SHARP_II_Section_M_(Draft).pdf

Excerpts from Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

M-1. BASIS FOR CONTRACT AWARD

1.1. Basis for Contract Award: This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) acquisition and will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, Appendix A, 1 April 2016, the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3, 25 May 2018. These regulations are available electronically at the FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective; and therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2. Number of Contracts to Be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the services of Safety Hazard Analysis and Risk Processing (SHARP) II. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3. Discussions: The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined 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. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPRs are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4. 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 shall result in the offeror being ineligible for award.

M-2. EVALUATION FACTORS:

2.1. General Information: The lowest priced evaluated and fully technically acceptable offer represents the best value for the government. The evaluation process shall proceed as follows:

Step 1 – Evaluate all proposals for technical acceptability Step 2 – Evaluate price reasonableness, affordability and balanced pricing for all proposals; rank by total evaluated price

2.1.1. After Step 2, the evaluation is complete and the SSA proceeds to the integrated best value assessment of the evaluated offerors. While the government source selection evaluation team and http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process by its nature is subjective. Therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

2.2. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors: The below evaluation Factor 1 and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. Technical acceptability will be determined at the subfactor level.

2.2.1. Technical Capability Rating: The Government’s technical evaluation team shall evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Technical risk will be a part of the criteria considered in the technical acceptability decision. For the purposes of this evaluation, technical risk is defined as the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of this solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degraded performance, the need for increased government oversight, and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. The Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) will contribute to a determination of the risk at an acceptable level or not. Risk determined to be above an acceptable level of risk is technically unacceptable.

Offers may be determined unacceptable, even though the minimum requirements are met, if the proposed approach poses too great a risk. Risk evaluations are subjective and at the discretion of the Government.

2.2.2. Any subfactor evaluated as “Unacceptable” will render the entire proposal unacceptable and therefore unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

2.3. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the lowest priced technically acceptable offeror based upon the Government’s integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below. Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluate, 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. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail.

Table 2.2 – Technical Capability Ratings

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

Factor 1: Technical Capability:

(Acceptable/Unacceptable)

Subfactor 1: Technically Qualified Subfactor 2: Sample Problem Subfactor 3: Phase-In Plan

Factor 2: Price/Cost Reasonableness Affordability Balanced Pricing Rank by total evaluated price

2.3.1. Subfactor 1 Technically Qualified: The subfactor will be rated acceptable when the offeror demonstrates an understanding and approach for accomplishing the following launch safety analysis support:

2.3.1.1. Demonstrates an acceptable approach to evaluate and characterize all launch vehicle hazards that create a risk to life and property and to perform quantitative assessments of risk to life and property resulting from launch vehicle failures using the generation of mathematical models and computer programs used to derive instantaneous impact predictions.

2.3.1.2. Demonstrates an understanding of FAA/AST flight safety rules for commercially licensed vehicles launched from the Eastern Range and the ability to identify discrepancies between these rules and the 45 SW Range Safety requirements.

2.3.1.3. Demonstrates an acceptable approach to develop Range Safety criteria and launch vehicle abort logic.

2.3.1.4. Demonstrates an acceptable approach to perform an evaluation of performance and design requirements (hardware/software) for all real-time (current or proposed) range instrumentation, processing equipment, and display systems supporting the 45 SW Range Safety mission during launch.

2.3.1.5. Demonstrates how proposed performance methods will ensure qualified and experienced support for launch countdown operations.

2.3.1.6. Demonstrates an acceptable approach to conducting theoretical and statistical analysis of launch vehicle reliability, failure rates, failure modes, and resultant threat envelopes.

2.3.1.7. Demonstrates an acceptable approach to evaluate and develop prototype systems (hardware/software) and conduct analyses and tests simulating an operational environment in order to validate adequacy of performance specifications and design requirements or to characterize hazard(s) or determine risks.

2.3.1.8. Demonstrates an acceptable approach to evaluating the accuracy and system effectiveness of real-time instantaneous impact predictions generated for various launches, and the evaluation and development of performance requirements for real-time mathematical models and algorithms used for vehicle tracking systems, current and proposed (i.e., GPS).

2.3.1.9. Demonstrates an understanding of government, public agency;

commercial, and international risk acceptance criteria and their application to launch vehicle operations at the eastern range.

2.3.1.10. Demonstrate the ability to perform special tasks to include, but not limited to, development of blast algorithms, debris risk model development, risk analysis data development, facility damage criteria, baseline risk assessments, space-based range safety evaluations, hazard characterization testing, and preliminary feasibility analysis for new vehicles at the Eastern Range.

