CS2 FO RFP Sec M_Final.pdf

QTA-010-CTA-0003

M-1

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M.1 Evaluation Approach

The Government anticipates awarding multiple contracts from this solicitation to the responsible Offerors whose proposals are the most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered. When conducting the evaluation, the Government will consider data included by Offerors in their proposals, as well as data obtained from other sources.

The Government will make determinations of Offeror responsibility in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 9.1 and General Services Administration Acquisition Manual (GSAM) Subpart 509.1, Responsible Prospective Contractors, using information provided by Offerors and information available from other sources.

Proposals shall be prepared in accordance with the instructions in Section L. For an offer to be eligible for award, the Offeror must agree to all terms and conditions of the solicitation and must not receive a rating of Unacceptable for the Technical/ Management factor or Corporate Experience factor.

The following factors will be used to evaluate proposals:

M.1.1 Factor 1 – Technical/Management Approach

The extent to which the Offeror’s approach to each of the below Sample Task Orders (STO) demonstrates an understanding of the scope and complexity of the requirements, and the Offeror delivers a customized, End-to-End Solution satisfying the STO requirements.

M.1.1.1 Sample Task Order #1 – Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) M.1.1.2 Sample Task Order #2 – Government Education and Training Network

(GETN)

M.1.1.3 Sample Task Order #3 – Blue Personnel Tracking

M.1.2 Factor 2 – Corporate Experience

Offeror’s demonstrated corporate experience addressing the following Solution Types and Attributes:

M.1.2.1 Solution Type #1: Interactive Services

M.1.2.2 Solution Type #2: Continuity of Operations (COOP)

M.1.2.3 Solution Type #3: Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS)

M-2

M.1.2.4 Solution Type #4: Emergency Responder Operations

M.1.2.5 Solution Type #5: Direct Customer Operations

M.1.2.6 Solution Type #6: Steady State Operations

M.1.2.7 Attribute #1: Information Assurance

M.1.2.8 Attribute #2: Responsiveness

M.1.2.9 Attribute #3: Portability

M.1.2.10 Attribute #4: Flexibility/Optimization

M.1.2.11 Attribute #5: Capacity

M.1.2.12 Attribute #6: Coverage

M.1.2.13 Attribute #7: Network Monitoring (Net Ops)

M.1.2.14 Attribute #8: Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI) / Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) Identification, Characterization, and Geo-location; and

M.1.2.15 Attribute #9: Net Ready (Interoperability).

M.1.3 Factor 3 – Past Performance

Up to three current past performance references relevant to the General Technical Requirements in Section C.2.2 of the RFP will be considered.

M.1.4 Factor 4 - Price

To ensure fair and reasonable prices, the Government will perform a price analysis on proposed prices for each STO. The Government may reject any offer that is materially unbalanced in pricing such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

M.1.5 Relative Importance

Factor 1 (Technical/Management) and Factor 2 (Corporate Experience) are equal.

Technical/Management and Corporate Experience are each more important than Factor 3 (Past Performance). When combined, Technical/Management, Corporate Experience, and Past Performance are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Price).

M.2 Factor 1 - Technical/Management Approach

The Technical/Management evaluation considers the Offeror’s response to each of the STOs to determine the extent to which the Offeror’s approach to each STO demonstrates an understanding of the scope and complexity of the requirements, and the Offeror delivers a customized, End-to-End Solution satisfying the STO

M-3 requirements. The Offeror should use the information identified in each STO to determine the amount of bandwidth, frequency band and any required service enabling devices needed for the proposed solution. The Offeror’s approach to implementing, performing, and managing the three STOs with emphasis on the respective attributes will be evaluated.

Evaluators will describe strengths and weaknesses of each STO based upon the Offeror’s ability to address the specific criteria listed in the STO Evaluation Criteria tables below. STOs will not be individually rated. Using the documented strengths and weaknesses developed during the independent evaluations, an adjectival rating will be assigned for the overall Technical/Management Volume as shown below:

Rating

Superior

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

If a proposal receives a weakness in the same attribute in more than one STO, it may be considered a significant weakness.

Sample Task Order #1 – Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR). The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which it addresses the following criteria as described in Section J:

MWR STO Evaluation Criteria

a) Information Assurance – Offeror presents a clear solution that demonstrates compliance with the following Minimum Security Controls for a Moderate Impact information system (CA-2, IA-2 and SI-3).

Regarding CA-2, Offeror presents their approach to meet the requirement.

