Attachment 05 - Section_M.docx

Solid State Phased Array Radar System Solicitation FA2518-25-R-XXXX

Attachment 5 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award Solid State Phased Array Radar System Solicitation FA2518-25-R-XXXX

Attachment 05 Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award

BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD.

M-1.1 This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3, DAFFARS 5315.3, including the DoD Source Selection (SS) Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and the DAFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3, and the DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 20 August 2022. The Government intends to award the IDIQ to a single offeror determined responsive and responsible and whose proposal is considered to provide the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the offeror’s technical proposal, past performance on similar contracts, small business participation, and Task Order (TO) 01 pricing. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds. The Government may incorporate all or some of the offeror’s proposal into the contract that meet and/or exceed the requirements and are deemed beneficial to the Government.

M-1.1.1 The Government seeks to award to the offeror who provides the best value by meeting or exceeding contract requirements. This may result in an award being made to a higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. While the Government’s source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective.

M-1.1.2 An Offeror’s proposed price must be determined; complete, balanced, realistic, and reasonable to be eligible for award. The Government will not award to an offeror with incomplete, unbalanced, unrealistic, or unreasonable pricing. This includes both original submissions and final offers.

M-1.2 As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with offerors (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)); therefore, the offeror’s initial proposal should contain the offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint. The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the SSA later determines them to be necessary. If the Government determines that a competitive range determination is necessary in accordance with FAR 15.306(c)(2), the SSA 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 proposal that would require major revisions to meet the stated minimum requirements will be excluded from the competitive range, if established. If discussions are required after the establishment of the competitive range per FAR 15.306(d), the PCO shall issue Evaluation Notices (ENs) to document discussions.

M-1.3 In order to be eligible for award, Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions; representations and certifications; evaluation factor requirements and be deemed responsible in accordance with FAR Part 9.104.

M-2.0 FINAL PROPOSAL REVISION.

M-2.1 If it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) will be required before making an award decision. The Government will make a Competitive Range determination, ENs may be issued to Offerors in the competitive range, responses will be requested from applicable Offerors, and discussions will be opened. Formal responses to ENs (if applicable), discussion items, and FPRs will be considered in making the award decision. Offerors should be aware that a complete understanding as technical, past performance, price, and all terms and conditions of the proposed contract must exist between the Offeror and the Government at the conclusion of discussions, if held.

M-2.1.1 Any material changes, revisions, or non-concurrence to contract terms and conditions submitted in the FPR may not be subject to further discussion or negotiation and may render the offer unacceptable to the Government. If, for instance, upon submission of the FPR, an Offeror materially changes the proposal such that the price is no longer complete, balanced, realistic, and fair and reasonable, or other factor inputs change the ranking among other Offerors, the Offeror may be removed from consideration for award. This provision is not intended to restrict the Offeror’s opportunity to revise figures (e.g., prices, discounts, percentages, rates, etc.); rather, it is intended to preclude any misunderstandings by the Government, which could result if new or revised terms and conditions are submitted in the FPR that have not been fully disclosed, discussed and understood during discussions or negotiations. Hence, such new or revised terms and conditions are not solicited and, if submitted in the FPR, may render the offer unacceptable to the Government.

M-3.0 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND FACTORS

M-3.1 Factor and Subfactors: Proposals will be evaluated based on the following:

Factor 1: Technical

· Subfactor 1: Program Management

· Subfactor 2: Operations & Maintenance

· Subfactor 3: Transition/Phase-In Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Small Business Participation Factor 4: Cost/Price (& Contract Documents)

M-3.1.1 Relative Order of Importance. Factor 1 - Technical is slightly more important than Factor - 2 Past Performance. Within Factor 1 - Technical, Subfactor 1 - Program Management and Subfactor 2 - Operations & Maintenance are equally important. Subfactor 3 – Transition/Phase-In will be assessed on an “Acceptable” / “Unacceptable” basis. Factor 3 – Small Business Participation will be assessed on an “Acceptable” / “Unacceptable” basis. Factor 4 – Cost/Price, will not be given an adjectival rating. Factor 1 – Technical and Factor 2 – Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 – Cost/Price.

