Section M - OPSCAP II RFP.docx

M-900. EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

I. Basis for Contract Award

A. Source Selection Methodology: This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.101-1 and 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Space Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. 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 superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced Offeror outweighs the cost difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this solicitation. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each Offeror. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets all requirements set forth in the RFP, has an acceptable Small Business Commitment, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in paragraph II below.

B. Factors, Subfactors and Relative Importance

1. Factors and Subfactors: A detailed and complete analysis of each Offeror’s proposal will be performed. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1. Technical

· Subfactor 1 - Strategic Approach:

Aspect 1: Staffing Approach Aspect 2: Quality Control Approach

· Subfactor 2 - Technical Approach Aspect 1: C2 Operations Support Aspect 2: DCO-S Support Aspect 3: Enterprise SATCOM Support Aspect 4: Facility Support Aspect 5: Space Cadre Talent Management Support

· Subfactor 3 - Task Order Staffing/Transition Approach Aspect 1: Staffing Approach Aspect 2: Transition Approach

Factor 2. Small Business Commitment

Factor 3. Cost

2. Relative Importance: Among the evaluation factors considered in the tradeoff decision, Technical Subfactor 2 is significantly more important than Cost and is the ONLY tradeoff factor/subfactor with Cost. Technical Subfactor 1, Technical Subfactor 3, and Factor 2 are of equal importance to each other and will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis and rated as Acceptable or Unacceptable. However, all non-price factors/subfactors when combined, are significantly more important than Cost, but ONLY Technical Subfactor 2 will be considered as a tradeoff with Cost.

II. Proposal Evaluation: The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

A. General

1. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Government determines discussions are necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer 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 Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the Source Selection Authority, 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.

B. Volume I, Contracting Volume

1. The Offeror is required to submit the required documentation addressed in Section L.II.B. In order to be eligible for a basic contract award, the Offeror shall adequately address and complete all the documentation listed in Section L.II.B.

C. Volume II, Technical Factor

1. General: Each Offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors below, to determine if the Offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the PWS and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. Technical Subfactors 1 and 3 will be evaluated on a pass/fail basis assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable, as further described in paragraph C.3. One subfactor rated Unacceptable will result in an Unacceptable Technical proposal, which will render the Offeror’s proposal unawardable. Technical Subfactor 2 will be evaluated on a combined technical/risk basis and will be assigned a color and adjectival rating. Technical Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall acceptable/unacceptable nor a color/adjectival rating for the Technical Factor 1. To be awardable, the Offeror cannot receive an Unacceptable rating for either Technical Subfactor 1 or 3, nor may the Offeror receive a Red/Unsatisfactory rating for Technical Subfactor 2.

1.1. Subfactor 1 - Strategic Approach (IDIQ PWS): The subfactor is technically acceptable when the Offeror submits a Strategic Approach, which includes the following:

1.1.1. Aspect 1: Staffing Approach

An acceptable approach describing the Offeror’s:

· ability to provide an overarching Program Management capability through oversight of key personnel in performance of the IDIQ contract;

· general recruiting and training strategy, standard operating procedures, and capacity required to respond to all the requirements of the IDIQ PWS;

· process for networking or obtaining outside resources to augment the pool of qualified personnel; and

· process for maintaining a workforce and quickly filling unexpected vacancies, i.e., retention incentives, recruitment bonuses, etc.

1.1.2. Aspect 2: Quality Control (QC) Approach

An acceptable approach addressing how the Offeror will:

· ensure quality, schedule, cost, and performance for both cost reimbursable and Firm Fixed Price task orders;

· provide sufficient oversight to effectively manage and integrate team partners, and the flow-down process of its QC Approach to ensure consistency among the team;

· effectively identify and resolve problems arising between team partners; and

· notify the Government of issues affecting contract performance, contract impact, proposed mitigation, and provide for contractor self-oversight.

1.2. Subfactor 2 - Technical Approach (TO PWS):

1.2.1. Aspect 1: Command & Control (C2) Operations Support

· Offeror demonstrates an effective and sound approach specific to the TO PWS paragraph 1.3.1:

· to support Functional Area Managers and the Weapon System Lead for USSF Command and Control (C2) operations units, USSPACECOM’s National Space Defense Center C2, and all required capabilities as they pertain to the Generation, Presentation, and Sustainment of USSF and USSPACECOM NSDC C2 Operational forces; and

· clearly demonstrating an understanding of C2 operations policies and procedures as related to all non-USSF Air Operations Centers, the use of classified systems to include Special Access Program systems.

