Attachment 5 - Evaluation Criteria.pdf

Fair Opportunity Proposal Request (FOPR) Attachment 5, (FA8811-24-R-B003)

Evaluation Criteria Acquisition and Financial Support Services (SAFS-2.1)

For

Assured Access to Space

Table of Contents

1.0 Basis for Awarding Task Order

2.0 Reserved

3.0 Interchanges

4.0 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

4.1 Relative Importance of Factors/Subfactors and Evaluation Approach/Ratings

4.2 Solicitation Requirements

5.0 FACTOR 1 – FOPR COMPLIANCE

5.1 Reserved

5.2 Model Task Order

5.3 Reserved

5.4 Current Facility Clearance

5.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

5.6 Total Compensation Plan

6.0 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

6.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

6.2 Subfactor 2: Cost Estimate Problem Statement #1 & #2 Responses

6.3 Subfactor 3: Strategic Cell, Acquisition Planning and Strategic Communications Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 Responses

7.0 FACTOR III – PRICE

7.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

7.2 Price Reasonableness

7.3 Limitation on Subcontracting

7.4 Unbalanced Pricing

8.0 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

ATTACHMENT 5: EVALUATION CRITERIA

1.0 Basis for Awarding Task Order

This effort will be awarded to the Offeror whose proposal satisfies the requirements of the Instructions to Offerors (ITO), the established Evaluation Criteria, and provides the best value to the Government in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 16.505(b). Award of the Task Order (TO) will be accomplished using the Best Value Tradeoff method as allowed under FAR Part 16.505. The competitive award will reflect the contract line-item number structure reflected in the model task order.

The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who provides Space Systems Command (SSC) Assured Access to Space (AATS) an optimal approach that will effectively and efficiently meet the requirements described in the AATS/SAFS-2.1 TO Performance Work Statement (PWS). This may result in an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror, or other than the highest technically rated Offeror whose proposal is deemed acceptable, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation Factors/Subfactors, and the Decision Authority (DA) reasonably determines the Offeror provides the best value.

While the Government Evaluation Team will strive for maximum objectivity, the decision process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process. While the DA may use reports and analyses prepared by others, the decision shall represent the DA's independent judgment.

By proposing to this solicitation, the Offeror consents to all solicitation requirements including: terms and conditions and technical requirements. Failure to comply with all of the terms and conditions listed in this Evaluation Criteria and ITO, may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

2.0 Reserved

3.0 Interchanges

In accordance with FAR 16.505, the Government will evaluate proposals for this fair opportunity competition. The Government intends to award a TO without Interchanges. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct Interchanges if in the Government’s best interest.

Interchanges are fluid interaction(s) between the Procuring Contracting Officer (PCO) and the Offerors that may address any aspect of the proposal and may or may not be documented in real time. The Government intends to make an award based on the initial proposal submissions without conducting Interchanges. Therefore, each offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint.

However, the Government reserves the right to hold Interchanges using Interchange Notices (INs) if, during the evaluation, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government. Although the Government reserves the right to have interchanges, the Government reserves the right to not conduct the interchange process regarding the problem statements and scenarios submitted for Factor 2, Subfactors 2 and 3.

Offeror responses to INs will be considered in making the order selection decision. Interchanges may be conducted with one, some, or all Offerors as the Government is not required to conduct Interchanges with any or all Offerors responding to this FOPR.

4.0 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal as seen in Tables 4-1 to 4-3.

Table 4-1 Evaluation Factors/Subfactors

EVALUATION FACTORS EVALUATED RATING

Factor 1 - FOPR Compliance

Model Task Order

Acceptable/Unacceptable Current Facility Clearance

OCI Mitigation Plan

Total Compensation Plan

Factor 2 - Technical

Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach (Personnel Management Plan and Contractor Staffing Matrix)

Outstanding/

Good/

Acceptable/

Marginal

Unacceptable

Subfactor 2 - Problem Statement #1 & #2 Responses

Outstanding/

Good/

Acceptable/

Marginal/

Unacceptable

Subfactor 3 – Scenario #1 & #2 Responses

Outstanding/

Good/

Acceptable/

Marginal/

Unacceptable

Factor 3 –Price

TEP Used in best-value trade-off with Factor 2 - Technical.

Price Reasonableness Yes / No Limitation on Subcontracting Yes / No Unbalanced Pricing Yes / No

4.1 Relative Importance of Factors/Subfactors and Evaluation Approach/Ratings

The relative importance of each Factor/Subfactor are as follows: Factor 2 - Technical is significantly more important than Factor 3 - Price. Within Factor 2, the three (3) Subfactors will each have their own ratings.

