Section J Attachment 8- CAF DMO 3.0 Section M .pdf

FA8621-24-R-B006

Section J, Attachment 8 – Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR THE

COMBAT AIR FORCES

DISTRIBUTED MISSION OPERATIONS

(CAF DMO) 3.0

Solicitation #FA8621-24-R-B006

07 November 2023

Prepared by:

Agile Combat support Directorate, Simulators Program Office (AFLCMC/WNS) 2300 D Street, Bldg. 32

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

1.3 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.4 Government Furnished Property (GFP)

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

1.6 Exclusion of Grossly Deficient Proposals

1.7 Discussions

1.8 Correction Potential of Proposals

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

2.1.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Sub-factors

2.2 Factor 1: Technical

2.2.1 Assessing Strengths

2.2.2 Subfactor 1: Transition

2.2.3 Subfactor 2: Security

2.2.4 Subfactor 3: Training Operations

2.3 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.3.1 Confidence Assessment

2.3.2 Evaluation Process

2.3.3 Recency Assessment

2.3.4 Relevance Assessment

2.3.5 Quality Assessment

2.4 Factor 3: Price

2.4.1 Completeness

2.4.2 Reasonableness

2.4.3 Unbalanced Pricing

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

2.4.5 Contract Options

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 single award, multiple-year indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract. The IDIQ will include an Ordering Guide for task orders. This acquisition will utilize Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15 Source Selection Procedures to make an assessment for a tradeoff award decision. The source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) the 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 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 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 past performance of the higher priced 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 may be considered for award. A foreign-owned or foreign-influenced company that has been approved through the Defense Security Service (DSS) as a U.S. subsidiary may also be considered as a U.S. prime on CAF DMO 3.0.

1.2 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, including technical https://www.acquisition.gov/ requirements, 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 Government Furnished Property (GFP)

It is not the Government’s intent to provide GFP/GFE/GFM/GFF via this contract at this time.

1.5 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.

1.6 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 does not represent a reasonable initial effort by the Offeror to satisfy the requirements of the solicitation.

1.7 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 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.

1.8 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 Subfactors

Proposals will be evaluated using the factors and subfactors listed below. Offerors must have a rating of Acceptable in each Technical Subfactor to be considered for contract award.

Offerors must have a Past Performance Confidence rating of Satisfactory or better to be considered for contract award. Award will be made to the Offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Transition Subfactor 2: Security Subfactor 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), Technical and Past Performance are approximately equal in importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Technical and Past Performance factors, when combined, are significantly more important than Price.

2.2 Factor 1: Technical

The Technical evaluation is a combined Technical Acceptability/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 rating of Moderate or better, in order to be considered for award.

Subfactor 2: Security can only receive a rating of Acceptable or Unacceptable.

The following combined Technical Acceptability/Risk Rating definitions will be used in the assessment of technical capability and risk assessment.

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths and/or at least 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 unawardable, and/or risk of performance is unacceptably high.

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:

• Low - Proposal may contain weakness(es) which may present a low probability of negatively affecting performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

• Moderate - Proposal contains weakness(es) which may present a modest probability of negatively affecting performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

• High - Proposal contains weakness(es) which may present a high probability of negatively affecting performance. Contractor is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

2.2.1 Assessing Strengths

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to assess one or more strengths to Offerors that exceed the threshold requirement up to objective in the Transition (Subfactor 1) and Training Operations (Subfactor 3) Subfactors. In order to achieve a strength as defined below, the Offeror’s approach must address how it will benefit the Government. In addition, the Offeror shall provide additional PWS language or other contract documentation to capture the proposed strength in a contract requirement. This documentation shall be submitted with Volume II and will be incorporated into the PWS/Contract at award. Note: There are no opportunities for a strength under Subfactor 2.

Transition Subfactor 1:

• If substantiated by the technical approach, a strength may be assessed to an Offeror who provides an innovative approach that would improve schedule and performance for the program.

