Attachment 4 - Evaluation Criteria (15Mar24).pdf

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Attachment 4

Orbital Services Program-4 (OSP-4)

ON-RAMP #2

Evaluation Criteria

Basic: 15 March 2024

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award: This source selection is conducted In Accordance With

(IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at https://acquisition.gov/. Contract(s) may be awarded to

Offerors deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposals conform to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by

Attachment 3, Instructions to Offerors, of this solicitation) and are judged, based on the evaluation factors, to be capable of meeting the requirements of the Government.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award the basic contract to all Offerors capable of meeting Orbital Services Program-4 (OSP-4) requirements, however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

The Offerors will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR 9.1, as supplemented by DFARS and DAFFARS, and proposals that do not conform to the solicitation’s requirements may be determined to be ineligible for award.

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

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals: The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency or uncertainty. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions. However, if during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the

Government to establish a competitive range and hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.0 Evaluation Factors: The evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal based upon an integrated assessment. The applicable factor(s) will be evaluated as either

“Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as defined by the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table

C-1, below. A failure to meet any requirement will result in an “Unacceptable” rating.

Technical (Factor 1)

Capability Questionnaire http://farsite.hill.af.mil/reghtml/regs/far2afmcfars/fardfars/far/15.htm https://acquisition.gov/ https://www.acq.osd.mil/dpap/policy/policyvault/USA004370-14-DPAP.pdf

Table C-1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

3.0 Volume II - Technical (Factor 1)

3.1 Capability Questionnaire: Per Attachment 3 – Instructions to Offerors, Appendix

A, the requirement is met and determined acceptable when:

i. The Offeror completed the mass-to-orbit table on question one and the evidence narrative substantiates the Offeror’s response.

ii. The Offeror selected A or B on question two and the evidence narrative substantiates the Offeror’s response.

iii. The Offeror selected A or B on question three and the evidence narrative substantiates the Offeror’s response.

iv. The Offeror selected A or B on question four and the evidence narrative substantiates the Offeror’s response.

4.0 Volume III – Contract Documentation: The proposal documentation contained in

Volume III will be reviewed to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation, and the provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the

Contracting Officer’s determination of contractor responsibility and to determine eligibility for award. This will include the evaluation of potential Organizational Conflicts of Interest

(OCIs).