Offeror proposes a solution that either uses NSA-approved cryptology to encrypt and authenticate commands to the space system or, if using such satellite(s) is infeasible, clearly justifies why the proposed solution does not use such encryption and explain what measures are taken instead. In such a case, the solution should still use commercial best practice to encrypt and authenticate commands to the space system.

b) Responsiveness:

Demonstrate a clear understanding of what needs to be delivered, what may cause delays, and provide a detailed delivery schedule delivering the ORDU’s in-country and commissioned within 90 days, and that the LRDU’s in-country and commissioned within 180 days.

c) Portability:

Portability plan provides clearly articulated and credible approach to portability within regions stated in the MWR STO.

M-4

d) Capacity:

Offeror presents documentation explaining why the capacity they proposed meets the government’s requirements. Solution is consistent with analysis, and offers quality of service required.

e) Coverage:

Solution shows coverage across the required regions/locations. Solution is consistent with link budgets, and application analysis.

f) Network Monitoring (Net Ops):

The Offeror recommends the NetOps metrics to be collected for each network segment and explains their rationale for including/excluding metrics. The Offeror specifies the frequency of delivery, retrieval method, and data units (e.g., kbps, dB) and format (e.g., XML, SNMP trap) of each Net Ops metric selected.

g) EMI/RFI Identification, Characterization, Geo-Location:

Offeror clearly articulates what they will do to detect EMI/RFI, how they will communicate this detection to the government, and how they will resolve the interference. All provided services are supported by EMI/RFI Identification, Characterization, and Geo-location capability to support resolution of purposeful and accidental incidents of interference.

h) Net Ready (Interoperability):

Offeror is using commercial standards.

i) Prepared Service Plan:

Offeror clearly articulates a set of procedures and performance metrics, and explains how they will use this to ensure timely system development, installation and operation.

Offeror clearly articulates a set of procedures explaining how they will manage subcontractors, control costs, and ensure timely submission of invoices.

Offeror identifies possible risks, and develops a mitigation plan addressing each risk.

j) Selected Communications Infrastructure:

Offeror clearly articulates the operation of interfaces within the system.

Offeror clearly articulates rationale for the choice of architecture and components.

Offeror demonstrates knowledge of MWR operational issues and constraints and clearly articulates operational metrics with rationale.

k) Engineering Support Approach:

Offeror provides an analysis of an MWR mission and includes expected usage trends as part of their capacity analysis (stating assumptions); Offeror provides a clear recommendation for amount of bandwidth and/or Committed Information Rate (CIR) needed per site, and why they recommended that amount of bandwidth and/or CIR.

Offeror proposes a sound set of metrics with clear supporting discussion to justify why these metrics are appropriate to use.

l) Sustainment Approach:

Offeror clearly articulates an approach for full lifecycle management.

Offeror outlines the level of training required to operate the system, and outlines what courses will be needed

Offeror clearly articulates the set of sustainment activities that the Offeror will provide, and provides reasoning for the need for each activity.

Sample Task Order #2 – Government Education and Training Network (GETN). The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which it addresses the following criteria as described in Section J:

M-5

GETN STO Evaluation Criteria

a) Information Assurance:

Offeror presents a clear solution that demonstrates compliance with the following Minimum Security Controls for a Low Impact information system (AC-17, CP-9 and IR-5).

Offeror proposes a solution that either uses NSA-approved cryptology to encrypt and authenticate commands to the space system or, if using such satellite(s) is infeasible, clearly justifies why the proposed solution does not use such encryption and explain what measures are taken instead. In such a case, the solution should still use commercial best practice to encrypt and authenticate commands to the space system.

b) Responsiveness:

Demonstrate a clear understanding of what needs to be delivered, what may cause delays, and provide a detailed delivery schedule for transition of at least the Air Force (see Section J, GETN STO Attachment) from the DLTS to the MDLS within the standard 30 day delivery schedule. All agencies shall be transitioned within 4 months.

c) Portability:

Portability plan provides clearly articulated approach to portability between teleports and/or satellites within the required regions.

d) Flexibility / Optimization:

Offeror presents analysis that show what they have proposed will minimize bandwidth usage or proposes a solution on another satellite with more efficient bandwidth available.

e) Capacity:

Offeror presents documentation explaining why the capacity they proposed meets the government’s requirements. Solution is consistent with analysis, and offers quality of service required.

f) Coverage:

Solution shows coverage across the required locations. Solution is consistent with link budgets, and application analysis.

g) Net Ready (Interoperability):

Offeror is using commercial standards.

m) Prepared Service Plan:

Offeror clearly articulates a set of procedures and performance metrics, and explains how they will use this to ensure timely system development, installation and operation.

Offeror clearly articulates a set of procedures explaining how they will manage

n) Selected Communications Infrastructure:

Offeror clearly articulates a set of rationale for the choice of architecture and components.