Training Operations Subfactor 3:

• If substantiated by the technical approach, a strength may be assessed to an Offeror who provides an innovative approach that would improve schedule and performance for the program.

• If substantiated by the technical approach that commits to exceeding the system availability threshold in the RFP, a strength may be assessed to an Offeror who provides an innovative approach that would improve schedule and performance for the program.

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

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

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

2.2.2 Subfactor 1: Transition

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

A. A sound transition strategy and technical approach, to include the Offeror’s approach to minimizing operational downtime, demonstrating the Offeror’s ability to provide DMO training capability at the sites listed in PWS Annex A on or before the Full Network Service Start Date established in the RFP.

B. A sound staffing approach to meet transition requirements.

C. A sound engineering approach describing the design, integration, and testing necessary to implement the DMO network.

D. 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 as fully supported by the IMP and IMS IAW with JSIG.

2.2.3 Subfactor 2: Security

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

A. A sound approach to meet cybersecurity requirements to include staffing, maintaining accreditation, and crypto to key management.

B. A sound approach to hardware and software partitioning, and the data storage/retrieval architecture that supports Federate System site operations to include meeting Joint Special Access Program Implementation Guide (JSIG) security manual requirements.

C. A sound approach to security services in all areas of the program.

D. A sound approach to addressing the pedigree and performance of the CDS/MLS solution.

2.2.4 Subfactor 3: Training Operations

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

A. A sound approach for the management of training system protocols.

B. A sound approach to manage and execute distributed training events.

C. A sound approach to support the standards development, adoption and maintenance processes from development to implementation.

D. A sound approach to verify test activities, schedule and manage DMO training events, and provide help desk functions.

E. A sound 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.

F. A sound staffing approach which substantiates the personnel required, the area of expertise, and certificates/credentials required of the CAF DMO program’s primary functions: 1) Standards development, adoption, and maintenance process, 2) Distributed Training Center, 3) Distributed Mission Operations Center 4) DTOC, and

5) UAWC.

G. A sound approach for establishing and maintaining a CAF DMO website.

H. A sound approach for meeting the availability threshold requirements (event and system availabilities).

I. A sound approach for providing Configuration Management of the CAF DMO system.

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 Assessment Ratings

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.

2.3.2 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.

2.3.3 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.

2.3.4 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 Subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors;

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 s significant subcontractors. The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Relevancy Ratings

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.

2.3.5 Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the offeror performed on the contracts). For each recent and relevant past performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for Technical

Subfactors 1 through 3. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source.

The Government will review all past performance information collected and determine the overall quality of the offeror’s past performance. In making the quality assessment, the Government will review Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQs) and/or Contractor Performance Assessment Reports (CPARs), as well as other relevant information available to the Government (e.g., interviews). PPQs and CPARs will be considered equally and will be evaluated holistically. The Government will assign a quality rating to the past performance evaluated.

Where relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contracts or performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

Exceptional

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were highly effective.

Very Good

Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor were effective.

Satisfactory Performance meets contractual requirements. The element being assessed contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

Marginal Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions.

Unsatisfactory Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The element being assessed contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

Not Applicable Unable to provide a score.

2.4 Factor 3: Price

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.

2.4.1 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 Offeror’s proposal may be ineligible for award.

2.4.2 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.

2.4.3 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.

2.4.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

Using the proposed CLIN prices in the Price Matrix (Section L Attachment 6) and the ITO (Solicitation Attachment 8), the Government will calculate the offeror’s TEP. Prior to issuing the solicitation, the Government will have determined the most probable scenarios for each CLIN. The summation of the proposed prices for each predetermined selection of cells for each CLIN will represent the TEP for all offerors. The Government will not disclose these predetermined cells to the offerors in the solicitation. The TEP will be utilized to evaluate offerors and make tradeoffs, when necessary, but will not be the ultimate contract price for this acquisition. The TEP will be used for price evaluation purposes only. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. Offerors shall follow the instructions in the Price Matrix (Section L Attachment 6) for inputting prices.

2.4.5 Contract Options

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