M-3.2 Volume I, Factor 1 -Technical.

M-3.2.1 The Government will evaluate each offeror’s technical proposal, based on the subfactors below, to determine the extent to which the offeror’s proposal provides a sound approach that meets or exceeds the requirements of the Attachment 02 - TO 01 PWS, and demonstrates knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The Government will assign Subfactor 1 – Program Management and Subfactor 2 - Operations and Maintenance one (1) of the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures and excerpted in Table 1.

M-3.2.1.1 Subfactor 1 – Program Management.

This subfactor is comprised of three (3) aspects: 1) Management; 2) Recruiting, Retention, & Continuity; and 3) Quality Control. The Government will assign Subfactor 1 - Program Management one (1) of the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings described in Table 1 below and in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

M-3.2.1.1.1 Aspect 1 - Management. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal: 1) demonstrates an effective organizational structure detailing line(s) of authority, functional relationships, roles and responsibilities, to include subcontractors and teaming partners that will ensure effective communication and operating procedures; 2) demonstrates appropriate manning levels and skill mixes; and 3) demonstrates effective key personnel positions and qualifications, to include offeror-identified key personnel to meet or exceed Attachment 02 – TO 01 PWS requirements.

M-3.2.1.1.2 Aspect 2 - Recruiting, Retention, & Continuity. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal: 1) demonstrates an effective approach to recruit and retain qualified, trained, and certified (as applicable) personnel to meet or exceed all TO 01 PWS requirements; 2) demonstrates an ability to implement and maintain an effective approach that resolves staffing vacancies, high attrition, and mission support gaps; and 3) demonstrates an effective approach to ensure continuity of services in capturing, maintaining, using, and conveying for future Government use all knowledge developed during contract execution in performance of all Attachment 02 - TO 01 PWS requirements.

M-3.2.1.1.3 Aspect 3 - Quality Control. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal: 1) demonstrates an understanding of the requirement and provides a sound approach to implement an effective Quality Program that meets or exceeds all performance requirements in the contract and its issued task orders; and 2) demonstrates how the offeror will quickly identify and remedy deficiencies and systemic issues and ensure responsiveness, resolution of problems, and continuous improvement during contract performance.

M-3.2.1.2 Subfactor 2 – Operations and Maintenance.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed approach demonstrates an effective and efficient operations and maintenance program:

1. Cybersecurity controls

2. Scheduled and unscheduled maintenance of mission systems

3. Troubleshooting and recoverability of mission systems

4. Coordinating and scheduling test and evaluation activities

5. IMDS integration into your maintenance procedures

The Government will assign one (1) of the Combined Technical/Risk Ratings described in Table 1 below and in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings (DoD SS Procedures Table 3)

M-3.2.1.3 Subfactor 3 – Transition/Phase-In.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal provides an adequate approach to provide continuity of mission support and contract performance to include efficiently phasing in resources and trained/qualified personnel required to assume contract tasks and responsibilities at contract start. The Government will assign Subfactor 3 Transition/Phase-In one (1) of the Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings described in Table 2 below and in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. If Subfactor 3 is rated unacceptable, the proposal is un-awardable.

Table 2 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings (DoD SS Procedures Table C-1)

M-3.3 Ratings.

M-3.3.1 Trade-off Combined Technical/Risk Rating. The Combined Technical/Risk Rating includes consideration of an offeror’s strengths, significant strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, uncertainties, excesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings in accordance with Table 3. It also considers risks and assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach and understanding 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 Government will use the risk descriptions shown in Table 4. The Government will not roll up Subfactor ratings into an overall rating for Factor 1 - Technical.

Table 3 – Combined Technical/Risk Rating Finding Types (DoD Source Selection (SS) Procedures Definitions)

Table 4 – Technical Risk Rating Method (DoD SS Procedures Table 2b)

M-3.3.2 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating.

The technical rating reflects the evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Government’s requirement. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposal to determine whether the proposal is Acceptable or Unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 2 above. To be considered awardable, Subfactor 3 must earn an “Acceptable” rating.

