5. T3PI Section M Evaluation Factors Amend 0001.pdf

FA240125R0001 Attachment 05

Proliferated Warfighter Space Architecture (PWSA)

Tranche 3 Program Integration (T3PI)

Attachment 5 – Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award

December 13, 2024

Amendment 0001, dated January 10, 2025

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

1 Basis for Contract Award This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) subpart 15.3 and the Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures.

The Government will select the Offeror that represents the overall best value to the Government.

In making its award decision, the Government will use the evaluation Factors shown in Table 1.

The Government will not assume that the Offeror possesses any capability or knowledge unless it is specified in their proposal. The successful Offeror will need to be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR subpart 9.1, as supplemented by Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and proposals must conform to the solicitation’s requirements to be eligible for award. The Government may reject any or all proposals, if such action is in the best interest of the Government and waive informalities and minor irregularities in proposals received. While the Government strives for maximum objectivity in its evaluations, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.1 Evaluation Methodology

The following Factors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The basis for evaluation for all Factors will be the Offeror’s full proposal. The Government will assign one of the color ratings described for the Factors as shown in Table 1.

Table 1 Evaluation Factors

1.2 Relative Importance of Factors

In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Factors 1 through 6, when combined, are approximately equal to Factor 7, Cost/Price. Factors 1 through 6, are in descending order of importance. Any Offeror receiving a rating of “Unacceptable” or “Not Reasonable” in one or more Factor(s) may be deemed ineligible for award and not be further considered for selection.

2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to make one (1) award to the Offeror that provides the best value for this requirement in accordance with the solicitation. The Government reserves the right to make a partial award or no awards at all.

3 General Instructions The Government will evaluate, in accordance with this attachment, information that the Offeror provides in response to Attachment 4 and sub attachment – Proposal Instructions. The Government may reject any or all proposals, if such action is in the best interest of the Government and waive informalities and/or minor irregularities in proposals received.

3.1 Solicitation Requirements

An Offeror is required to meet or exceed all solicitation proposal submission requirements, e.g., terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan submissions and Representations and Certifications. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Outstanding Good Acceptable Marginal Unacceptable

Factors Rating Methodology

Program Management / Personnel

Qualifications

Combined Solution Value and Risk Rating

2 Technical Approach

Combined Solution Value and Risk Rating

3 Past Performance

Substantial

Confidence

Satisfactory

Confidence

Limited

Confidence

Neutral

Confidence No Confidence

4 OCI

High

Confidence

Moderate

Confidence Low Confidence

5 Security

Total Evaluated Cost/Price

Acceptable Unacceptable

6 Small Business Acceptable Unacceptable

7 Cost / Price

Total Evaluated Cost/Price

Reasonable Not Reasonable

Balanced Unbalanced

Offeror being ineligible for award. The Government reserves the right to cross-reference between volumes and sections of volumes to support proposal evaluation.

3.2 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions; however, the Government reserves the right to establish a competitive range and hold discussions with the most highly rated Offeror(s). The Government may request Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) from all Offerors who remain in the competitive range (see Section 4 – Competitive Range). Any proposal updates will be evaluated according to the evaluation criteria specified herein. The Government may suggest to Offerors that have exceeded any mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to their approach), their proposals would be more competitive if excess language were removed, and the associated cost elements decreased or removed.

As described in FAR 15.101-1, the Government will evaluate offers using a competitive best-value tradeoff process among price and the non-price Factors listed herein. Thus, the Government may elect to award to other than the lowest priced Offerors or other than the highest technically rated Offerors. An Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms regarding price and technical capability.

4 Competitive Range In the event the Government determines to establish a competitive range, and in accordance with FAR 15.306, an Offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range at any time during discussions if the Offeror is no longer considered to be among the most highly rated. This elimination can occur whether or not all material aspects of the proposal have been discussed or if the Offeror has been afforded an opportunity to submit an FPR. The Contracting Officer (CO) 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.

5 Evaluation of Factor 1: Program Management / Personnel Qualifications

This factor evaluates the Offeror’s approach for managing the contract to ensure that all assigned tasks are accomplished successfully as described in the SOW. The Offeror must include an effective management approach, including subcontract management, for ensuring management consistency, continuity, and planning activities, which demonstrates capabilities of the Offeror’s organization and dedication to the program’s goals and objectives.

This factor also evaluates the Offeror’s ability to provide a complete, adequate, and fully qualified team that possesses the proper skill mix to successfully execute the program beginning immediately upon contract award and perform the tasks described in the SOW of this solicitation.