Subfactor 1 is significantly more important than Subfactors 2 and 3 combined, and Subfactors 2 and 3 are of equal importance.

The Government evaluation team will first evaluate Factor 1- FOPR Compliance and if Factor 1 is rated “unacceptable”, the proposal may be eliminated from the competition without any further evaluation and thus ineligible for award. If Factor 1 is rated “acceptable”, the evaluation team will then evaluate each Factor 2 Subfactor. If any Factor 2 Subfactor is evaluated as “unacceptable” this will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, ineligible for award.

For Factor 3 – Price, the Government will evaluate the proposal for reasonableness, unbalanced pricing, and compliance with FAR Clause 52.219-14 – Limitation on Subcontracting. A proposal will be ineligible for award for this Task Order if the Government determines the proposed price is unreasonable or the Offeror is not in compliance with FAR Clause 52.219-14. An offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

A tradeoff will be made between Factor 2 - Technical Subfactors and Factor 3 - Price where Factor 2 is significantly more important than Factor 3 - Price. A tradeoff based on the relative importance of factors/Subfactors may result in an award to other than the lowest priced Offeror or other than the highest technically rated Offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the DA determines the awarded approach is in the best interest of the Government. The Offeror is reminded that, in accordance with paragraph 3.0, the Government intends to award this task order based on the initial proposal, as received, without Interchanges.

Table 4-2 FOPR Compliance Ratings

Table 4-3 Technical Ratings

Factor 1 – FOPR Compliance Rating Description Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the Minimum requirements.

Unacceptable Proposal does not clearly meet the Minimum requirements.

Factor 2- Technical (Applied to each Subfactor)

Rating Description

Outstanding

• Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements;

• Contains multiple significant strengths; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low

Good

• Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements;

• Contains multiple strengths or at least one significant strength; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is low

Acceptable

• Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements; and

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate

4.2 Solicitation Requirements

Offerors are required to meet or exceed all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, OCI 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.

5.0 FACTOR 1 – FOPR COMPLIANCE

See Table 4-2 for Factor 1 ratings.

5.1 Reserved

5.2 Model Task Order

Offerors will be evaluated on whether they accurately complete/sign the model task order in accordance with the ITO.

5.3 Reserved

5.4 Current Facility Clearance

Offerors will be evaluated on whether they provided the Current Facility Clearance in accordance with the ITO. Additionally, the Offeror’s proposal will be evaluated on whether it is consistent with the DD 254 requirements in the FOPR.

5.5 Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan

Offerors will be evaluated on whether they provided an OCI Disclosure and Analysis Form in accordance with ITO Attachment 4-8. In the event there are actual or potential OCIs, the Offeror will be evaluated on whether they provided an OCI Mitigation Plan along with a completed OCI Mitigation Plan Checklist in accordance with ITO Attachment 4-8, noting any current or foreseen OCI concerns.

NOTE: Whether the OCI Mitigation Plan adequately addresses all actual or potential OCIs by clearly explaining how the OCI will be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized will be assessed/considered as part of the PCO’s contractor responsibility determination.

5.6 Total Compensation Plan

Marginal

• Proposal does not demonstrate an adequate approach and understanding of requirements; and/or

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is high

Unacceptable

• Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies; and/or

• Risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable

• Proposal is un-awardable.

Offerors will be evaluated on whether they, as well as their subcontractors, provide a Total Compensation Plan for all professional employee labor categories proposed to perform the effort in accordance with the ITO Paragraph 5.6. Offerors will also be evaluated on whether they provided a list of subcontractors to include points of contact and phone numbers of who will be submitting professional employee compensation packages to the Government. Failure by the prime or subcontractors to submit their Total Compensation Plan may result in the proposal being rated unacceptable under this Factor.

NOTE: Whether the Total Compensation Plan demonstrates a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements with proposed salary and fringe benefits that will facilitate the recruitment and retention of employees will be assessed/considered as part of the PCO’s contractor responsibility determination.

6.0 FACTOR 2 – TECHNICAL

The Technical Volume is comprised of the Offeror’s responses to the following ITO Attachments and will be evaluated at the Subfactor level.

- Subfactor 1 – Technical Approach: Personnel Management Plan (ITO Attachment 4-1) and

Contractor’s Staffing Matrix (CSM) (ITO Attachment 4-2)

- Subfactor 2 – Problem Statement Responses: Problem Statement #1 Response (ITO

Attachment 4-3) and Problem Statement #2 Response (ITO Attachment 4-4)

- Subfactor 3 – Scenario Responses: Scenario 1 # Response (ITO Attachment 4-5) and Scenario

#2 Response (ITO Attachment 4-6).

