Attachment 2 - Draft Section M ABAD.docx

TRADEOFF BETWEEN PRICE AND TECHNICAL APPROACH

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD: This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3 as supplemented. FAR 15.101 states that best value is obtained by using any one or a combination of source selection approaches.

1.0.1 Initially, the Government will evaluate all proposals via pass/fail Technical Acceptability on Past Experience and the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Task Order. All offeror’s proposals determined Technically Acceptable on the initial pass/fail evaluation will then provide an oral proposal for its technical approach to the scenario. The technical approach to the given scenario will be evaluated on an integrated assessment. Tradeoffs may be made between the technical approach to the scenario and cost/price, with the technical approach considered significantly more important than cost/price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgement is inherent to the selection process.

The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one (1) contract for the Air Base Air Defense (ABAD) Program. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.2 IDIQ Ceiling

The ceiling of the IDIQ is $953M. The total value of all task orders awarded under the IDIQ will not exceed this amount.

1.3 Minimum Guaranteed Task Order

The Operations and Maintenance (O&M) task order (Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001) will be awarded to the IDIQ awardee. The O&M task order shall satisfy the minimum order requirement. The Contractor that is awarded the ABAD IDIQ contract is not guaranteed any task order beyond the O&M task order.

1.3 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. 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 discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the Final Proposal Revisions are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 Responsiveness

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Government determining the Offeror to be non-responsive and 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.

Offerors are cautioned to submit the sufficient information that is specified in Section L. 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 contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.5 Proposals Substantiation.

Unsubstantiated and/or misleading claims for even a single Past Technical Experience evaluation criterion may result in the Government determining that the Offeror’s proposal is unqualified and render that proposal unawardable.

1.6 Responsibility

No award shall be made to an Offeror unless the Contracting Officer determines them to be responsible. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1. The Contracting Officer may consider information provided within any volume of the proposal when making the determination of responsibility.

1.7 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

Organizational Conflict of Interest issues are treated in a manner similar to responsibility determinations. An Offeror’s actual, potential, or perceived OCI concerns must be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized before that Offeror may receive the award of this contract.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

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

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Scenario Technical Approach Subfactor 2: Past Experience Subfactor 3: O&M Task Order

Factor 2: Price

Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: The Scenario Technical Approach will be evaluated as a tradeoff, with the Scenario Technical Approach evaluated as significantly more important than Price. The Past Experience and Operations & Maintenance Task Order will be evaluated as a pass/fail.

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

2.2 Evaluation Methodology

2.2.1 Technical Factor

First, the Government’s technical evaluation team shall only evaluate the technical subfactors 2 & 3 on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. Any proposal rated Technically Unacceptable in subfactors 2 & 3 will not be evaluated further. Second, the Government’s technical evaluation team shall conduct and evaluate oral proposals for technical subfactor 1 only for proposals that were evaluated as acceptable in subfactors 2 & 3. Technical subfactor 1 will be evaluated as a tradeoff with price, with subfactor 1 being considered as significantly more important than price.

Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. For a subfactor to be rated as acceptable, all aspects for that subfactor must be evaluated as acceptable. If any aspect is evaluated as unacceptable, then the entire subfactor will be evaluated as unacceptable. 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.

2.2.2 Pricing Factor

The Government shall evaluate all Technically Acceptable offers (and may evaluate Unacceptable offers with correction potential) for reasonableness, completeness, and balance of the cost/price proposal. Additionally, the Government shall evaluate the offeror’s initial task order cost proposal, to include any option years, for cost realism. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. All technically acceptable proposals shall be evaluated for the Cost/Price factor as indicated in section 4.0: Price Factor. Price will be evaluated as a tradeoff with Technical subfactor 1, the Scenario Technical Approach, with subfactor 1 being considered as significantly more important than price.

3.0 Factor 1: Technical

The proposals shall be evaluated against the following technical subfactors.