This factor evaluates the degree to which the Offeror demonstrates an acceptable program management approach and provides qualified personnel through a written proposal:

1. A sound and viable management plan (approach) that adequately addresses:

a. The proposed organizational structure, authority and lines of responsibility

b. A sound and viable staffing plan (Section L 4g), to include subcontractors

c. Subcontractor management

2. A sound and viable approach to providing qualified personnel

a. Key Personnel résumés demonstrate requisite education and experience as identified in Section 4.1 of the SOW and are complete in accordance with the résumé and skills matrix template

b. All proposed Key Personnel have current TS/SCI clearances

c. Proposal includes Key Personnel letter(s) of intent and are available to start at ATP.

Table 2 Program Management & Personnel Qualification Evaluation Factors

Color Rating

Adjectival Rating Description

Outstanding

1. Proposal indicates an exceptional Program Management approach that ensures all assigned tasks are accomplished successfully.

2. Proposal provides an exceptional approach to securing highly qualified Personnel that ensures sound and viable staffing resources.

3. Proposed résumés for key personnel demonstrate full confidence in area of experience/expertise.

Good

1. Proposal indicates a complete understanding of a Program Management approach that ensures all assigned tasks are accomplished successfully.

2. Proposal provides a thorough approach and understanding to securing highly qualified Personnel that ensures sound and viable staffing resources and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

3. Proposed résumés for key personnel demonstrate high confidence in area of experience/expertise.

Acceptable

1. Proposal indicates an understanding of a Program Management approach that ensures all assigned tasks are accomplished successfully.

2. Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding to securing highly qualified Personnel that ensures sound and viable staffing resources and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is moderate to low.

3. Proposed résumés for key personnel demonstrate some confidence in area of experience/expertise.

Marginal

1. Proposal indicates a limited understanding of a Program Management approach that ensures all assigned tasks are accomplished.

2. Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding to securing highly qualified Personnel that ensures sound and viable staffing resources, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

3. Proposed résumés for key personnel demonstrate marginal confidence in area of experience/expertise.

Unacceptable

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

The Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 1: Program Management/Personnel Qualifications Schedule and Schedule Management rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful schedule performance.

A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

6 Evaluation of Factor 2: Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed technical approach and system architecture that demonstrates experience of integrating systems.

The approach should include Enterprise Architecture Analysis, Program Requirements Assessment and Management Support, Program Integration and Verification Management, Program Configuration Management, Space Systems Engineering Support, Ground Systems Engineering Support, Program Schedule Management, Program Risk and Opportunity Management, Program Trade Studies and Assessments, and Technical Reviews.

The Government will assess:

1. The extent to which the proposed technical approach addresses the comprehensive system architecture and demonstrates a clear understanding of the entire SDA T3 program.

2. The extent to which the proposed technical approach is sufficiently comprehensive to deliver T3 Program Integration.

The basis of the assessment will be Volume II – Technical Approach, including the technical scenario response(s), and all attachments, as well as any solution details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. Identified strengths and weaknesses in technical areas that affect solution viability or contribute to technical risk will also be considered in this assessment.

The Government will assign an overall Factor 2: Technical Approach rating as described in Table 3.

Table 3 Technical / Risk Approach Evaluation Factors

Adjectival Rating Description

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.

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

Acceptable

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

Marginal

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

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 Government will assign significant strengths, strengths, and/or deficiencies, weaknesses, and significant weaknesses to the Offeror’s proposal to arrive at the Factor 2: Program Management and Technical Solution rating. Significant strengths, strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, and deficiencies in descending order of a positive evaluation by the Government are defined as follows:

A Significant Strength is an aspect of the Offeror's proposal that will be very advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that appreciably decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Strength is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance or that decreases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Significant Weakness is an aspect of the Offeror’s proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful technical performance.

A Deficiency is a material failure of an Offeror’s proposal to meet a Government requirement.

7 Evaluation of Factor 3: Past Performance Confidence The Government will assess the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements based on the Offeror’s demonstrated record of work performance on recent and relevant efforts.

In addition to the referenced past performance proposed by the Offeror under this section, the panel may also consider any other recent and relevant past performance by the Offeror or a proposed major teammate/subcontractor.

The Government will evaluate Factor 3 based on information provided within proposal Volume III– Past Performance. The Government may consider past performance information not provided by the Offeror including, but not limited to:

Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS)

Publicly available information

Personal knowledge of contractor’s performance

Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

Interviews with Customer Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials or other personnel with managerial or oversight responsibilities related to the cited effort

Past performance questionnaires completed by customers from whom the Offeror has received previous contract awards

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s recent (performance was within three (3) calendar years of the proposal due date) and relevant (based on size, scope and complexity) record of past performance information obtained to determine whether past performance efforts relate to the scope of activities described in Attachment 1 – Statement of Work. More relevant past performance will have more influence on the performance confidence assessment than past performance of lesser relevance.