Offeror demonstrates knowledge of distance learning system operational issues and constraints, and clearly addresses reliability, availability, maintainability and security.

Offeror delivers functionality requested: Develop and implement the requisite communications infrastructure to support the GETN mission.

Offeror identifies chosen systems and explain rationale for selection including life cycle cost considerations.

Offeror provides a detailed architecture and explain operation and performance of all required interfaces.

Offeror provides details of the Network Operations Center capabilities.

Offeror articulates functionality of chosen scheduling method which meets requirements.

M-6

o) Engineering Support Approach:

Offeror clearly articulates an analysis showing typical usage profiles.

Offeror clearly articulates a migration plan, and identifies operational impacts to users as equipment is swapped out; plan is based on previous successes, factors in lessons learned from previous deployments.

Offeror clearly articulates a recovery plan that maps to all system elements articulated in their architecture.

p) Sustainment Approach:

Offeror clearly articulates an approach for full lifecycle management.

Offeror outlines the level of training required to operate the system, and outlines what courses will be needed.

Sample Task Order #3 – Blue Personnel Tracking. The Offeror will be evaluated on the extent to which it addresses the following criteria as described in Section J:

Blue Personnel Tracking STO Evaluation Criteria

a) Information Assurance:

Offeror presents a clear solution that demonstrates compliance with the following Minimum Security Controls for a High Impact information system (CA-7, CP-7, SC-7).

Offeror proposes a solution that either uses NSA-approved cryptology to encrypt and authenticate commands to the space system or, if using such satellite(s) is infeasible, clearly justifies why the proposed solution does not use such encryption and explain what measures are taken instead. In such a case, the solution should still use commercial best practice to encrypt and authenticate commands to the space system.

Offeror conducts background checks for operation staff.

Offeror has available at all times, at least one operations staff member and one decision making authority available for incident response who are appropriately cleared for access to the customer’s operations and/or data.

b) Responsiveness:

Demonstrate a clear understanding of what needs to be delivered, what may cause delays, and provide a detailed delivery schedule.

c) Flexibility / Optimization:

Offeror presents analysis that show what they have proposed will minimize bandwidth usage or proposes a solution on another satellite with more efficient bandwidth available.

d) Capacity:

Offeror presents documentation explaining why the capacity they proposed meets the government’s requirements. Solution is consistent with analysis, and offers quality of service required.

e) Coverage:

Solution shows coverage across the required regions. Solution is consistent with link budgets, and application analysis.

f) EMI/RFI Identification, Characterization, Geo-Location:

Offeror does not clearly articulate what they will do to detect EMI/RFI, how they will communicate this detection to the government, and how they will resolve the interference within 2 hours; All provided services are supported by EMI/RFI Identification, Characterization, and Geo-location capability to support resolution of purposeful and accidental incidents of interference.

g) Net Ready (Interoperability):

Offeror is using commercial standards.

M-7

h) Prepared Service Plan:

Offeror clearly articulates a set of procedures and performance metrics, and explains how they will use this to ensure timely system development, installation and operation.

Offeror clearly articulates a set of procedures explaining how they will manage

i) Selected Communications Infrastructure:

Offeror clearly articulates the operation of interfaces within the system, and how this solution minimizes size, weight and power of equipment needed to implement this capability.

Offeror clearly articulates a set of rationale for the choice of architecture and components.

Offeror demonstrates knowledge of Blue Personnel Tracking operational issues and constraints, and clearly articulates a set of operational metrics with rationale.

Offeror clearly presents a central site that has intuitive map-based application (common commercial practice) where all functionality can be accessed.

Offeror clearly presents a system that updates position data at other terminals w/in 3 minutes of position report transmission.

Panic button functionality supported by base vehicular terminal only.

j) Engineering Support Approach:

Offeror provides adequate diagrams and technical details to show approach is valid and technically feasible.

k) Sustainment Approach:

Offeror clearly articulates an approach for full lifecycle management.

Offeror outlines the level of training required to operate the system, and outlines what courses will be needed.

M.3 Factor 2 – Corporate Experience

Corporate experience will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s experience delivering the six Required COMSATCOM End-to-End Solution Types and nine of the Required COMSATCOM End-to-End Solution Attributes described in Section C (note: the Security requirements are not part of the corporate experience evaluation). The Offeror may only include its own corporate experience as a prime or as a subcontractor.

