Attachment 3 - T1DES Evaluation Factors for Award.pdf

HQ085022R0001 Attachment 3

National Defense Space Architecture

Tranche 1 Demonstration and Experimentation System (T1DES)

Evaluation Factors for Award

8 October 2021

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A: Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

Basis for Contract Award

In accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3, as supplemented by the Defense

FAR Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 215.3, and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection

Procedures dated 31 March 2016, the Government intends to select for award one (1) contract resulting from this solicitation to the responsible Offeror, whose offer conforms to the solicitation and will be the best value to the Government, in procuring the Tranche 1 Demonstration and Experimentation System

(T1DES) Space Vehicles. However, the Government reserves the right to make more than one (1) award or to make no awards at all. As described in FAR 15.101-1, the Government will evaluate offers using a competitive best value trade-off process among price and the non-price Factors listed herein. Thus, the

Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offerors, or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms in regard to price and technical capability.

In making its award decision, the Government will use the evaluation Factors shown in Section 1.1. The

Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. 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. The Government may reject any or all proposals, if such action is in the best interest of the Government, and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received.

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 Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The basis for evaluation for all Factors will be the Offeror’s full proposal. The Government will assign one of the color ratings described for the

Factors as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

Factors Rating Methodology

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

1 Schedule

2 Technical Solution

3 Technical Management & Processes

Substantial

Confidence

Satisfactory

Confidence Limited

Confidence

Neutral

Confidence

No

4 Past Performance

Acceptable Unacceptable

5 Small Business

Reasonable Not Reasonable

6 Price

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), when combined, Factors 1- 5 are approximately equal to Factor 6, Price. The non-Price Factors are listed in descending order of importance.

At the discretion of the Government, any Offeror receiving a rating of Unacceptable, Not Reasonable, or

No Confidence, in one or more Factor may be deemed ineligible for award and not further considered for selection.

Number of and Scope of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one Offer, resulting in the total procurement of eighteen (18) on-orbit

T1DES space vehicles (SVs), supporting ground systems, and operations and sustainment. However, the

Government reserves the right to make more than one award or to make no awards at all.

General Instructions

The Government will evaluate information that the Offeror(s) provide in response to Section L, Proposal

Instructions. 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 become ineligible for award.

3.1 Solicitation Requirements

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

3.2 Discussions

The Government may award without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range of the most highly rated proposals based on the ratings of each proposal against all evaluation criteria (FAR 15.306) and hold discussions. The Government may request Final Proposal

Revisions (FPR) from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range (see Section 4 - Competitive

Range below). Any proposal updates will be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified herein. The Government may suggest to Offerors that have exceeded any mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to the design), that their proposals would be more competitive if the excesses were removed and the offered price decreased.

3.3 Incorporating Proposal

As contemplated at FAR 15.306(d)(4), the Contracting Officer may incorporate beneficial aspects of the

Awardee's proposal into the contract, particularly those above threshold (minimum) attributes that positively contributed to an Offeror’s selection for award.

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 Final Proposal Revision (FPR). The Primary

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.

Evaluation of Factor 1 - Schedule

For Factor 1 – Schedule, the Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed schedule and their demonstrated ability to satisfy all requirements contained in the Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and

Technical Requirements Document, in a timely fashion.

The basis of the assessment will be the Offeror’s schedule and schedule margin as detailed in Volume III

– Integrated Master Schedule of their proposal, the Master Equipment List (MEL), the Manufacturability section of proposal Volume II – Technical, and the submitted video of the manufacturing processes. The

Government may also consider any schedule-related information provided within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in technical or management areas that affect schedule reasonableness or realism or contribute to schedule risk will also be considered in this assessment.

The Government will evaluate the schedule reasonableness and realism based on the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of tasks and activities required to accomplish the work, estimated duration of tasks and activities based on technical and manufacturing/production maturity, sequencing of these tasks and activities, identification of any dependencies and other schedule relationships (e.g., subcontractor/supplier delivery dates and delivery dates of Government-furnished material), critical path identification and analysis, identified schedule risks, risk response strategies, milestones, contractor and/or

Government decision gates, and schedule performance criteria used to manage progress against the integrated master baseline schedule. The Government will assign an overall Factor 1 - Schedule rating as described in Table 2.