The following ratings, in table 4, will be assigned to the Offeror’s collective past performance for relevancy:

Table 4 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Description

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

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

A. The degree to which the Offeror met the technical and performance requirements

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

C. The degree to which to Offeror met the negotiated costs of the contract

D. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the evaluation will also consider the extent to which the Offeror’s past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.218-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns (if applicable).

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a Past Performance Confidence rating from Table 5.

Table 5 Past Performance Confidence Evaluation Criteria

Adjectival Rating Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort as it relates to schedule, cost, technical performance and overall delivery.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort as it relates to schedule, cost, technical performance and overall delivery.

Limited Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort as it relates to schedule, cost, technical performance and overall delivery.

Neutral Confidence

No 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 (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii) and (iv)).

No Confidence

Based on the Offeror’s relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort as it relates to schedule, cost, technical performance and overall delivery

Any Offeror whose rating under Past Performance is “No Confidence” will not be eligible for award.

8 Evaluation of Factor 4: Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI)

This assessment measures the Government's confidence that the Offeror's proposed OCI approach and resources to avoid, neutralize or mitigate actual or potential OCI during execution of the contract. The Offeror's OCI Plan shall demonstrate that the prime contractor will address the identified risks below and include an approach to ensure subcontractor(s) will adhere to this plan as well.

During the execution of the T3 Program Integration contract, the contractor’s personnel will be required to develop, maintain, recommend, and review documents related to the Tranche programs including space vehicles and ground providers. These responsibilities will inherently create OCI's and will place contractor personnel in a position to make recommendations on their own products or that of their competitors (impaired objectivity), as well as have access to other contractor proprietary information (unequal access to information). During execution of this contract, the contractor will assist in the development of requirements and interfaces and could potentially steer future efforts their way (biased ground rules).

Specific potential and actual OCI Risks that the Government has identified are listed below:

Identified Risk #1: Impaired Objectivity: During the execution of T3 Program Integration, contractor personnel will have access to other companies' proprietary information.

Identified Risk #2: Unequal Access to Information: As the T3 Program Integrator, the Contractor will be working closely with the Government, contractor personnel and may be exposed to sensitive information regarding future acquisitions.

Identified Risk #3: Biased Ground Rules: Contractor personnel will assist in developing interface requirements for T3 developmental efforts, future architectures, and thread management, all of which could potentially skew acquisition efforts and competition.

OCI is evaluated using a confidence scale in Table 6.

Table 6 OCI Evaluation Criteria

Confidence Rating Description

High

Confidence

Offeror’s proposed OCI Assessment demonstrates an exceptional understanding of the requirements and avoids OCI risk to mission integrity.

The Government has high confidence that the Offeror's proposed OCI Assessment and OCI Avoidance written guarantee is robust and that the need for Government oversight and/or intervention is unlikely.

Moderate Confidence Offeror's proposed OCI Plan demonstrates a good understanding of the requirements and adequately mitigates the risk to mission integrity. The Government has moderate confidence in the Offeror's proposed OCI plan.

Program integrity is likely with Offeror corrective action and some Government oversight and/or intervention.

Low Confidence Offeror's proposed OCI Plan does not demonstrate an understanding of the requirements and does not reduce risk to mission integrity. The Government has low confidence that the Offeror's proposed OCI plan will be able to avoid or neutralize identified or potential OCI. Program integrity will be severely impacted.

Any Offeror whose rating under OCI is “Low Confidence” will not be eligible for award.

9 Evaluation of Factor 5: Security

This item assesses the Offeror’s security approach, personnel clearances, and facilities. Security will be given a pass/fail rating. The Government will assess the security qualifications of each Offeror based on the following factors:

1. The offeror’s approach for maintaining and executing a security program compliant with the

SDA’s Program Protection Plan, policies, procedures, and directives, to include all automated information systems security requirements. The Offeror must demonstrate a sound and viable approach to security management of their employees.

2. The Offeror’s proposed personnel listed in the Personnel Qualification Matrix are appropriately cleared in accordance with SOW Section 4.4.

3. The Offeror demonstrates that the proposed SCIF is accredited in accordance with current DCID standards and current ICDs.

4. The Offerors proposal complies with Disclosure of Ownership or Control by a Foreign Government (DFAR 252.209-7002).

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will receive a rating from Table 7.