Offerors will receive an overall corporate experience rating based on its demonstrated experience within the past three (3) years for the following Solution Types and Attributes:

M.3.1 Solution Type #1: Interactive Services

M.3.2 Solution Type #2: Continuity of Operations (COOP)

M.3.3 Solution Type #3: Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS)

M.3.4 Solution Type #4: Emergency Responder Operations

M.3.5 Solution Type #5: Direct Customer Operations

M.3.6 Solution Type #6: Steady State Operations

M-8

M.3.7 Attribute #1: Information Assurance

M.3.8 Attribute #2: Responsiveness

M.3.9 Attribute #3: Portability

M.3.1 Attribute #4: Flexibility/Optimization

M.3.11 Attribute #5: Capacity

M.3.12 Attribute #6: Coverage

M.3.13 Attribute #7: Network Monitoring (Net Ops)

M.3.14 Attribute #8: Electro Magnetic Interference (EMI) / Radio Frequency Interference (RFI) Identification, Characterization, and Geo-location; and

M.3.15 Attribute #9: Net Ready (Interoperability).

For each of the Solution Types, evaluators will be looking for the Offeror’s corporate experience delivering solutions with similar size, scope, and complexity to that described in Section C.

For each of the Solution Attributes, evaluators will be looking for the Offeror’s corporate experience of any size, scope, and complexity delivering attributes described in Section C.

Evaluators will rate the Offeror’s experience for each Solution Type and Attribute based upon the Offeror’s ability to address the specific Solution Type or Attribute as shown below:

Criterion Standard

Solution Type #1: Interactive Services

Corporate experience delivering an Interactive Services solution with similar size, scope, and complexity to that described in Section C

Solution Type #2: Continuity of Operations (COOP)

Corporate experiences delivering a COOP solution with similar size, scope, and complexity to that described in Section C

Solution Type #3: Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS)

Corporate experience delivering a BSS solution with similar size, scope, and complexity to that described in Section C

Solution Type #4: Emergency Responder Operations

Corporate experience delivering an Emergency Responder Operations solution with similar size, scope, and complexity to that described in Section C

Solution Type #5: Direct Customer Operations

Corporate experience delivering a Direct Customer Operations solution with similar size, scope, and complexity to that described in Section C

Solution Type #6: Steady State Operations

Corporate experience delivering a Steady State Operations solution with similar size, scope, and complexity to that described in Section C

M-9

Attribute #1: Information Assurance

1. Experience executing Information Assurance practices for COMSATCOM solutions delivered to customers, applying the processes and procedures described in the following NIST SP 800-53 security control families:

a. Access Controls,

b. Awareness and Training,

c. Contingency Planning,

d. Identification and Authentication,

e. Personnel Security,

f. Systems and Communication Protection,

g. System and Information Integrity.

AND

2. Experience employing, at a minimum, Commercial Best Practice cryptography to encrypt and authenticate commands to the space system.

AND

3. Experience having access to secure voice and data communications to support customer anomaly investigation and resolution.

AND

4. Experience where at all times, at least one operations staff member and one decision making authority (e.g., CEO, COO, CTO) are available for incident response who are appropriately cleared for access to the customer’s operations and/or data.

Attribute #2: Responsiveness

1. At least two corporate experiences delivering a customized, end-to-end COMSATCOM solution that meets at least the Standard Service Delivery (30 calendar days or less) timeframe

AND

2. At least one experience delivering a customized end-to-end COMSATCOM solution that meets at least the Accelerated Service Delivery (7 calendar days or less) timeframe.

Attribute #3: Portability

1. At least two corporate experiences redeploying the space segment for an active COMSATCOM solution being provided to a customer (e.g., moving from one transponder/satellite to another, one managed service area to another, transponded capacity redeployment between beams or transponders on a single satellite, redeployment from one frequency band to another, physical relocation of a satellite to a new orbital position).

AND

2. At least one experience redeploying some portion of the terrestrial segment for an active COMSATCOM solution being provided to a customer (e.g., re-routing of teleport services from one teleport to another pre-defined teleport, re-routing of traffic from one terrestrial infrastructure to another pre-defined infrastructure, and movement of Network Operations Center (NOC) services from one NOC to another NOC).

Attribute #4: Flexibility/Optimization

At least two corporate experiences re-grooming the resource delivering an active COMSATCOM solution to a customer for spectral, operational, or price efficiencies where the customer noticeably benefitted from the re-grooming.

M-10

Attribute #5: Capacity

Experience successfully delivering COMSATCOM capacity in at least three frequency bands (may include both MSS and FSS bands) to support customer COMSATCOM requirements.

Attribute #6: Coverage

Experience successfully delivering COMSATCOM coverage in at least three world regions to support customer COMSATCOM requirements.