M-3.4 Volume II, Factor 2 - Past Performance.

M-3.4.1. The past performance assessment will assess the offeror’s, joint venture members’, teaming partners, and subcontractors’ ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s quality of performance will be considered. The Government will consider past performance information regarding predecessor companies (if used), affiliates, other divisions, or corporate management if the offeror’s past performance volume demonstrates the company, affiliate, or division will provide the offeror with resources, such as workforce, management, facilities, or other capabilities demonstrating direct and meaningful involvement in the performance of the proposed instant effort.

M-3.4.2 Recency. Recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past six (6) years from the issuance date of this solicitation. If the Government finds a past performance citation is not Recent, the Government will not consider that citation further. More recent past performance may contribute to a higher confidence rating than less recent past performance.

M-3.4.3 Relevancy. In determining relevancy for individual contract citations, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being performed by the Offeror/Joint Venture Member, teaming partner, or subcontractor for active or completed contracts with a minimum of 12 months performance that meet the recency requirement stated above. The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will validate the relevancy information contained in the contract citation independent of the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy.

The offeror can cite multiple efforts within a contract that demonstrates relevancy in each citation. The Government’s integrated confidence will consider the relevancy of the complete set of past performance citations.

M-3.4.3.1 Rating. For each past and present performance citation that meets the recency requirement, the Government will assign one of the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings described in Table 5 below and the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Table 5 – Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (DoD SS Procedures, Table 4)

M-3.4.4 Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(v), the Government will assess the extent to which the offeror’s recent and relevant past and present performance demonstrates compliance with subcontracting plan goals for Small Disadvantaged Business concerns, monetary targets for SDB participation, and notifications submitted under FAR 52.219-25, Small Disadvantaged Business Participation Program—Disadvantaged Status and Reporting. Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the Government will assess the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past and present performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan. The Government will consider whether the past performance demonstrated compliance with FAR 52.219-8 or FAR 52.219-9 when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on each citation on the respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror, joint venture member, or subcontractor, when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror, joint venture member, or subcontractor, as applicable, award subcontracts to small business concerns, to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

M-3.4.5 Quality of Performance. For each recent and relevant PPI Citation, the Government will assess the performance quality of the work accomplished. This assessment will consist of an in-depth evaluation of all past and present performance information available, regardless of its source. The Government will use the Performance Quality Ratings in Table 6 below.

Table 6 – Past and Present Performance Quality Rating

M-3.4.5.1 Adverse Past Performance. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports 1) a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation aspect or 2) any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system that cause evaluator concern. When a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any actual 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. In accordance with FAR 15.306(b), Communications must be held with any Offeror who will be excluded from competition because of adverse past performance information, unless the Offeror has previously had the opportunity to comment on such information.

M-3.4.6 Confidence Assessment. As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessments of the citations/contracts evaluated, the Government will assign one of the Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings in Table 7 below and as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

Table 7 – Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings (DoD SS Procedures, Table 5)

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or is 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 Government will determine the offeror to have unknown past performance and will be assigned a Performance Confidence Rating of “Neutral Confidence.” A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a “Neutral Confidence” rating.

M-3.4.7 Other Sources of Information. Pursuant to FAR 15.305(a)(2)(ii), the Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to review of the information provided in the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume. Present/Past performance information may be obtained from the Government’s Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS). The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant.

M-3.5 Volume III, Factor 3 - Small Business Participation. This Factor will be assigned a rating of “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” in accordance with Table 8 below. To be rated “Acceptable,” the offeror shall:

1) Provide an adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided, including the company names and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) numbers; and,

2) Ensure the minimum quantitative requirement (MQR) of 25% of total contract value (base period plus all option periods) is met; and,

3) Ensure 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, SDB, VOSB, SDVOSB, WOSB, and HUBZone), type of service(s) and percentage of subcontracted 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.

If Factor 3 is rated unacceptable, the proposal is un-awardable.

Attachment 12 - Small Business Participation Commitment Document will be incorporated into the resultant contract.

