CAF DMO 3.0 Section M_DRAFT-Industry Feedback Requested .docx

FA8621-23-R-B002

Section J, Attachment 9

DRAFT

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

COMBAT AIR FORCES

DISTRIBUTED MISSION OPERATIONS

(CAF DMO) 3.0

Solicitation #FA8621-24-R-XXXX

XX Jul 2023

Prepared by:

Agile Combat support Directorate, Simulators Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) 2300 D Street, Bldg. 32 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FA8621-24-R-XXXX

Section J, Attachment 9 – Section M

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

CAF DMO 3.0 will be acquired under full and open competition resulting in a multiple-year indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. The IDIQ will include an Ordering Guide for task orders. This acquisition will utilize FAR Part 15 Source Selection Process to make an assessment for a tradeoff award decision. The source selection conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR), 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 the Federal Acquisition Regulations site, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with 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 sub-factors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements.

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 that the technical and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror 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 (described below). While the Government source selection evaluation 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.

For large businesses, a Small Business Subcontracting Plan that satisfies FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan requirements is required to be submitted and approved by the Contracting Officer (CO) before a large business contractor can be deemed responsible IAW FAR Part 9, as supplemented. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan shall include the subcontracting goals expressed at the IDIQ contract level as a percentage only of annual total obligated dollars on awarded task orders for each of the following: small business, veteran-owned small business, service-disabled veteran owned small business, HUBZone small business, small disadvantaged business, and women owned small business. The Small Business Subcontracting Plan will be evaluated on the Offeror’s approach to meeting each of its subcontracting goals.

Only U.S companies will be considered for award as prime contractors.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and representations and certifications. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale discussing the exception. By submission of its offer, the Offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions and representations and certifications unless such exceptions are identified and supported as required, and agreed to by the Government. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined ineligible for award.

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award a single IDIQ contract to a single Offeror for CAF DMO 3.0. The Government may also choose not to award a contract for the requirement identified in this solicitation based on price and other considerations, if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

1.4 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process, multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminate Offerors from the competition. Any competitive range determination will be based on all evaluation criteria. The Government 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. A competitive range determination may eliminate Offerors that are not among the most highly rated based on their initial proposal evaluation results; after discussions; or prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request. The range may also be further reduced for purposes of efficiency. If Offerors are excluded from the competitive range, they will be notified by the CO IAW FAR 15.503 and may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505 or 15.506.

1.5 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

The Government may exclude a proposal from this competition prior to discussions or competitive range determination without evaluating the proposal against the Evaluation Factors as defined in Section M, if an initial assessment of the proposal shows the proposal to be grossly deficient. Grossly deficient proposals are proposals that fail to address essential requirements of the solicitation, fail to furnish information demonstrating compliance with mandatory solicitation requirements set forth in the solicitation, or in some other manner do not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

1.6 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions; therefore, each initial offer should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and past performance standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary and/or in the best interest of the Government. If discussions occur, they will be conducted IAW FAR 15.306.

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. Exchanges with Offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

1.7 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. 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, if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the Government.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Sub-factors

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors and sub-factors listed below. Offerors must have a Technical rating of Acceptable to be considered for contract award. Offerors must have a Past Performance rating of Satisfactory or better to be considered for contract award. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing combination the most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and sub-factors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Sub-factor 1: Transition Sub-factor 2: Security Sub-factor 3: Training Operations Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Price

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(d), the Technical Risk and Past Performance are approximately equal in importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are approximately equal to Price.

2.2 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related ratings: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. The Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals based on the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement and includes consideration of the significant strengths, uncertainties, and deficiencies found in the proposal. Only those technical proposals determined to be Outstanding, Good or Acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award.

The Offeror’s proposal shall address each of the subfactors. Detailed instructions are included in Section L, Paragraph 2.0, Proposal Preparation Instructions. During evaluation of each proposal, the Government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown below. A rating of Unacceptable in one or more subfactors will result in an overall rating of Unacceptable for the technical evaluation. For each technical Subfactor, Offerors must meet each measure of merit (MoM), and have a risk assessment of Moderate or better, in order to be considered Acceptable.

The following technical rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability.

The risk assessment will include the Offeror’s self-identified risks and proposed mitigations (if applicable). The Government may also identify and consider risks not identified by an Offeror. The definitions for each risk assessment are as follows:

monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties

monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

2.2.1.1 Assessing Strengths

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess one or multiple strengths to offers that exceed the threshold requirement up to objective in the Transition and Training Operations sub-factors.

The contractor proposed measures for Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability will become contractually binding upon contract award.

In the Training Operations sub-factor:

· A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to exceeding the system availability threshold in the RFP, substantiated by the technical approach.

· A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to exceeding the event availability threshold in the RFP, substantiated by the technical approach.

· A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that commits to exceeding the latency threshold in the RFP, substantiated by the technical approach.

The contractor proposed values for system availability, event availability, and latency will become contractually binding upon contract award.

In the Training Operations subfactor:

· A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that provides an innovative approach that would improve schedule, price, or performance for the program, substantiated by the technical approach.

In the Transition subfactor:

· A strength may be assessed to an Offeror that provides an innovative approach that would improve schedule, price, or performance for the program, substantiated by the technical approach.

2.2.2 Sub-factor 1: Transition

This subfactor is met when the Offeror’s proposal provides the following and risk of unsuccessful performance is Moderate or better.

· The proposed Transition Plan shall provide a sound approach to the Offeror’s ability to provide DMO training capability at the sites listed in PWS Appendix A upon or before the Full Network Service Start Date established in the RFP.