1.2.2. Aspect 2: DCO-S Support

· Offeror demonstrates an effective and sound approach specific to the TO PWS paragraph 1.3.2:

· providing mission and planning analysis for DCO / Offensive Cyber Operations / Cyber C2 / Cyber Situational Awareness / DoD Information Operations concepts and programs and supporting the strategic technical planning and analysis for current and future proactive defensive cyber operations capabilities;

· to identify recommendations to support the writing of the Concept of Operations to support DCO-S operational capabilities, and provide a sound, approach to the rapid development, acquisition, and fielding of capabilities to meet urgent operational needs; and

· to make recommendations for Special Technical Operations planning/processes in execution of mission capabilities supporting multiple COCOMs, and emergency International Partners.

1.2.3. Aspect 3: Enterprise SATCOM

· Offeror demonstrates and effective and sound approach specific to the TO PWS paragraph 1.3.3:

· to provide the required technical assistance and subject matter expertise (SME) support for the Military Satellite Communications and Commercial Satellite Communications mission areas under Protected, Wideband, and Narrowband systems as described in the PWS;

· to meet the development of Mission Area Initial Capabilities Documents, Initial Capabilities Documents, Capability Development Documents, Capability Production Documents, senior leadership intent, Service & Joint requirements council memos, studies, and other efforts in support of emerging SATCOM programs JCIDS or acquisition processes; specifying the delivery of operational management, planning, technical assistance to support the restoral recommendations for ensuring standardized, high quality, integrated and uninterrupted SATCOM resources are provided for USSPACECOM and Combatant Commands; and

· to provide 24x7 support to the SATCOM Integrated Operations Division.

1.2.4. Aspect 4: Facility Support

Offeror demonstrates an effective and sound approach specific to the TO PWS paragraph 1.3.13, which best addresses the critical requirement of providing meeting facilities capable of accommodating up to 150 personnel to support technical exchange meetings, conferences, working groups, and other collaboration and mission related activities at the Unclassified, Secret, Top Secret, and Top Secret/SCI, and Special Access Required (SAR) levels within a 5 mile radius of Peterson AFB.

1.2.5. Aspect 5: Space Cadre Talent Management Support

· Offeror demonstrates an effective and sound approach specific to the TO PWS paragraph 1.3.9:

· To providing support for the SCTMO in modifying, maintaining and executing queries against the Space Talent Analysis & Requirements System (STARS) for tracking Total Force (Active Duty, Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard) space cadre military and civilian personnel and billets using Microsoft SQL Server 2016 Enterprise Edition; and

· In providing the development and maintenance of training system requirements for space systems including system training plan development, and initial operational assessment. This will include review of requirements and planning documents associated with acquisition and maintenance of training systems supporting space operations

1.3. Subfactor 3 - Task Order Staffing/Transition Approach (TO PWS): The subfactor is technically acceptable when the Offeror submits a Task Order Staffing/Transition Approach which includes the following:

1.3.1. Aspect 1: Staffing Approach

An acceptable approach including a:

· proposed workforce composition showing labor categories, FTEs, associated number of hours, direct TO PWS requirement supported, security clearance, education/certifications, experience, and if applicable, cross utilization for the base period and all option years (in the format as provided in Attachment L3, Staffing Approach Table);

· an organizational chart which shows management structure, lines of authority and chain(s) of command including teaming partners and subcontractors as well as applicable experience and qualification summaries;

· clearly identified responsibilities and functional relationships while also describing the approach for proactively managing all TO PWS requirements, and teaming partner/subcontractor relationships;

· description of how continuity of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, voluntary or involuntary termination from employment will be ensured; and

· if applicable, information on cross utilization of FTEs across functional areas.

1.3.2. Aspect 2: Transition Approach

· An acceptable approach which adequately addresses how the Offeror will successfully transfer all requirements from the incumbent within 60 days of contract award and prior to contract performance start, while minimizing risk to continuity of services for all requirement stakeholders. Additionally, the acceptable approach adequately addresses transfer of Government-furnished supplies, a joint review of all open issues/corrective actions in each function, and methodology for CAC issuance/transition ensuring no degradation or interruption to mission requirements.

