Attachment 8 - RMWT LEO GEPs Section M Eval Factors.pdf

FA240126R0003 ATTACHMENT 8

Resilient Missile Warning Tracking (RMWT) Low Earth Orbit (LEO) Ground Entry Points (GEPs)

Attachment 8 – Section M, Evaluation Basis for Award 18 September 2026

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

M.1.0 BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

M1.1 GENERAL

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Revolutionary FAR Overhaul (RFO) and Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, 20 August 2022, and. These regulations are available electronically at the FAR Site, https://www.acquisition.gov/far-overhaul, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) and Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022.

The contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government.

The Government will select for contract award the Offeror whose proposal is determined to offer the best value to the Government, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical proposal and Management proposal (Evaluation Factors 1 and 2), Past Performance (Evaluation Factor 3), Small Business Participation (Evaluation Factor 4) and Price (Evaluation Factor 5). The combined Technical, Management and Past Performance factors are more important than the Price factor in the Government’s best value decision. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines the superior rating of factors outweighs the price difference. The SSA will base the Source Selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all Source Selection criteria in the solicitation. While the Government source selection team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

M1.2 NUMBER OF CONTRACTS TO BE AWARDED

The Government intends to award one (1) contract as a result of this solicitation; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted, and the availability of funds. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror.

M1.3 CORRECTION POTENTIAL OF PROPOSALS

A competitive range of the most highly rated proposals will be established IAW RFO 15.204-1 in the event that negotiations with Offerors are to be conducted (see Paragraph 1.4, below). The correction potential of deficiencies is one consideration in setting any such competitive range. However, an assessment of the correction potential of proposals includes the ability of an offeror to overcome any evaluation finding (or combination of findings) that would otherwise cause the offeror’s proposal to be excluded from the competitive range. 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.

M1.4 NEGOTIATIONS

The Government reserves the right to award a contract without negotiations to the Offeror that represents the best value to the Government (RFO 15.203). To prepare for that possibility, each initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from both a technical and price standpoint. The Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in the proposal. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold negotiations (IAW RFO 15.204-2(b)(1)(ii)), Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal has been determined to be acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may increase the risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined to be unacceptable and thus, ineligible for award. Exchanges with Offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute negotiations.

M1.5 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

By submission of an offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation Factors or Subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation or meet a technical requirement may result in a proposal being determined un-awardable. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and provide complete accompanying rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable.

M2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

M2.1 FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

These evaluation factors are applicable to both the IDIQ and Task Order (TO) 01. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the most advantageous solution to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. The following factors and subfactors, listed in descending order of importance, will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical

• Subfactor 1: Understanding of Requirements

• Subfactor 2: Feasibility and Completeness of Approach

• Subfactor 3: Scalability

Factor 2: Management

• Subfactor 1: Project Management

• Subfactor 2: Schedule Management

• Subfactor 3: Subcontractor/Teammate and Foreign Subcontractor Management

• Subfactor 4: Security and CUI/Classified Data Handling

Factor 3: Past Performance

Factor 4: Small Business Participation

Factor 5: Price

M2.2 RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Relative importance of each Factor and Subfactor is as follows:

Factor 1 is of highest importance, Factor 2 is second in importance, Factor 3 is third in importance and Factor 5 is fourth in importance. Factor 4 is the least important. IAW RFO 15.104, all evaluation Factors other than Price, when combined, are significantly more important than price.

Within Factor 1, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of highest importance, and are equal in their importance.

Subfactor 3 is of lower importance to Subfactors 1 and 2.

Within Factor 2, Subfactors 1 and 2 are of highest importance and are equal in their importance.

Subfactor 3 is of lower importance to Subfactors 1 and 2. Subfactor 4 is of lower importance to Subfactor 3.

For Factors 1 and 2 color/adjectival ratings are assigned at the Subfactor level. For Factor 4 adjectival ratings are assigned as described in Section M2.6. Subfactor ratings, where applicable, will be rolled up for an overall Factor rating. If any Subfactor is rated as unacceptable, the overall factor will be rated as unacceptable.

M2.3 FACTOR 1- TECHNICAL

The evaluation of Factor 1 and all Subfactors will be conducted IAW paragraph 3.1.2.2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, “Methodology 2: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Process.”

Methodology 2: The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined technical/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 1 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 1B. Any Subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable”, whether in the Technical Rating or in the Technical Risk rating, will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, a “High” Technical Risk rating under any Technical Subfactor may render the proposal unawardable.

Table 1: Combined Technical/ Risk Ratings Color Rating

Adjectival Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 1B: Risk Descriptions Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

The technical proposals will be evaluated against the following criteria. Technical proposals must address and will be evaluated against all the requirements identified in the following paragraphs, including all referenced SOW and TRD paragraphs. All Measures of Merit (MoM) must contribute to a Green/Acceptable risk rating for each Subfactor to receive a combined Technical/Risk rating that is acceptable.