The Government may assign significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, or deficiencies to the Offeror’s proposal, which are defined below:

- Significant Strength - An aspect of an Offeror's proposal with appreciable merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the considerable advantage of the Government during contract performance.

- Strength - An aspect of an Offeror’s proposal with merit or that will exceed specified performance or capability requirements to the advantage of the Government during contract performance.

- 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.

- Deficiency - A material failure of a 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.

When evaluating each Technical Subfactor, the Government may find certain areas that are advantageous or considerably advantageous to the Government, such as the speed of transition/on-ramping beyond Minimum Requirements; qualification requirements proposed that are beyond Minimum Qualification Requirements; the number of Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) proposed beyond the Minimum FTE Requirements, etc. in the Technical Approach or other Subfactors. The Government reserves the right to incorporate significant strengths and strengths into the contract.

When the significant strength or strength is incorporated into the contract, it will become a requirement in the contract throughout execution. For example, if the Offeror proposes a CSM with the number of FTEs beyond the Government Minimum Staffing Requirements, the Government will attach the CSM to the successful Offeror’s awarded contract, and it will be considered the Minimum Staffing Requirements throughout contract performance. In execution, the contractor may staff higher than the Minimum Staffing Requirements but not below the Minimum Staffing Requirements.

If the Offeror receives unacceptable on any Subfactor, they will be deemed un-awardable.

6.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

See Table 4-3 for rating criteria for this Subfactor.

The Government will evaluate:

- The extent to which the Offeror's Personnel Management Plan meets or exceeds the

Government Minimum Qualification Requirements in PWS Section 3.1.17, and the credibility of the Offeror's proposal with respect to transition, management, staffing stability, and staffing plan;

- The extent to which the Offeror’s Personnel Management Plan demonstrates efficient on-boarding of personnel so that all Key Personnel are in place No Later Than (NLT) 15 calendar days after task order performance start and all other personnel are in place NLT 30 calendar days after performance start; and

- The extent to which the proposed CSM meets or exceeds the Government’s FTE Requirements identified in ITO Attachment 4-2 Government Minimum Staffing Requirements.

6.2 Subfactor 2: Cost Estimate Problem Statement #1 & #2 Responses

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror's estimate provides accurate calculations, insightful analysis, adequate documentation, and in compliance with all applicable regulations for the Cost Estimation Problem Statements.

See ITO Attachment 4-3 & 4-4 for details on the problem statements.

6.3 Subfactor 3: Strategic Cell, Acquisition Planning and Strategic Communications Scenario #1 and Scenario #2 Responses

Scenario 1: The Government will evaluate the efficacy of the Offeror’s strategic analysis to inform the development of acquisition strategy and engagement plan that communicates this strategy to achieve relevant stakeholder buy-in and complies with applicable laws and regulations.

Scenario 2: The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s response develops a credible engagement product that effectively communicates the topic to external stakeholders.

See ITO Attachment 4-5 & 4-6 for details on the scenarios.

7.0 FACTOR III – PRICE

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Pricing Matrix to ensure Reasonableness, compliance with Limitations on Subcontracting, and the absence of Unbalanced Pricing. The Government will compute a TEP which will be used by the TO Decision Authority in making the best value determination.

See Table 4-1 for rating criteria for this Factor.

7.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

For purposes of evaluation, the TEP for each proposal is calculated as follows: the sum of the amounts for all Firm-Fixed Price (FFP) labor Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), Cost Reimbursable Other Direct Cost (ODC) CLINs, and Cost Reimbursable General Services Administration (GSA) Contract Access Fee CLINs for the basic period and all option periods.

Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

7.2 Price Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business, in effect, not unreasonably high. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For additional information on determining reasonableness see FAR 31.201-3. In accordance with FAR 15.403-3, the Government may require the submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price.

A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1 in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price has been proposed. The proposal will be ineligible for award for this TO if the price is determined as unreasonable.

7.3 Limitation on Subcontracting

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal to ensure that the proposal complies with FAR Clause 52.219-14. The Offeror will be determined non-responsive and ineligible for award if this criterion is not met.

7.4 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items despite an acceptable TEP. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

8.0 RESPONSIBILITY DETERMINATION

No award shall be made unless the PCO makes an affirmative determination of responsibility. To be determined responsible, an Offeror shall:

- Meet the general standards described in FAR 9.104-1;

- Provide an OCI Mitigation Plan that adequately addresses all actual or potential OCIs by clearly explaining how the OCI will be avoided, mitigated, or neutralized.

- Provide a Total Compensation Plan that demonstrates a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements with proposed salary and fringe benefits that will facilitate the recruitment and retention of employees.