Attachment 3 - Evaluation Factors for Award (DRAFT).pdf

HQ085020R0001 Attachment 3

Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Basis for Contract Award This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016. The Government will select up to two of the most highly rated offerors that represent the overall best value to the Government.

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

1.1. Evaluation Methodology

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

Table 1

Factors Rating Methodology Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 1 Schedule

2 Technical

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

Overall Technical

Solution

2 Data Rights

Low Latency Intersatellite Crosslinks

Link 16 Tactical

Data Link

5 Networking/Routing

3 Past Performance Substantial

Confidence Satisfactory Confidence

Neutral Confidence

Limited Confidence

No Confidence

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 4 Small Business Participation

5 Price Reasonable Not Reasonable

1.2. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, Factors 1- 4 are approximately equal to Factor 5, Price.

The non-Price Factors are listed in descending order of importance. Within Factor 2, Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactors 2 – 5 combined. Subfactors 2, 3, 4, & 5 are of equal importance.

2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government will present up to three awards to the most highly rated offerors. The Government reserves the right to make less than three awards or make no awards at all.

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

3.1. Discussions

The Government anticipates participating in discussions after it makes a competitive range determination of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (FAR 15.306(c)). The Government intends to request Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from all offerors who remain in the competitive range. (However, see Competitive Range below.) Any proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified in Evaluation of Factor 1: Schedule.

3.2. Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, e.g. terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan submissions, organizational conflict of interest analysis results, 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 offeror being ineligible for award.

The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

4. Competitive Range In accordance with FAR 15.306, an offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time during discussions if the offeror is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated. This elimination can occur whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed, or if the offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit a proposal revision. The contracting officer 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.

5. Evaluation of Factor 1: Schedule The Government will assess the offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives contained in the Attachment 1 – Statement of Work based on information provided by the offeror in its proposal. This assessment will include the offeror’s ability to launch the transport space vehicles and the reasonableness and realism of the proposed schedule to meet these objectives within the specified period of performance. The evaluation will be based on the offeror’s proposed schedule, supporting explanatory text, and identified schedule risks. These artifacts will be evaluated on their ability to demonstrate understanding of tasks and activities required to accomplish the work, sequencing of these tasks and activities, identified dependencies and other schedule relationships, identification of critical path activities, and milestones and other schedule performance criteria to manage progress against the baseline schedule.

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

Table 2

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 worse 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 not awardable.

The Government will assign strengths, significant strengths, and/or deficiencies to the offeror’s proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 1 – Schedule rating. Strengths, significant strengths, deficiencies, weakness, and significant weakness are defined as follows:

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

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

• Deficiency - a material failure of an offeror’s 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

• Weakness - a flaw in the offeror’s 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

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

6. Evaluation of Factor 2: Technical The Government will assess the offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives in the Attachment 1 –Statement of Work based on information provided by the offeror in its proposal. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed technical approach and technical risks and their understanding and approach to satisfying the interoperability requirement, as defined and evaluated by the following technical Subfactors. Subfactor 1 is more important than Subfactors 2 – 5 combined for the Technical Factor. Subfactors 2 - 5 are of equal importance.

• Subfactor 1 – Overall Technical Solution

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed overall systems engineering approach and technical solution. This evaluation will focus on the offeror’s demonstrated understanding of all objectives in the Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and the technical risks in the offeror’s proposed technical solution to satisfying those objectives.

• Subfactor 2 – Data Rights

The Government will assess the offeror’s proposed approach for rights in technical data. The evaluation will focus on the technical and programmatic risks to demonstrating and verifying, the ability to achieve on-orbit interoperability between the transport space vehicles awarded under this contract.

• Subfactor 3 – Low-Latency Intersatellite Crosslinks

The Government will assess the offeror’s understanding and approach to satisfying the low latency intersatellite crosslinks. The offeror will be evaluated on technical performance, system pedigree, and technology readiness, and test, evaluation, and risk reduction and mitigation plans.

• Subfactor 4 – Link 16 Tactical Data Link

The Government will assess the offeror’s understanding and approach to satisfying the satellite downlink capability over the Link 16 tactical data link. The offeror will be evaluated on technical performance, system pedigree, and technology readiness, and test, evaluation, and risk reduction and mitigation plans (including a first, do-no-harm approach to operating within the Link 16 network).

• Subfactor 5 – Networking/Routing

The Government will assess the offeror’s understanding and approach to satisfying the networking architecture and protocols to establish an interoperable network between transport space vehicles (any configuration). The offeror will be evaluated on technical performance, system pedigree, and technology readiness, and test, evaluation, and risk reduction and mitigation plans.

Each technical Subfactor will receive a combined Technical/Risk rating. The combined Technical/Risk rating will include consideration of the significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies.

The combined Technical/Risk evaluation utilizes the combined Technical/Risk ratings listed in in Table 3 below.

Table 3

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 worse 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 not awardable.

The Government will assign strengths, significant strengths, and/or deficiencies to the offeror’s proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 1 – Schedule rating. Strengths, significant strengths, deficiencies, weakness, and significant weakness are defined as follows:

• Strength - an aspect of an 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

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

• Deficiency - a material failure of an offeror’s 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

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

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

Offerors receiving a Factor 2 - Technical rating of Unacceptable will be ineligible for award.

7. Evaluation of Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate Factor 3 based on information provided with the proposal as specified in Section L (Attachment 2). They may also use the following sources to evaluate past performance:

• Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

• Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

• Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

• Interviews with Government Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials

• Past performance questionnaires completed by Government customers from whom the offeror has received previous contract awards

The Government will evaluate the performance and quality of the offeror’s recent (within 5 years) and relevant record of past performance as a means of ascertaining its ability to accomplish the Attachment 1, SOW. The Government will review recent performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in the Attachment 1 – SOW. The following ratings will be assigned for relevancy:

• Relevancy Rating

Table 3

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Past or ongoing efforts involve the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Relevant Past or ongoing efforts involve similar scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Somewhat Relevant

Past or ongoing efforts involve some of the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Not Relevant Past or ongoing efforts involve little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (if applicable). This quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that results in an unsatisfactory rating on any formal rating system (e.g. CPARS) or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. Based on the evaluation, the offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from the list as defined in Table 5 below.

• Past Performance Confidence Rating Table 4

Adjectival Rating Description 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 factor 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 successfully perform the required effort. Proposal is not awardable.

Offerors that receive a Factor 3 – Past Performance Confidence rating of No Confidence will be ineligible for award.

8. Evaluation of Factor 4: Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include service-disabled, veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns) are identified in the Attachment 4 - Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five percent of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Small Business Utilization Plan (if applicable) will be assessed in accordance with FAR 19.704 and must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Careful consideration will be given to offerors dependence on small business for critical technical aspects of their overall bid. The inclusion of significant engineering or technical elements from small business and other than traditional defense and aerospace contractors is a strength.

Table 6

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating Description Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of small business objectives Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of small business objectives Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an approach and understanding of small business objectives Unacceptable Proposal does not meet MQR. Proposal is not awardable.

Offerors that receive a Factor 4 – Small Business Participation rating of Unacceptable will be ineligible for award.

9. Evaluation of Factor 5: Price

Because the types, configurations, and quantities of space vehicles (SVs) proposed will vary between proposals, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s price on a per-SV basis. This SV price will be calculated by dividing the offeror’s total proposed price by the number of SVs proposed. Lower prices will be evaluated more favorably.

The offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness. Proposals that are determined not be reasonable are not awardable.

The Government may use data external to the offeror's proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data.