Attribute #7: Network Monitoring (Net Ops)

At least two corporate experiences electronically collecting and delivering to customers near real-time monitoring, fault/incident/outage reporting, and information access to ensure effective and efficient operations, performance, and availability.

Attribute #8: EMI/RFI Identification, Characterization, and Geo-location

1. At least two corporate experiences collecting and electronically reporting in near real-time EMI/RFI identification, characterization, and geo-location, including identifying and characterizing sub-carrier EMI/RFI being transmitted underneath an authorized carrier, and geo-locating the source of the EMI/RFI.

AND

2. At least one experience establishing and using with the customer a media and voice communications capability capable of protecting “Sensitive, but Unclassified” data.

Attribute #9: Net Ready (Interoperability)

1. At least two corporate experiences delivering COMSATCOM solutions that are consistent with commercial standards and practices.

AND

2. At least one corporate experience accessing and/or interoperating with Government or Commercial teleports/gateways and provide enterprise service access to or among customer networks or enclaves.

Using the documented experience scoring developed during the independent evaluations, a composite corporate experience ranking will be assigned using an adjectival rating for the overall Corporate Experience Volume as shown below:

Superior Experience

Acceptable Experience

Marginal Experience

Unacceptable Experience

M-11

M.4 Factor 3 – Past Performance

Past performance will be evaluated based on the Offeror’s performance on three contracts including demonstrated corrective actions. The Offeror may include only its own past performance as a prime or as a subcontractor. Offerors will receive an overall past performance rating based on relevant performance within the past 3 years.

Relevancy of the performance is against the General Technical Requirements in Section C.

In the case of an Offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and will receive a "Neutral" rating.

During the source selection process, past/current customer reference points of contact (POCs) will need to complete the references questionnaire included in Section J. It is the Offeror’s responsibility to send this questionnaire to the three identified customer POCs. For the questionnaire to be valid and used in the evaluation, the customer reference POC must return the questionnaires directly to the GSA PCO.

The Offeror shall provide the following information for each reference:

M.4.1 Contract title.

M.4.2 Contract number.

M.4.3 Total contract value.

M.4.4 Contract start date, end date, and any options exercised.

M.4.5 Point of Contact (POC) name (Customer, Contracting Officer, or Program Manager), address, and telephone number.

M.4.6 A brief description of the contract demonstrating the relevance of the work to the General Technical Requirements in Section C.

No more than three (3) relevant Past Performance references will be accepted.

Additionally, Government and private sector personnel who use the Offerors’ services or equipment may be contacted. Other outside sources for information include, but are not limited to, open literature searches and commercial references services.

Offerors shall provide information on problems encountered on the identified contracts and the Offeror’s corrective action. Evaluators will also consider the sources of information, context of the data, and trends in Contractor's performance including demonstrated corrective actions.

M-12

Evaluators will provide an adjectival rating of the Offeror’s quality of delivery for each relevant past performance as shown below:

Offerors who demonstrate exceptional quality in their past efforts will receive the highest past performance rating.

Using the documented quality score for each relevant past performance, a composite past performance rating will be assigned for the Offeror as shown below:

Superior

Acceptable

Marginal

Unacceptable

Neutral

If negative past performance provides a basis to exclude the Offeror from the competitive range, the PCO will afford the Offeror the opportunity to respond to the negative information prior to the competitive range determination.

M.5 Factor 4 – Price

A price reasonableness assessment will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404- 1(b).

The Offeror’s price proposal will consist of the STO pricing tables and will be evaluated using the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1(b).

Exceptional

Satisfactory Quality

Marginal Quality

Unsatisfactory Quality

M-13

Pricing tables include a 3-year base period and two 1-year option periods. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise the options.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which proposed prices are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical/management proposal.

Proposed prices will be compared with prices of other Offerors. If that comparison is not sufficient to establish fair and reasonableness, proposed prices will be compared to other Government and commercial prices for similar tasks. If both of those are insufficient, proposed prices will be compared to the independent Government cost estimate for each sample task.

M.6 52.217-5 Evaluation of Options (JUL 1990)

Except when it is determined in accordance with FAR 17.206(b) not to be in the

Government’s best interests, the Government will evaluate offers for award purposes by adding the total price for all options to the total price for the basic requirement.

Evaluation of options will not obligate the Government to exercise the option(s).

(End of provision)

M.7 Notice About Releasing Proposals

(1) The Government intends to disclose proposals received in response to this solicitation to nongovernment evaluators.

(2) Each evaluator will sign and provide to GSA a “Conflict of Interest Acknowledgment and Nondisclosure Agreement.”

(END OF SECTION M)