Table 7 Security Evaluation Criteria

Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of all required Security Factors

Unacceptable Proposal does not indicate an adequate approach or understanding of all required Security Factors

Any Offeror whose rating under Security is “Unacceptable” will not be eligible for award

10 Evaluation of Factor 6: Small Business Participation The evaluation of Small Business Subcontracting and Commitment to the Small Business Program applies to all Offerors, except that Small Businesses are not required to submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan and will receive an Acceptable rating. The Government will evaluate Factor 6 based on information provided within proposal Volume V. – Small Business Participation.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which small businesses (to include Service-Disabled, Veteran-Owned. small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, Small Disadvantaged business concerns, and Women-Owned small business concerns) are identified in Attachment 4 - the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD). Offerors must meet the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of small business participation which is five

(5) percent (%) of the total proposed contract value (to include options). The Government will assess the Small Business Utilization Plan (SBUP) (if applicable) in accordance with FAR 19.704 and the SBUP must reflect the level of small business participation specified in the SBPCD.

Offerors are free to submit only an SBPCD, only a SBUP, or both, if all information required by Attachment 4 and a thorough discussion of identification, selection and utilization of small business concerns for more than simply administrative purchases is contained therein. The Government will consider an Offeror’s dependence on small business for critical technical aspects of its overall proposal. The inclusion of significant engineering or technical elements from small business and other than traditional defense and aerospace contractors is considered a strength by

SDA.

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will receive a rating from Table 8.

Table 8 Small Business Evaluation Criteria

Adjectival Rating

Description

Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives: Proposal meets MQR

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet MQR.

11 Evaluation of Factor 7: Cost/Price

The Government will evaluate Factor 7 based on information provided within proposal Volume VII – Cost/Price and all attachments, and any details contained within any of the other proposal volumes. The Offeror’s cost/price will be evaluated for Reasonableness, Realism and Unbalanced pricing. Proposals that are determined to be Unreasonable or Unrealistic are not awardable.

Proposals that are determined to contain Unbalanced pricing may not be awardable.

The Government will conduct cost/price proposal evaluations in accordance with FAR 15.4, “Contract Pricing.” Particular attention shall be given to FAR 15.404-1(b) entitled Price Analysis.

Elements of FAR 15.404-1(b) that may be used in the evaluation include: comparison of proposed prices received in response to the solicitation; comparison of proposed prices with independent Government cost estimates; and analysis of data other than certified cost or pricing data (as defined at 2.101) provided by the Offeror. The Government may use data external to the Offeror's proposal such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data when evaluating price reasonableness. The Offeror’s cost/price will also be used to assess best value as described in Section 1, with lower cost/prices being evaluated more favorably. The burden of demonstrating cost credibility lies with the Offeror, including subcontract cost/price analysis. The results of the cost evaluation will be considered in performing an integrated assessment leading to selection of a successful Offeror.

11.1 Reasonableness

Reasonableness of an Offeror’s proposed cost will be evaluated using one or more of the cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404. For a cost to be reasonable, it must represent a cost to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business [FAR 31.201-3(a)]. If the CO determines Adequate Price Competition (APC) has not been obtained, reasonableness will be evaluated using cost analysis techniques described in FAR 15.404-1.

11.2 Realism and Probable Cost

For Cost reimbursable CLINs, the Government will evaluate the realism of each Offeror’s proposed costs in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d)(1). Cost realism analysis is used to determine the probable cost of an Offeror’s unique technical proposal and to ensure the Offeror understands the requirements of the contract. A small difference between the proposed cost and the probable cost indicates a realistic proposal based on the Offeror’s unique technical solution; while a large difference indicates an unrealistic proposal based on that unique technical solution. A cost realism analysis involves independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of the cost buildup, e.g., labor and material, of each Offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine:

A. The estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed.

B. Reflect a clear understanding of the scope of work; and

C. Are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

The cost realism analysis conducted by the Cost Panel determines the Probable Cost (PC) of the proposed contract. PC adjustments can be made for inconsistencies between the cost proposal and supporting documentation, such as major teammate/subcontractor proposals submitted under separate cover to the Government, math errors, logic errors, unsupported assertions, proposed effort not included in the cost, or inappropriate estimating methods in the Offeror’s proposal. The PC may or may not differ from the proposed cost and shall reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost of any contract most likely to result from an Offeror’s proposal. The PC shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value. A contract will not be awarded based on a proposal with an indeterminable PC due to missing information or other factors.

11.3 Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposed prices for unbalanced pricing IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable PC, the price of one or more price inputs in the pricing tables is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

Based on the evaluation, the Offeror will be assigned a rating from Table 9.

Table 9 Cost/Price Evaluation Criteria

Cost/Price

Probable Cost

Reasonable Not Reasonable

Balanced Unbalanced

Any Offeror whose rating under Cost/Price is “Not Reasonable” will not be eligible for award.