Table 2

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating

Description

Outstanding

1. Proposed IMS meets schedule requirements and

2. Identified strengths considerably outweigh weaknesses and

3. The risk of unsuccessful schedule performance is low.

Good

2. Identified strengths outweigh weaknesses and

3. The risk of unsuccessful schedule performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable

2. Identified weaknesses do not outweigh strengths and

3. The risk of unsuccessful schedule performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal

1. Proposed IMS meets the schedule requirements and/or

2. Identified weaknesses outweigh strengths and/or

3. The risk of unsuccessful schedule performance is high.

Unacceptable

1. Proposed IMS does not meet the schedule requirements and/or

2. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies and/or

3. The risk of unsuccessful schedule performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is Ineligible for award.

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 1 – Schedule rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government, are defined as follows:

A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that appreciably lowers the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that lowers the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance

A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

A Deficiency is a material failure of the Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

Evaluation of Factor 2 - Technical Solution

For Factor 2 – Technical Solution, the Government will assess the Offeror’s demonstration that their technical solution will meet the system requirements in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Technical

Requirements Document inclusive of all Addendums. Evaluation credit may be given for solutions exceeding mandatory thresholds. The technical solution 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 technical solution includes but is not limited to, the following, as defined and described in Attachment 1:

A. The satellite bus, B. Mission payloads, their required interfaces, and specific test and verification plans, C. Telemetry, Tracking, and Command capabilities, D. Satellite system and subsystem integration and testing, E. External system interoperability, F. Capability of the Offeror to integrate and test partner payloads based on proposed SV capabilities, G. All Offeror-provided ground elements and their interfaces to external ground systems, H. Multi-vehicle integrated stack and launch vehicle integration, I. Selected launch solution, J. Launch and Early Operations (LEOps) and Transition to Operations (TTO), K. Design of mission communications Capstone event(s), and, L. Operations and sustainment.

The basis of the assessment will be the Offeror’s proposed technical solution and its mission utility, as provided in proposal Volume II – Technical and its appendices and attachments, the Master Equipment

List (MEL), and the SOW Cross-Reference Matrix.

The Government will identify strengths and weaknesses of the technical solution based on the fidelity of technical details provided on the technical design, evidence-based Technical Readiness Level (TRL) and

Manufacturing Readiness Level (MRL) assessments for subsystem or components, analysis or engineering products demonstrating the proposed design can meet Statement of Work (SOW) and

Technical Requirements Document (TRD) specifications, and results of any risk reduction efforts to date or detailed plans for risk mitigation during program execution. The Government will assign an overall Factor

2 - Technical Solution rating as described in Table 3.

Table 3

Color

Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding 1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirements and

2. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and

3. Identified strengths considerably outweigh weaknesses and

4. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is low.

Good 1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirements and

2. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and either

a. Identified strengths considerably outweigh weaknesses, and risk of unsuccessful technical performance is moderate or

b. Identified strengths outweigh weaknesses, and risk of unsuccessful technical performance is low.

Acceptable 1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirements and

2. Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and

3. Identified weaknesses do not outweigh strengths

4. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal 1. Proposed technical solution meets system technical requirements and/or

2. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the technical requirements and mission accomplishment and/or

3. Identified weaknesses outweigh strengths and/or

4. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is high.

Unacceptable 1. Proposed technical solution does not meet the technical requirements, and/or

2. Proposal contains one or more deficiencies and/or

3. Risk of unsuccessful technical performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is Ineligible for award.

Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government, are defined as follows:

A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the

Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

Evaluation of Factor 3 - Technical Management and Processes

For Factor 3 – Technical Management and Processes the Government will assess the Offeror’s overall management capability and demonstrated ability to meet the contract work performance requirements in

Attachment 1 - Statement of Work and Technical Requirements Document. The technical management and processes 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 basis of the assessment will be the Offeror’s proposed technical management and processes approach as provided in proposal Volume I – Governance and its appendices and attachments, the Manufacturability section of proposal Volume II – Technical, and the submitted video of the manufacturing processes. The

Government will identify strengths and weaknesses of the Technical Management approach based on demonstrated efficient and effective management methodologies, processes, and procedures to achieve

SOW and TRD objectives, including flow-down to subcontractors, demonstrated capabilities of key personnel who will enact the plan, ability to provide Government insight into progress, risks and issues, and the ability to execute the SOW and TRD without conflicting interests or priorities. The Government will evaluate the adequacy and sufficiency of the manufacturing processes and capability of the prime and major teammates. The Government will consider assumptions, dependencies, and constraints identified as potentially affecting mission payload Capstone events. Finally, the Government will assess the implications of the Offeror’s asserted technical data rights and how they could impact the Government’s ability to affordably operate and sustain the SVs over the life of the constellation. The Government will assign an overall Factor 3 – Technical Management and Processes rating as described in Table 4.