3.1 Subfactor 1: Scenario Technical Approach

Subfactor 1 shall describe the offeror’s capability to implement a successful response to the given scenario that meets or exceeds all stated thresholds. Failure to fully address the required information may render the proposal unacceptable. Subfactor 1 will be evaluated as significantly more important than price. The offeror’s oral proposal shall fully address each of the areas identified in Section L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents” 5.2.1 “Subfactor 1: Scenario.” The offeror’s oral proposal shall be evaluated based on the following performance criteria:

· No small Unmanned Aircraft Systems (sUAS) are able to penetrate the perimeter of the base fence line

· All cruise missiles are detected within 100 kilometer (km) (Threshold), 150 km (Performance Objective) of the base

· All cruise missiles are identified/categorized within 50 km (Threshold), 65 km (Performance Objective) of the base

· All cruise missiles are engaged/destroyed within 1 km (Threshold), 5 km (Performance Objective) of the base

· Must cost less than $20M (Threshold), $15M (Efficiency Objective), to procure, and $10M (Threshold), $7M (Efficiency Objective) to operate and maintain the capability per location each year or cost less than $20M (Threshold), $15M (Efficiency Objective) to lease, operate, and maintain each year.

· Must be sustained by no more than 15 personnel (Threshold), 10 personnel (Efficiency Objective) and operated by no more than 16 personnel (Threshold), 12 personnel (Efficiency Objective). This includes 24/7/365 days a year operation.

In accordance with Table 1M, Proposals will be rated as Outstanding (Blue), Excellent (Purple), Acceptable (Green), and Unacceptable (Red).

Table 1M Technical Rating Method for Scenario

3.1.1 Outstanding: For a proposal to be considered Outstanding, the proposal shall meet 2 performance objectives and 3 efficiency objective requirements, and receive a Risk rating of ‘No Risk’ in accordance with Table 2M.

3.1.2 Excellent: For a proposal to be considered Excellent, the proposal must meet all threshold requirements, meet at least three objective requirements as described in this section, and receive a Risk rating of no less than ‘Minimal Risk’ in accordance with Table 2M. To meet the three objective requirement, the proposal shall meet one objective from performance and efficiency each. The third objective can be from either performance or efficiency.

3.1.3 Acceptable: For a proposal to be considered Acceptable, the proposal must meet all of the threshold requirements and receive a Risk rating of no less than ‘Minimal Risk’ in accordance with Table 2M.

3.1.4 Unacceptable: For a proposal to be considered Unacceptable, the proposal does not meet one or more of the threshold requirements or has received a Risk rating of ‘Significant Risk’ in accordance with Table 2M.

Table 2M Risk Rating Method for Scenario

Two or more offerors that are given the same rating as one another will be susceptible to a best value decision by the Government based on the number of objective requirements met in addition to price; therefore the Government is not bound to the lowest Total Evaluated Price among those in the highest rated category in the event two offerors share a rating. The results of the Scenario Technical Approach evaluations will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in making the best value decision. The offeror is solely responsible for establishing the credibility of their Scenario Technical Approach proposal.

3.2 Subfactor 2: Past Experience

The Past Experience evaluation considers each offeror’s provided record of experience in supplying supplies/services that meet the solicitation requirements. In conducting the Past Experience evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided by the offeror, as well as other sources available to the Government to ensure the given Past Experience meets the requirements. The offeror’s proposal shall fully address the areas identified in Section L “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents” 5.2.2 “Subfactor Two (Past Experience).”

The offeror may submit three separate contracts, one contract that includes all three pieces, or any combination in between. However, if the same contract is meant to cover more than one Past Experience criteria, that same contract must submitted multiple times. For example, if a contract covers all three Past Experience criteria, that contract must be submitted thrice, once for Integration, once for Program Management, and once for Overseas Experience.

All past experience contract listings must contain the following elements: the contract number and task order number as applicable, contract period of performance, the offeror’s role in the contract, a description of how the experience is relevant, 1 customer points of contact (POC), POC titles, and current POC telephone numbers and e-mail addresses.

Offerors are cautioned to submit past experience information as specified in the Instructions to Offerors. Offerors may be asked to explain certain aspects of their past experience proposal (e.g., the relevance of past experience information) or respond to adverse past experience information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond.

Past experience will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. The table below outlines minimum requirement for each rating.

TABLE 2M – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

The Government will consider the experience quality of recent and relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). Past experience assesses whether there is a reasonable expectation the offeror will successfully perform the contract requirements based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past experience. As such, if the Government determines that past experience being provided to meet this criteria resulted in a Termination for Cause or a Termination for Default, the past experience shall not be counted as relevant.

Only recent past experience as defined in sections 3.2.1, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3 will be evaluated for relevancy. The past experience information in the proposal will be used to establish the relevancy of past experience. Information obtained from other sources may be used to establish the relevancy of past experience. Relevancy is defined as similar magnitude, scope and complexity.