M-3.5.1 SMALL BUSINESS SUBCONTRACTING PLAN. Per FAR 19.702(a)(1), a subcontracting plan is required and will be evaluated.

Table 8 – Small Business Participation Ratings (DoD SS Procedures Section 3.1.4.1.1, Table 6)

M-3.6 Volume IV, Factor 4 – Cost/Price (& Contract Documents).

M-3.6.1 Total Evaluated Price. This Factor will not be assigned an adjectival rating. An assessment of completeness, balance, realism, and reasonableness will be performed based on the offeror’s Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Government will calculate the TEP by adding together the evaluated prices of all CLINs in TO 01: the 9-month Base Period, the four 12-month Option Years, and the maximum 6-month Option to Extend Services (see FAR 52.217-8). The 3-month Phase-In CLINs are excluded from the TEP. For purposes of the TEP, the Government will calculate each CLIN price by multiplying the quantity by the proposed unit price, including all options, including any revisions the offeror may make.

M-3.6.1.1 Government Furnished Property. The Government will adjust the Offeror’s proposed TEP by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent evaluation factor as specified in FAR 52.245-9. The TEP will be determined by multiplying the quantities identified in Section B by the proposed unit price for each CLIN, including all options and adjustments reflecting proposed use of GFP in accordance with Section L. The TEP will not include the Phase-in CLIN.

M-3.6.1.2 Completeness. All Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs within Attachment 10 – Pricing Workbook shall contain a unit price, quantity, and total price to determine the TEP. If any prices are missing, this factor will be considered incomplete and un-awardable.

M-3.6.1.3 Reasonableness. The Government will evaluate the reasonableness of all proposed prices. For a price to be reasonable, in its nature and amount, it must not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (see FAR 31.201-3). The Government may determine an offer is unacceptable, and therefore un-awardable, if the Government finds prices not to be fair and reasonable.

M-3.6.1.4 Price Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of the proposed prices of all FFP CLINs, excluding Phase-In CLINs to ensure the prices proposed are not unrealistically low; the Government will conduct this evaluation at the CLIN level. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed prices are sufficient for the work to be performed, are reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, reflect a sound approach to satisfying the requirements, and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal. For the price to be realistic, it must reflect what it would cost the offeror to perform the effort, if performed with reasonable economy and efficiency. If a proposed price is found to be unrealistically low, the Government may determine that the offeror lacks a clear understanding of the contract requirements or has submitted a price that is too low to successfully perform the contract. Such proposals may be determined un-awardable. The Government will not make adjustments to offerors prices as a result of this analysis.

M-3.6.1.5 Balance. The Government may determine a proposal is unacceptable if the Government determines the proposed prices are materially unbalanced. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques IAW FAR 15.404-1(g). If the Government evaluates an offer as unbalanced and the offeror fails to explain the rationale, the proposal may be determined ineligible for award.

M-3.6.2 Information Other Than Cost or Pricing Data. The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate price competition; therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. The Government will evaluate information other than certified cost or pricing data for purposes of determining reasonableness, realism, balance, and the best value. If at any time during this acquisition the Contracting Officer determines that adequate price competition does not exist, offerors may be required to submit additional information necessary for the Contracting Officer to determine price reasonableness and balance in accordance with FAR 15.403-4.

M-3.6.3 Adequate Price Competition. All, some or part of the techniques and procedures described in FAR 15.404 – Price Analysis, may be utilized to determine a proposal’s price reasonableness and balance. The PCO has determined there is a high probability of adequate price competition for this acquisition. Upon examination of the initial offers, the PCO will review this determination and if, in the PCO’s opinion, adequate price competition exists, certification under FAR 15.406-2 – Certificate of Current Cost or Pricing Data will not be required. If at any time during this acquisition the PCO determines that adequate price competition no longer exists, offerors may be required to submit additional information necessary for the PCO to determine price reasonableness and balance IAW FAR 15.403-3(a)(1).

M-3.6.4 Contract Documents. All contract documents requested in Section L will be assessed for completeness to ensure they meet all solicitation requirements.