Table 4

Color

Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding 1. Proposal meets work performance requirements and

2. Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the work performance requirements and

3. Identified strengths considerably outweigh weaknesses and

4. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low.

Good 1. Proposal meets work performance requirements and

2. Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the work performance requirements and either

a. Identified strengths considerably outweigh weaknesses, and risk of unsuccessful contract performance is moderate or

b. Identified strengths outweigh weaknesses and risk of unsuccessful contract performance is low.

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

2. Identified weaknesses do not outweigh strengths and

3. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is no greater than moderate.

Marginal 1. Proposal meets work performance requirements and /or

2. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the work performance requirements and/or

3. Identified weaknesses outweigh strengths and/or

4. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is high.

Unacceptable 1. Proposal does not meet the work performance requirements of the solicitation and/or

2. Proposal contains one of more deficiencies and/or

3. Risk of unsuccessful contract performance is unacceptable.

Proposal is Ineligible for award.

Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies, in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government, are defined as follows:

A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the

Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

Evaluation of Factor 4 - Past Performance

For Factor 4 – Past Performance, the Government will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of work performance.

The Government will evaluate Factor 4 based on information provided within proposal Volume V – Past

Performance. The Government may consider past performance information not provided by the Offeror(s) including, but not limited to:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

Publicly available information

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

Interviews with Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or other personnel with managerial or oversight responsibilities related to the cited effort

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

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent (performance was within five calendar years of the proposal due date) and relevant record of past performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in the Attachment 1 – Statement of

Work and Technical Requirements Document.

The following ratings, in Table 5, will be assigned to the Offeror’s collective past performance for relevancy:

Table 5

Rating Description

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.

The Government will review the past performance information collected and determine the quality of the

Offeror's performance, general trends, and the usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the performance confidence assessment. More relevant past performance will have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance. In evaluating Past

Performance, the Government will consider the Offeror’s previously demonstrated:

A. Contract past performance, history and experience.

B. Ability to accomplish requirements to receive milestone or performance based payments. This includes activities such as interim deliverables, delivery of CDRLs or other technical and business reports, and completion of customer direction through task assignments or technical directions.

C. Ability to meet technical requirements and performance standards for previous work.

D. Ability to meet delivery or performance dates.

E. Demonstrated ability to design, develop, assemble, integrate, test, deploy, and operate new, novel, or hosted payload systems, subsystems, or components.

F. Approach to integrate exercise, test, or demonstration opportunities into an overall test and verification approach to ensure new, novel, or hosted payload elements function within mission performance constraints.

G. Safety and mission assurance performance record, including any safety mishaps and associated resolution.

H. 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).

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from Table

6:

Table 6

Color Rating Adjectival

Rating

Description

Substantial

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

Satisfactory

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

Limited

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

Neutral

No 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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)).

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Proposal is Ineligible for award.

Evaluation of Factor 5 - Small Business Participation

The evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment to the Small Business Program applies to all Offerors, except that Small Businesses are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting

Plan and will receive an acceptable rating.

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 Attachment 4 - Small Business

Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent (%) of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Government will assess the Small Business Utilization Plan

(SBUP) (if applicable) in accordance with FAR 19.704 and the SBUP must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors are free to submit only a SBPCD, only a SBUP, or both, as long as all information required by Attachment 4 and a thorough discussion of identification, selection and utilization of small business concerns for more than simply administrative purchases is contained therein. The Government will give careful consideration to an Offeror’s dependence on small business for critical technical aspects of its overall proposal, inspecting whether small business’ technical inclusion and participation will contribute significantly to the Offeror’s overall proposal. Simply including a standard corporate Small Business Plan without specific tailoring to the T1DES requirements will be considered unacceptable. The Government will assign an overall rating as described in Table 7.

Table 7

Color

Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives; meets or exceeds MQR.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the MQR. Proposal may be deemed Ineligible for award.

Evaluation of Factor 6 - Price

The Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness.

The Government will conduct price proposal evaluations in accordance with FAR 15.4, “Contract

Pricing.” Particular attention shall be given to FAR 15.404-1(b) entitled Price Analysis. Elements of FAR

15.404-1(b) that may be used in the evaluation include: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates;

and analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at FAR 2.101) provided by the

Offeror. 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 when evaluating price reasonableness. The Offeror’s price will also be used to assess best value as described in Section 1, with lower prices being evaluated more favorably.

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

EVALUATION OF OPTIONS (JULY 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for the purpose of determining price reasonableness by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement. Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)