Attachment 4 - Evaluation Factors.pdf

Solicitation HQ085020R0003 Section M

Attachment 4

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR THE

SDA TRACKING LAYER TRANCHE 0 (T0)

WIDE FIELD OF VIEW (WFOV) PROGRAM

Dated June 15, 2020

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. For the WFOV program the Government anticipates up to two (2) awards to 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 is subjective and 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 and Rating Methodology

Factors Rating Methodology Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 1 Schedule

2 Technical

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

1 Space Vehicle Technical Solution

2 Mission & System Engineering

3 Data Rights

3 Past Performance – Confidence Substantial Satisfactory Neutral Limited None

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable 4 Small Business Utilization

- Price Reasonable Not Reasonable

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

The non-price Factors 1 - 4 are listed in descending order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factors 1 - 4 when combined are significantly more important than Price. Within Factor 2, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and both are more important than Subfactor 3.

2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

Given no unforeseen challenges, the Government will make up to two (2) awards to the most highly rated Offerors. The Government reserves the right to make less than two awards or make no awards at all.

3 General Instructions

The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this document, information in the three volumes that the Offeror provides 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 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 (see Competitive Range below). Any proposal updates shall be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified above and in Section 5 through Section 9. If SDA determines that no more than two (2) Offerors submit technically sound proposals, have relevant past performance that offers confidence in their ability to perform and offer a reasonable price, then SDA reserves the right to immediately award to those Offerors per their submitted proposals without discussions.

3.2 Solicitation Requirements

Offerors 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 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 Non-Price Factor 1: Schedule

The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives contained in the Statement of Work (SOW), based on information provided by the Offeror in its proposal. This assessment will include the Offeror’s ability to enable launch of the T0 WFOV 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. Schedule Ratings

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 greater 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 ineligible for award.

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, in order of decreasing value to the Government and decreasing likelihood that the Offeror remains within the competitive range:

• Significant Strength is 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

• Strength is 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

• Weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Significant Weakness is a flaw in the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

• Deficiency is 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

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

6 Evaluation of Non-Price Factor 2: Technical The Government will assess the Offeror’s understanding and approach in satisfying all objectives in the SOW and TRD 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 implementing T0 WFOV requirements while ensuring tracking mission integration with interfacing systems, as defined and evaluated by the following technical Subfactors. Subfactors 1 and 2 are of equal importance and both are more important than Subfactor 3.

• Subfactor 1 – Space Vehicle Technical Solution

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed overall space vehicle engineering approach and technical solution, with emphasis on the OPIR system performance. This evaluation will focus on the Offeror’s demonstrated understanding of all objectives in the SOW and TRD and the technical risks in the Offeror’s proposed technical solution to satisfying those objectives.

The Government will prioritize technical solutions that have future extensibility or pedigree to a minimum cost – maximum coverage sensor for future tranches.

• Subfactor 2 – Mission & System Engineering

The Offeror will be evaluated on integration and interoperability with other Tracking Layer Tranche 0 systems, the SDA Transport Layer, and OPIR enterprise architecture and Missile Defense System constituents; system, sustaining and mission engineering performance;

technology readiness; and, test, evaluation, and risk reduction and mitigation plans. The evaluation will focus on the technical and programmatic risks to demonstrating and verifying the ability to achieve on-orbit and ground-based integration and interoperability of T0 WFOV mission data as well as the likelihood of program success enabled or hindered by the Offeror’s proposed mission, system, sustaining and/or risk engineering processes and tools.

• Subfactor 3 – Data Rights

The Government will assess the Offeror’s proposed approach for rights in technical data. The evaluation will focus on how the proposed solution is enabled or hindered by any limitations in technical data rights proposed by the Offeror. While the Government understands that commercial items do not convey the same level of data rights as items developed under Government funding, SDA expects that Offerors will make every effort to ensure that continued dependence on commercial hardware and software does not burden SDA with excessive costs for maintenance and operations over the lifetime of the SVs.

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 Table 3 below.

Table 3. Subfactor Technical / Risk Ratings

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 greater 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 ineligible for award

The Government will assign strengths, significant strengths, and/or deficiencies to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the overall Factor 2 – Technical rating. Strengths, significant strengths, deficiencies, weakness, and significant weakness are defined as follows in order of decreasing value to the Government and decreasing likelihood that the Offeror remains within the competitive range:

• Significant Strength is 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

• Strength is 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

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

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

• Deficiency is 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

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

7 Evaluation of Non-Price Factor 3: Past Performance

The Government will evaluate Factor 3 based on information provided with the proposal as specified in Section L, Proposal Instructions. 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 Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or other customer personnel fulfilling insight/oversight roles;

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

• Submitted résumés of proposed Key Personnel.

7.1 Relevancy

The Government will evaluate Offeror’s recent (within 5 years) and relevant record of past performance as a means of ascertaining its ability to perform successfully the tasks identified in the SOW. The Government will review recent, relevant performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in the SOW. The Government may also consider the source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in Offeror’s performance.

The relevancy of past performance information will be reviewed as described in Table 4:

Table 4. Past Performance Relevency Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

Very Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by most of the same personnel involving the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by some of the same personnel involving similar scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Somewhat Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by a few of the same personnel involving some of the same scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

Not Relevant Past or ongoing efforts performed by very few or none of the same personnel involving little or none of the scope, magnitude, and complexity required to meet the Attachment 1 Statement of Work

7.2 Confidence

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 Government evaluation of relevant and recent past performance, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from the list defined in Table 5 below. In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the

Offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance, but assigned a Neutral Rating for Factor 3.

Table 5. Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Adjectival Rating Description

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

None 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 ineligible for award

Offerors that receive a Factor 3 – Past Performance Confidence rating of None will be ineligible for award.

8 Evaluation of Non-Price Factor 4: Small Business Utilization

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 - the 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 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (SBSP) (if applicable) will be assessed in accordance with FAR 19.704 and must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors are free to submit only a SBPCD, only a SBSP, 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. 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 considered a strength by SDA.

Table 6. Small Business Participation Ratings

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach to small business utilization and understanding of small business objectives

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach to small business utilization and understanding of small business objectives

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach to small business utilization and understanding of small business objectives

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an approach to small business utilization or understanding of small business objectives

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet MQR. Proposal is ineligible for award

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

9 Evaluation of Price Factor:

The Offeror’s pricing will be evaluated for reasonableness. The Offeror’s proposed use of commoditized buses or approach to commoditize a bus will be evaluated as a contributor to overall price reasonableness.

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.

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

Based on the table to be included in Volume II, SDA will evaluate each Offeror’s reasonable total price for delivering space vehicles in quantities from 1-8. Lower prices will be evaluated more favorably.