M2.3.1 Subfactor 1: Understanding of Requirements

The Understanding of Requirements Subfactor will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s approach demonstrates, in written narrative, a clear understanding of technical factors involved in successfully achieving the requirements presented in the solicitation and the extent to which risks are identified and mitigation strategies are proposed.

M2.3.2 Subfactor 2: Feasibility and Completeness of Approach

This Subfactor will be evaluated to determine the feasibility and completeness of the methods and approach to successfully meeting the requirements in a planned and timely manner.

M2.3.3 Subfactor 3: Scalability

This Subfactor will be evaluated to assess the Offeror’s ability to manage personnel and resources needs across multiple, concurrent task orders while maintaining performance standards.

M2.4 FACTOR 2- MANAGEMENT

The evaluation of Factor 2 and all Subfactors will be conducted IAW paragraph 3.1.2.2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, “Methodology 2: Combined Technical/Risk Rating Process.”

Methodology 2: The combined management/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. Combined management/risk evaluations shall utilize the combined technical/risk ratings listed in Table 2 and the risk descriptions set forth in Table 2B. Any Subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable”, whether in the Management Rating or in the Management Risk rating, will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, a “High” Management Risk rating under any Management Subfactor may render the proposal unawardable.

Table 2: Combined Management/ Risk Ratings Color Rating

Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or one significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable, and risk of performance is unacceptably high.

Table 2B: Risk Descriptions Adjectival Rating Description

Low

Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

The management proposals will be evaluated against the following criteria. Management proposals must address and will be evaluated against all the requirements identified in the following paragraphs, including all referenced SOW and TRD paragraphs. All Measures of Merit (MoM) must be met with an acceptable risk rating for the Subfactor to receive a combined Technical/Risk rating that is acceptable.

M2.4.1 Subfactor 1: Project Management

The Project Management Subfactor will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to successfully execute program management of the effort and requirements presented in the solicitation and the extent to which risks and concerns are identified and resolutions proposed.

M2.4.2 Subfactor 2: Schedule Management

This Subfactor will be evaluated to assess the completeness of milestone identification, and alignment of schedule activities relative to Tranche 3 events and activities.

M2.4.4 Subfactor 3: Subcontractor/Teammate and Foreign Subcontractor Management

The Subcontractor/Teammate and Foreign Subcontractor Management Subfactor will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to manage and provide oversight over their subcontracted performers and their deliverables. Proposals which contain fewer tiers of subcontracting will be rated significantly higher for this Measure of Merit than proposals which contain more tiers of subcontracting.

M2.4.5 Subfactor 4: Security and CUI/Classified Data Handling

The Security and CUI/Classified Data Handling Subfactor will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s ability to manage access to, store, and protect classified material; prevent unauthorized access by foreign subcontractors; and execute incident reporting and mitigation procedures for security breaches.

M2.5 FACTOR 3- PAST PERFORMANCE

Past performance will be evaluated in accordance with RFO 15.104(b)(3).

The past performance evaluation factor assesses the degree of confidence the Government has in an offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs, based on a demonstrated record of performance. This Factor evaluates the extent of the Offeror’s own current and/or past performance that is similar to the proposed contract requirements. The RMWT LEO GEPs Contract will require support with at least 6 Space Vehicle Vendors, in 12 planes; with a nominal plan for 5-8 new and 1-4 updated globally dispersed GEP locations on both U.S. Military facilities and Foreign Sovereign facilities; and may experience multiple task orders for GEP site development and networking, and/or operations and maintenance simultaneously.

The Government will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of work performance on recent and relevant efforts. In addition to the referenced past performance proposed by the Offeror under this section, the panel may also consider any other recent and relevant past performance by the Offeror or a proposed major teammate/subcontractor.

The Government will evaluate Factor 3 based on information provided within proposal Volume III– Past Performance. The Government may consider past performance information not provided by the Offeror 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 (5) calendar years of the proposal due date) and relevant (based on size, scope and complexity) record of past performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work and Attachment 3 – Technical Requirements Document (TRD). More relevant past performance will have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

Table 3 identifies and describes the ratings will be assigned to the Offeror’s collective past performance for relevancy:

Table 3: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

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.

Once the Government determines the degree of relevance, the Government will assess the degree to which the Offeror was able to effectively meet performance, schedule and cost commitments and the quality in which the Offeror met the program requirements after considering the Offeror’s previously demonstrated:

• The degree to which the Offeror met the technical and performance requirements, including customer satisfaction (responsiveness to concerns and degree of commitment to resolving concerns and issues effectively).