Relevance of an effort in which the offeror participated as a subcontractor or under a joint venture arrangement will be determined based on the work performed by the offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the offeror performed, this effort may not be considered relevant.

Past experience is acceptable when it clearly meets the following criteria:

3.2.1 Integration

3.2.1.1 Recency

The offeror provided information on contract efforts that completed a minimum of two (2) years of experience during the past five (5) years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Past experience information that fails to meet this criterion will not be further evaluated and will be considered Unacceptable.

3.2.1.2 Relevancy

Relevancy in regards to magnitude includes contracts with a contract value of $10,000,000 or greater. Relevancy in regards to scope and complexity includes performance similar to the ABAD requirement, which includes at least two instances of integrating radar, electro-optical, mobile sensing, and/or multimodal sensor systems into a larger architecture. A larger architecture is defined as at least three relevant systems above networked together in the same command and control architecture.

3.2.2 Operation, Maintenance, and Program Management

3.2.2.1 Recency

The offeror provided information on contract efforts that completed a minimum of three (3) years of experience during the past 5 years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Past experience information that fails to meet this criterion will not be further evaluated and will be considered Unacceptable.

3.2.2.2 Relevancy

Relevancy in regards to magnitude includes contracts with a contract value of $20,000,000 or greater. Relevancy in regards to scope and complexity include Program Management performance on an operation and maintenance contract or contract similar to the ABAD effort. Program Management is defined as managing the cost, schedule, and performance of a contract.

3.2.3 EUCOM Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) Experience

3.2.3.1 Recency

The offeror provided information on contract efforts that completed a minimum of 2 years of experience during the past 5 years from the date of the issuance of this solicitation. Past experience information that fails to meet this criterion will not be further evaluated and will be considered Unacceptable.

3.2.3.2 Relevancy

Relevancy in regards to magnitude includes contracts with a contract value of $5,000,000 or greater. Relevancy in regards to scope and complexity includes any service contract in which the offeror was responsible for successfully obtaining SOFA in EUCOM. To be consider successful in obtaining SOFA in the EUCOM the offeror must provide proof of SOFA approval and a list/description of positions that received SOFA approval.

The results of the Past Experience evaluations will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in making the best value decision. The offeror is solely responsible for establishing the credibility of their Past Experience proposal.

3.3 Subfactor 3: Operations & Maintenance Task Order

The offeror’s proposal shall provide a thorough technical approach to how it will meet Section L’s “Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors or Respondents” 5.2.3 “Subfactor Three (O&M Task Order).” The offeror must demonstrate that it has a thorough understanding of the requirement, and as specifically as possible provide the actual methodologies that will be used to accomplish/satisfy the ABAD requirement.

O&M Task Order will be evaluated on an “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” basis. The table below outlines minimum requirement for each rating.

TABLE C-1 – TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATING METHOD

For a proposal to be determined acceptable the offeror shall provide a system engineering, staffing, maintenance and sustainment, and ABAD operation support plans that meet the criteria below.

A system engineering plan shall show the contractor’s understanding of the Ramstein Air Defense System Integration Laboratory (RADSIL), how the contractor will document the RADSIL, and how they will develop the theater wide ABAD system. The offeror must demonstrate a plan for how the offeror will take the theoretical three phase ABAD plan and turn it into an executable program, how the offeror will onramp emerging technologies and determine their relevance to mission performance, and the offeror’s system engineering approach to executing studies. To be considered acceptable, each factor in the systems engineering plan shall give the Government a reasonable confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

A staffing plan shall provide all necessary personnel with qualifications and a plan on how the personnel will operate and maintain the RADSIL. The offeror must demonstrate a personnel mix with qualifications within a personnel matrix that shows all the required skills identified within the RADSIL Task Order 0001 PWS are being met. The plan shall also identify any additional skills being provided that are not identified in the PWS. The offeror must demonstrate a plan to operate and maintain the RADSIL with the necessary manpower to operate and maintain the system during the normal duty day (Monday-Friday from 0730-1630 Central European Time). In addition, the staffing matrix shall identify how all required skills are being provided. To be considered acceptable, each factor in the staffing plan shall give the Government a reasonable confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The offeror must demonstrate, with reasonable confidence, a maintenance and sustainment plan that shows how the contractor will maintain and sustain the RADSIL hardware and software architecture, and show how the contractor will return the system to full mission capability during any hardware or software failures. The offeror must demonstrate, with reasonable confidence, how they will meet all requirements within sections 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, and 3.5 of the RADSIL TO 0001 PWS. To be considered acceptable, each factor in the maintenance and sustainment plan shall give the Government a reasonable confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort

An ABAD operations support plan shall include how the contractor will support threat system/equipment modifications, upgrades, modernizations, additions, replacements, and removals. The offeror must demonstrate, with reasonable confidence, a maintenance and sustainment plan that include a description on how the offeror will meet sections 3.3 and 3.4 of the TO 0001 PWS. To be considered acceptable, each factor in the operations support plan shall give the Government a reasonable confidence that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

The results of the O&M Task Order evaluations will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in making the best value decision. The offeror is solely responsible for establishing the credibility of their O&M Task Order proposal.

Price Factor

The Government shall evaluate all Technically Acceptable offers (and may evaluate Unacceptable offers with correction potential) for reasonableness, completeness, and balance of the cost/price proposal’s as indicated below. Additionally, the Government shall evaluate the offeror’s initial task order cost/price proposal, to include any option years, for cost realism. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

All technically acceptable proposals shall be evaluated for the Cost/Price factor as indicated in the Factor 2: Price

4.0 FACTOR 2: Price

4.1 Total Evaluated Price

a. The Government shall calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for each offeror using the Total Proposed Price (TPP) inputs indicated in paragraphs (4.2)(a) and (4.3)(a).

b. The TEP value is the sum of the Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001 TPP and FFP Labor Rates TPP.

c. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal TEP will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404, in order to determine if it is fair and reasonable. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. An offeror’s price must be determined fair and reasonable to be eligible for award.

d. The Government will use the TEP for evaluation purposes only. NOTE: At contract award Section L Attachment 3 Fixed Price Labor Rate Sheet shall become an attachment to the basic IDIQ contract and the FFP rates provided in the awardees proposal will be used on future FFP task orders.

e. The Government intends to award the initial Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001, at the offerors proposed cost plus associated fee, with the award of the ABAD Basic IDIQ contract.

4.2 Firm Fixed Price Labor Rates

a. Reasonableness: The contracting officer anticipates adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 to determine price reasonableness.

The FFP labor rates provided by the offeror in Section L Attachment 3 will have hour multipliers applied to each labor rate, for each year, in each location. The hour multipliers shall be the exact same values for all offerors. The FFP Labor Rate TPP for evaluation will be the summed value of all the proposed locations labor categories, across all the years of contract performance, after the application of the hour multiplier. The FFP TPP will be applied to the TEP.

b. Unbalanced Pricing: The Government will analyze the proposed FFP rates to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to yearly rate escalation in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Completeness: The Government shall review the offeror’s proposed FFP Labor Rates for completeness based on the completed Section L Attachment 3 FFP Labor Rates as indicated in section L. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that cost/price proposal is incomplete.

4.3 Ramstein RADSIL CPFF Task Order 0001

f. Reasonableness: The contracting officer anticipates adequate price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 to determine price reasonableness.

The TPP of the initial Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001 will be applied to the TEP for evaluation. NOTE: In the event that the Government’s performed cost realism analysis determines the offeror’s proposal to have a probable cost different than the proposed cost, the probable cost of performance will be used to derive the TPP value applied to the TEP for evaluation purposes.

g. The Government will analyze the Ramstein RADSIL task order proposals to determine whether CPFF CLIN 0001 is unbalanced with respect to yearly prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

h. Completeness: The Government shall review the offeror’s proposed Ramstein RADSIL task order for completeness based on the requirements contained in Section L of the solicitation.

i. Realism: The Government shall determine cost realism of the initial Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001 cost/price proposal. The offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to determine if it is realistic. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost to determine whether the proposed cost elements: are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. The Government shall evaluate the proposed labor and subcontract costs to determine cost realism on the initial Ramstein RADSIL Task Order. The Cost/Price team may confer with the Technical Evaluation Team for assistance in determining cost realism. Ramstein RADSIL Task Order 0001 cost/price proposals deemed by the Government to be unrealistic may not be eligible for award.

4.4 The results of the Cost/Price evaluations will be provided to the Source Selection Authority for consideration in making the best value decision. The offeror is solely responsible for establishing the credibility of their Cost/Price proposal.

FA5641-20-R-0007

Attachment 2