Realism Analysis; and the total price for the final 6 months of the contract period of performance to account for Option to Extend Services clause FAR 52.217-8. This price will be calculated by dividing the final option period (option year 4) in half and adding the 6-month price to the TEP.

k. SCA and CBA. The Government will evaluate the SCA rates and CBA Rates proposed for the outlying years to ensure that the escalation rate of 3% was applied.

l. Total Compensation Plan. The Government will evaluate the Total

Compensation Plan IAW FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees for prime and major subcontractors. The Government will evaluate the plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements.

This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories may be rated as a weakness within the technical factor as it may impair the Offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. If a complete compensation plan with sufficient detail is not provided for effective evaluation, then it may constitute a basis for the Government to reject a proposal as non-compliant and therefore unacceptable (Ineligible for Award).

5. Small Business Participation Factor.

a. Small Business prime Offerors in accordance with 13 CFR § 125.3(g)(3) and FAR 15.305(a)(5), shall receive the maximum evaluation rating of OUTSTANDING, which is defined as “Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives,” for the Small Business Participation evaluation factor, without having to submit any further information in connection with the Small Business Participation evaluation factor.

b. Large Business Prime Offerors will be evaluated for whether the Offeror meets or exceeds the Small Business Participation requirement of no less than 27.0% of the Total Contract Value in each 12-month period during the BASE PERIOD, each OPTION PERIOD, and the Six-Month Option to Extend Period, with representation from Small Business, which are also comprised of Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB), Veteran-Owned Small Business (VOSB), Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business (SDVOSB), Women-Owned Small Business (WOSB), and Historically Underutilized Business Zone Small Business (HUBZone).

Proposals not meeting the Small Business Participation requirement of no less than 27.0% may be considered ineligible for award.

c. Small Business Participation Commitment Document. The

Government will verify the total value in the Small Business Participation Commitment Document is consistent with the Total Contract Value, as stated in Section B, Contract Minimum/Maximum Quantity and Contract Value. Proposals that are not consistent between the Small Business Participation Commitment Document and the Total Contract Value, may be considered “Unacceptable,” and therefore rejected; the Contracting Officer will notify an Offeror if the proposal is rejected in accordance with FAR 15.503(a)(1).

d. Complexity and Variety of Small Business Work. The Government will evaluate the complexity and variety of the subcontracted work assigned to small business firms, as defined by FAR Part 19; increased complexity and variety that supports the growth of the small business capabilities will be rated more favorably and weighted more heavily than lower complexity or variety approaches.

e. Role of Small Business Firms and Processes. The Government will evaluate the Prime Offeror’s process for identifying, competing, and selecting small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, for subcontracted work, in order to meet or exceed the Small Business Participation requirements. Detailed processes focused on increasing Small Business Participation will be weighted more heavily than generic or non-existent ones.

f. Commitments to Use Small Business Firms. The Government will evaluate the documentation regarding individual and enforceable commitments (i.e., signed letter of intent or teaming agreement signed by both parties) to utilize small business firms, as defined in FAR Part 19, for subcontracted work, in order to meet or exceed the Small Business Participation requirements. For evaluation purposes, an unsigned letter of intent or teaming agreement shall be treated as non-enforceable/non-binding documentation.

g. Compliance with FAR 52.219-8 Requirements. The Government will evaluate compliance with FAR clause 52.219-8, entitled “Utilization of Small Business Concerns,” for the past three (3) calendar years, from the release date of this solicitation, under no more than five (5) separate relevant Federal Government contracts. If a Prime Offeror states in their proposal that they have no prior performance supporting contracts with FAR 52.219-8 requirements, the Prime Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

h. Compliance with FAR 52.219-9 Requirements. The Government will evaluate compliance with the requirements of FAR clause 52.219-9, entitled “Small Business Subcontracting Plan,” for the past three (3) calendar years, from the release date of this solicitation, under no more than five (5) separate relevant Federal Government contracts. If a Prime Offeror states in their proposal that they have no prior performance supporting contracts with FAR 52.219-9 requirements, the Prime Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably.

i. Small Business Participation Ratings. Ratings described below shall be used for the Small Business Participation evaluation and an “Adjectival” rating will be assigned to each Prime Offeror.

Small Business Participation Ratings

Color Rating Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of the small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives.

6. Evaluation Definitions

Significant Strength

An aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that has appreciable merit or appreciably exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be appreciably advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Strength An aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Significant Weakness

A flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Deficiency 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.