• The degree to which the Offeror met the schedule requirements/performance dates

• The degree to which to Offeror met the negotiated costs of the contract

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from Table 3B.

Table 3B: Past Performance Confidence Rating

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 be able to successfully perform the required effort.

M.2.6 FACTOR 4- SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

All offerors shall submit a Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD), in accordance with Attachment 7b. The Government will evaluate the extent to which offerors propose and commit to Small Business (to include Service-Disabled, Veteran Owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged business concerns, and Women-Owned small business concerns) participation in contract performance.

For Small Business offerors, the Government will evaluate the offeror's self-performance—which must comply with RFO 52.219-14, Limitations on Subcontracting: Services (except construction), it will not pay more than fifty (50) percent (%) of the amount paid by the Government for contract performance to subcontractors that are not similarly situated entities. Any work that a similarly situated entity further subcontracts will count towards the prime contractor's 50 percent subcontract amount that cannot be exceeded. This applies to any proposed subcontracting to other Small Businesses. Note: In accordance with RFO 19.109(b), Small Business offerors are exempt from submitting a formal Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

For Large Business Offerors the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five (5) percent (%) of the total proposed contract value (to include options) must be met. The Government will assess the Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) (if applicable) in accordance with RFO Part 19 and the SBUP must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD. Offerors are free to submit only an SBPCD, only a SBUP, or both, if all information required by Attachment 7b 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 consider an Offeror’s dependence on small business for critical technical aspects of its overall proposal. 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.

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will receive a rating from Table 4.

Table 4: Small Business Evaluation Criteria Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives. Proposal Meets MQR.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet MQR.

M.2.7 FACTOR 5- PRICE

The Offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated for: 1) Total Evaluated Price (TEP), 2) Reasonableness,

3) Unbalanced Pricing 4) Completeness. Additionally, if necessary, the Government will perform a Government Property Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor as outlined below. The Offeror’s proposed Price Volume will be evaluated for the basic contract requirements and all options. Evaluation of the options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Offerors whose price (TEP) is determined to be unreasonable will be considered unawardable. In addition, an Offeror whose proposal is determined to be unbalanced may be determined unawardable if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government in accordance with RFO 15.404-6.

Table 5: Price Evaluation Criteria Price Criteria / Rating Price

Total Evaluated Price (TEP): The TEP is not adjectivally rated; it is used to compare Offerors and perform best-value trade-offs.

Reasonable Not Reasonable

Not Unbalanced Unbalanced

Complete Incomplete

M2.7.1 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Price will not be adjectivally scored or rated. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s Price proposal to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) and to ensure the proposed pricing is reasonable, not unbalanced, and complete.

The TEP will be calculated by summing the following items:

• All Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) CLINs (including Task Order 01) for the base and option period.

• The evaluated price for FFP Material Base Period (CLIN 0004), calculated using the

Shielded TEP mechanism (see paragraph below for additional information).

• Government-provided Not-To-Exceed (NTE) plug values for the Cost-Reimbursable (CR)

Travel and ODC CLINs.

• The calculated Government Property (GP) Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor (if applicable), applied in accordance with RFO 52.245-9 (or agency equivalent).

Shielded TEP Mechanism (CLIN 0004): The Government will evaluate FFP Material Base Period (CLIN 0004) using a proprietary, undisclosed quantity model. The Government will multiply the Offeror's proposed Year 1 through Year 5 FFP Unit Costs from the Material Catalog (Tab 2) by the Government’s hidden estimated quantities. The resulting sum will represent the evaluated price for CLIN 0004 on Tab 1 and will be rolled into the overall TEP.

M2.7.2 Reasonableness.

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in RFO

15.404 in order to determine if it is reasonable. 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. Normally, price reasonableness is established through price analysis techniques as described in RFO 15.404-1. For additional information see RFO 31.201-3.

M2.7.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW RFO 15.404-6. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, a proposed line item is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Offerors are cautioned that a proposal may be rejected if unbalanced pricing exists and the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The burden of proof for demonstrating balanced pricing rests with the Offeror.

M.2.7.4 Completeness

The Government will evaluate the price proposal to ensure that all required pricing data has been provided in accordance with Section L and that the proposal is mathematically accurate and consistent with the technical proposal. The proposal is evaluated to ensure it complies with all submission requirements of Section L. proposal evaluated as "Incomplete" may be rejected and deemed unawardable without further evaluation.

M2.7.5 Government Property (GP) Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor

Government will consider any potentially unfair competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of Government Property. In accordance with RFO 45.202 and as specified in RFO 52.245- 9, Use and Charges, the Government will eliminate this competitive advantage by applying a GP Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor. The Government will calculate this evaluation factor based on the property data provided by the Offeror in Section L. This calculated GP Rental Equivalent Evaluation Factor will be added to the Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for evaluation purposes only.