· The proposed Transition Plan shall provide a sound approach to the number of personnel required to support each area, as outlined in the Staffing Plan, of the transition plan.

· The transition provides a sound engineering approach describing the design, integration, and testing necessary to implement the DMO network.

· The Transition Plan provides a sound approach for network architecture, Cross Domain Solutions (CDS) and Multi-level Security (MLS) architecture, accreditation of the DMO network, service activation and integration of federates.

2.2.3 Sub-factor 2: Security

This sub-factor evaluates the Offeror’s proposed approach to provide security services and execute the Program IAW the security requirements established in the RFP.

The sub-factor is met when:

· The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a sound approach to security services in all areas of the program.

· The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a sound approach to hardware and software partitioning, and the data storage/retrieval architecture that supports Federate System site operations.

· The Offeror’s proposal identifies the number of personnel providing security services and their approach to meet JSIG security manual requirements.

· The Offeror’s proposal addresses the pedigree and performance of the CDS/MLS solution.

2.2.4 Sub-factor 3: Training Operations

Measures of Merit: The Sub-factor is met when:

· The Offeror’s proposal addresses their ability and approach to perform integration duties.

· The Offeror’s proposal identifies their approach to support the standards process from development to implementation.

· The Offeror’s proposal addresses their approach to support exercises at/with Distributed Mission Operations Center (DMOC), the Distributed Training Operations Center (DTOC), USAFE AFAFRICA Warfare Center (UAWC), the Distributed Training Center (DTC), and the approach to support connections with other networks (including coalition networks) as directed by the Government, Joint Pacific Alaska Range Complex, the Joint Training and Exercise Network, MAF DMO, AFSOC DMO, Cyber DMO, Space DMO) and accreditation activities. The personnel staffing plan identifies the Offeror’s ability to support the DMOC, DTOC, UAWC and DTC.

· The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a sound approach to provide a secure, unclassified website for dissemination of information, exchange of ideas, and a cohesive environment among federates.

· The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a sound approach to meet or exceed the availability threshold requirements (event and system availabilities) identified in the RFP.

· The Offeror’s proposal shall provide a sound approach to meet or exceed the latency threshold requirement identified in the RFP. In this case, “exceeding” latency threshold requirements means substantiating a latency commitment with a lower delay.

2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

2.3.1 Confidence Assessment

Under the Past Performance Factor, the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating represents the evaluation of an Offeror’s past work record to assess the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to supply products and services that meet users’ needs. The Past Performance evaluation is accomplished by reviewing aspects of an Offeror’s recent, relevant past performance, focusing on and targeting performance which is relevant to Technical Subfactors 1 through 3. Past performance will be rated for each Technical Subfactor equally. The resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating assessed for the Offeror will be made at the Factor level.

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in the table below for Factor 2.

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

2.4 Evaluation Process

The Government will evaluate the quality and extent of the Offeror’s performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation. The Government will use information submitted by the Offeror and other sources such as other Federal Government offices and commercial sources, to assess performance. More recent and relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings than less recent or relevant efforts.

Problems not addressed by the Offeror will be considered to still exist. However, consideration for discounting problems may be given when those problems are addressed through demonstrated systemic improvement. The degree to which the Offeror can demonstrate that it has successfully applied continuous systemic improvement to resolve past performance problems, and institutionalized this process improvement to prevent future recurrence, will be evaluated.

Offerors may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); and interviews/questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

2.4.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must have at least six months of performance and either be active or have been completed within five years preceding the date of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.4.2 Relevance Assessment

The Government will conduct an assessment of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical sub-factors and Price factor, including their relative order of importance (reference 2.1.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors.). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical sub-factors and Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including major and critical subcontractors). The information obtained using the past performance relevancy matrix (Section M, Attachment 1) will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures):

PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY ASSESSMENTS

2.4.3 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical sub-factors and price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall assessment of Contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.5 Price Factor

The Government will evaluate the Price proposal for (1) completeness, (2) reasonableness (3) unbalanced pricing and (4) Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable will not be considered for award. Proposals that are determined to be incomplete may be ineligible for award. Additionally, an offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines unbalanced pricing poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.5.1 Completeness

The Government will review the pricing submissions for completeness and compliance with Section L of the solicitation. If not complete and in compliance, the proposal may make the Offeror’s proposal ineligible for award.

2.5.2 Reasonableness

The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated, using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 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 adequate price competition as described in FAR 15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3.

2.5.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will conduct an analysis for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). 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 balance pricing rests with the Offeror.

2.5.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP is the sum of all CLINs and discounts as calculated in the TEP spreadsheet and an applied adjustment to account for service stopping on the current contract. When an Offeror assumes service from the incumbent at a site, the adjustment is applied to the new service provider in the form of a credit. The adjustment allows an Offeror to avoid being penalized with a higher total price should they propose an early transition of services to the CAF DMO 3.0, as well as reflects the estimated cost to the Government of having both contracts in place during the transition period.

The adjustment applied to the Offeror’s total price is a cost figure that approximates the cost per site per month of services when no longer provided at a given site under the incumbent contract. The adjustment is a negative value to represent costs no longer incurred under the incumbent contract after a site has been transitioned to the new contract.

2.6 Contract Options

Evaluation of the optional ordering periods shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

2.7 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices, and the Final Proposal Revision will be considered in making the source selection decision. Exchanges with Offerors conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors (clarifications other than past performance) will not constitute discussions and the CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

Attachments:

1. Performance Relevancy Matrix