2. Combined Technical/Technical Risk Rating for Technical Subfactor 2: The technical rating is assigned based upon the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an Offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness(es) in the Offeror’s proposed technical solution, as well as the Offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable), and document why that is or is not manageable. Technical Subfactor 2 identified above will receive one of the color/adjectival ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, and deficiencies of the Offeror's proposal.

Technical Subfactor 2 Ratings:

Table 3. Combined Technical/Risk Rating Method

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

Strength is an aspect of an Offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government.

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

3. Technical Rating for Technical Subfactors 1 and 3: The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the Offeror's technical approach for meeting the Government's requirements in Technical Subfactors 1 and 3. The Offeror's proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the Subfactor is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in the table below. One technical rating will be assigned to each Technical Subfactor (1 and 3).

DoD Source Selection Procedures Table C-1: Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method:

D. Volume II, Small Business Commitment

1. Small Business Commitment (Acceptable/Unacceptable). This factor will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with the modified ratings from DoD Source Selection Procedures Table 6. The factor will be rated “Acceptable” when:

a. The minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 35% percent of total contract cost is met (to include the 5% SDVOSB requirement and the 5% WOSB requirement being met) and

b. Each small business concern utilized as a teaming partner or subcontractor is specifically identified and formally committed to by name, via a signed teaming agreement with that specific small business concern. Additionally, the teaming agreement shall address the type of small business (i.e. SB, SDVOSB, WOSB), type of service(s) and percentage of contracted support the small business will provide. The Government will evaluate the teaming agreement based on the extent of commitment to use the teaming partner, as well as the level of enforceability.

Modified Table 6 from DoD Source Selection Procedures: Ratings for Factor 3

c. If an Offeror is registered as a small business under NAICS 541990 in the System for Award Management (SAM), a Small Business Participation Commitment Document is not required and this factor will be given a rating of “Acceptable”.

d. The Small Business Participation Commitment Document will be incorporated into the Subcontracting Plan prior to award.

E. Volume IV. Cost Factor

1. General. The Government will evaluate the Cost Factor for all Offerors that do not contain an Unacceptable or Unsatisfactory rating. The Government shall evaluate the Offeror’s initial task order cost proposal, to include any option years, for reasonableness, completeness, balance, and cost realism. Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Offeror’s initial task order cost will be the only discriminator evaluated under the price factor. The SSA will make an integrated assessment best value award decision. In doing so, the SSA may tradeoff Cost with Technical Subfactor 2, Technical Approach (TO PWS), with Technical Subfactor 2 being considered as significantly more important than Cost.

Task Order Cost Evaluation:

a. Reasonableness: The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate cost/price competition in accordance with FAR 15.305 and 15.404-1 to determine cost/price reasonableness. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. An Offeror’s initial task order cost must be determined reasonable to be eligible for award. NOTE: In the event that the Government’s performed cost realism analysis determines the Offeror’s proposal to have a probable cost different than the proposed cost, the probable cost of performance will be used for evaluation purposes.

b. Balance: The Government will analyze the task order proposal to determine whether CPFF CLINs 0001, 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 are unbalanced with respect to yearly cost/prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the Contracting Officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

c. Completeness: The Government shall review the Offeror’s task order proposal for completeness based on the requirements contained in Section L of the solicitation.

d. Realism: When contracting on a cost-reimbursement basis, evaluations shall include a cost realism analysis to determine what the Government should realistically expect to pay for the proposed effort and to evaluate the Offeror’s understanding of the work and ability to perform the contract. The resultant probable cost shall be used for purposes of evaluation to determine the best value (FAR 15.305(a)(1), 15.404-1(c)(1), and 15.404-1(d)(2)). The Government shall evaluate the proposed labor and subcontract costs to determine cost realism on the initial Task Order. The Cost team may confer with the Technical Evaluation Team for assistance in determining cost realism. Task Order cost proposals deemed by the Government to be unrealistic shall not be eligible for award.

e. The Government intends to award the initial Task Order proposal, at the Offeror’s proposed cost plus fixed fee, with the award of the OPSCAP II Basic IDIQ contract.