Draft RFP Section M - 3 February.docx

M-1 Source Selection for NGC2 Basis for Contract Award This is a source selection conducted in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS and the AFARS. These regulations are available electronically at https://www.acquisition.gov. The Government intends to award more than one (1), Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contracts as a result of this solicitation. In order to receive an award, the Offeror must:

1. Receive an acceptable rating for Factors 1, 2, 3, and 4. Factor 5 (TBD); and

2. Be evaluated for compliance; and

3. Provide submission requirements for all Volumes.

Evaluation The technical proposal should include all information the Offeror wants the Government to consider and evaluate regarding its company’s ability to perform all required tasks and conform to all required terms and conditions. The Government’s determination will be based on the stated evaluation factors.

This procurement is subject to DFARS 215.306 and therefore, the intent of the Government is to favor discussions. However, the Government reserves the right to exercise its discretion not to enter into discussions in accordance with DFARS 215.306 if it is determined that discussions are inappropriate. In the event issues pertaining to a proposed contract cannot be resolved to the KO’s satisfaction, the Government reserves the right to withdraw and cancel the solicitation. In such event, Offerors will be notified in writing. In the event a competitive range is established, and the KO determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the KO may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award multiple Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) with an order fulfilling minimum guarantee requirements under the base contract at time of award; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all. If an award is made, the projected start date of the contract ordering period, is April 2025.

Clarifications and Communications Clarifications are limited exchanges between the government and Offerors that may occur when contract award without discussions is contemplated. The Government may, but is not required to, engage in clarifications that give Offerors an opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals or to resolve minor or clerical errors before the establishment of the competitive range. These communications shall not provide an opportunity for the Offeror to revise its proposal.

Notice of Award A written notice of award or acceptance of a proposal emailed or otherwise furnished to the successful Offeror within the time for acceptance specified in the offer, shall result in a binding contract without further action by either party.

Evaluation Factors The following evaluation factors will be used to evaluate each proposal.

Factor 1: Past Performance

Evaluation Factors All factors be evaluated on an Acceptable/Unacceptable evaluation. Offerors that do not receive an acceptable rating for all five factors will not be evaluated for compliance and shall be eliminated from further consideration.

Factor 1 - Past Performance Past Performance will be rated on an “acceptable” or “unacceptable” basis using the ratings in Table M.2.2.7.

Past Performance Assessment The past performance evaluation is an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the minimum past performance solicitation requirements. This assessment is based on the Offeror’s record of relevant and recent past performance information that pertain to the products and/or services outlined in the solicitation requirements.

Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation Sources are as follows:

1. Past performance information provided by the Offeror in Volume III.

1. Past performance information may also be utilized from established systems such as the Contractor’s Past Performance Assessment System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and may be obtained from other sources available to the Government, such as the Defense Contract Management Agency; and interviews with Program Managers, KOs.

Recency and Relevancy The past performance references submitted must adhere to the recent and relevant definitions below to be considered acceptable.

Recency An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the original date of issuance of this solicitation, or for ongoing efforts, must have been in performance at least nine (9) months prior to proposal due date. Past performance information that fails the recency condition will not be evaluated for relevancy or quality.

Relevancy The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent past performance submissions. For each recent past performance reference reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed. Relevant past performance means providing evidence demonstrating experience delivering requirements consistent with Attachment 000X – SOO Prototype.

Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the performance quality of each recent and relevant effort (i.e., how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for acceptability or unacceptability. The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of the past performance information provided, CPARS, PPIRS information, and/or interviews with Government customers. It may include interviews with DCMA officials or other sources known to the Government.

Assigning Ratings As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, Offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level. The Offeror will receive an overall “acceptable” or “unacceptable” rating for the Past Performance factor based on the recent, relevant and quality assessment ratings of all past performance references.

NOTE: In the case of an Offeror without a record of recent and relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305 (a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the Offeror shall be determined to have unknown (or “neutral”) past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, a neutral rating shall be considered “acceptable.”

Table M.2.2.7 Past Performance Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Factor 2 – Prototype White Paper In order to be found technically acceptable, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s approach is feasible and meets the Attachment 000X – Prototype SOO requirements; the extent to which success is not contingent upon untried or unproven processes or methods; the extent to which the design optimizes (TBD); and the extent to which the Offeror’s methods and approach demonstrates knowledge of technical landscape/engineering processes, accounts for risks, and actively manages team members/relationships. The Offeror will be rated separately as either acceptable or unacceptable (see Table M.2.3 below) Table M.2.3 Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Factor 3 – Prototype Technical Capabilities In order to be found technically acceptable, the Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s white paper meets Attachment 000X – Prototype Technical self-score card requirements. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s supporting information and the self-score card. In order to receive an acceptable rating, the score card shall be substantiated for at least 75% to receive an acceptable rating. Offeror will be rated separately as either acceptable or unacceptable (see Table M.2.4 below):

Table M.2.4 Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Factor 4 – Prototype Letters of Intent In order to be found technically acceptable, the Offeror shall submit a response using Attachment 000X – Teaming Letters of Intent template that meets the below criteria:

For each teaming partner referenced in the Offeror’s Prototype White Paper in Factor 2, the Offeror shall submit proof via Attachment 000X. Acceptable proof includes a subcontract agreement, commitment to subcontract agreement, service provider agreement, and/or license agreement. If a teaming partner refuses to team due to an exclusivity agreement with another Offeror, submit proof of refusal. Teaming refusals due to exclusivity agreements with competing Offerors shall not result in an Unacceptable rating. Any agreements and letters shall be dated in the 2025 calendar year to be to determined acceptable.

Table M.2.6 Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings

Factor 5 - Small Business Participation (TBD) The Small Business Subcontracting Plan is required (FAR 52.219-9) for Other Than Small Businesses (OTSB) Offerors ONLY (i.e., Large Businesses). OTSB Firms must submit acceptable subcontracting plans in accordance with FAR 52.219-9 to be eligible for award. Any Small Business Subcontracting Plan submitted shall be relevant Volume IV, Part D-- Small Business Participation.

NOTE: Subcontracting plans will only be reviewed for acceptability for any Offeror who receives an acceptable rating for factors 1, 2, 3, and 4, and is eligible for an IDIQ award.

The Government will review the Small Business Participation Plan on an acceptable or unacceptable basis.

Table M.2.5.2 Small Business Participation Acceptable/Unacceptable Method

Additional Requirements Property Management Plan Compliance The Government will review the Offeror’s Property Management Plan in accordance with FAR 45.201(c)(4) and solicitation requirements. An acceptable plan meets all requirements. Failure to submit a compliant Property Management Plan may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

OCI Mitigation Plan The Government’s review of the Offeror’s OCI Mitigation plan will consider:

1. The degree to which the offeror addresses OCI concerns

2. The Offeror’s approach for mitigating OCI issues

3. The adequacy of its OCI training and oversight programs

4. The adequacy of its procedures; and

5. Whether or not the offeror’s OCI plan and/or mitigation strategy complies with all regulatory and statutory requirements, including FAR Subpart 9.5.

An acceptable plan is one that addresses the items above and does not present any actual or perceived conflicts of interest. Offerors are notified that the KO will review any and all OCI Mitigation Plans submitted under this solicitation and document findings.

Other Information The Government will review other Offeror’s information such as completed DD Form 254 Contract Security Classification(s) and Data Rights Assertion Table(s) in compliance with solicitation requirements and associated terms and conditions. Failure to provide compliant offerings may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.

M-2