2.3.2. Subfactor 2 Sample Problem: This subfactor will be rated acceptable when the offeror demonstrates their flight and risk analysis capabilities.

The proposal is technically acceptable when it:

2.3.2.1. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of all launch safety risk concerns that may pose a danger to life (on-base and off-base) and property (on-base) and a satisfactory approach to mitigating these concerns which includes demonstrating an understanding of AFSPCMAN 91-710/711 flight and risk analysis requirements and processes.

2.3.2.2. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding and capability to quantify the risk(s) to the general public (e.g., the U.S.A, Europe, and Africa) and on-based assets (property) posed by the various vehicle hazards.

2.3.2.3. Demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the requirements for launch commit criteria and flight rules. This includes Eastern Range flight analysis destruct criteria modeling concepts, specifically the following:

(a) Vacuum IP prediction

(b) Drag IP prediction

(c) Debris piece ellipse modeling

(d) Overview of chevron destruct line methodology

(e) Overview of single destruct line methodology

2.3.3 Subfactor 3 Phase-In Plan: The offeror demonstrates an executable plan to Phase- In resources and proved trained personnel with the appropriate security clearance within a 30-day Phase-In period. The plan provides an executable approach for a smooth transition with the outgoing contractor ensuring no disruption of services during the Phase-In period.

The approach ensures a trained and certified workforce with the appropriate security clearances is ready prior to assumption of full responsibilities of contract requirements.

An acceptable transition plan includes:

2.3.3.1. Adequate key personnel with skills in the organizational structure and their time phasing.

2.3.3.2. Detailed 30 day approach indicating daily actions taken to transition to full performance.

2.3.3.3. Detailed of observation and training efforts to assume complete responsibility.

M-3 COST/PRICE

3.1. Cost/Price Proposal (Information Other Than Cost and Pricing Data) – Cost/Price evaluation will be performed as follows:

3.1.1. Risk and Flight Sustainment (includes cost of Data and Reports will be evaluated for reasonableness, affordability, and unbalanced pricing.)

3.1.2. Work Requests: the government has provided an estimated value/plugged number that will be incorporated into the contract. The CLINs’ associated “loaded labor rates” for each labor category listed on Table 1.A (All Years) will be evaluated for reasonableness. The total price calculated under Table 1.A (All Years) will be added to the proposed amounts of CLINs X001 and X002 (All Years), CLIN 500X to determine the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) see paragraph e.

below. Reimbursable CLINs which are based on as Government provided number will be included as part of the total evaluated price.

3.1.3. Phase-In and Phase-Out Cost/Price will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability.

3.1.4. Option to Extend Services will be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability.

3.1.5. Total Evaluated Price (TEP) will be determined as follows:

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE:

Contract Line Item Requirement Amount

Total Evaluated Price detail:

CLINs X001: Risk Sustainment; The value placed on schedule B CLINs X002: Flight Sustainment; The value placed on schedule B

CLINs X003: Work Requests; The Total Estimated Price values placed on Table 1.A by the offeror CLINs 5001/5002: Option to extend; The value placed on schedule B CLIN 5003: Option to extend; Fifty percent (50%) of the value placed on Table 1.A for CLIN X003

3.1.6. Phase-In (CLIN 0005), phase-out (CLIN 0006) will all be evaluated for reasonableness and affordability, but will not be included as part of an offeror’s Total Evaluated Price. For price reasonableness it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business.

3.1.7. Cost or Pricing Data Requirements: In accordance with FAR 15.403-1(b) and 15.403-3(a), data other than certified cost or pricing data may be required to support a determination of price reasonableness for cost CLINs. Data shall be provided in accordance with FAR 15.403-5. If, after receipt of proposals, the PCO determines that there is insufficient data available to determine price reasonableness and none of the exceptions in FAR 15.403-1 applies, the offeror shall be required to submit additional cost or pricing data.

3.1.8. Rounding: All dollar amounts provided shall be rounded to the nearest dollar.

3.1.9. Price Proposal: The price proposal shall be based on the offeror’s technical approach to meeting the Government’s PWS requirements. Explain any inconsistency, whether real or apparent, between promised performance and price. It is the offeror’s responsibility to demonstrate price reasonableness.

3.2. Affordability

3.2.1. The affordability assessment will consider the proposed prices as compared to the annual and total projected budget for this program. If the offeror’s proposed prices exceed the available budget in any given year or in total, the Government will determine the proposal to be unaffordable and will be ineligible for contract award.

3.3. Compensation Plan

3.3.1. The professional employee compensation plan and supporting information will be evaluated per FAR 52.222-46 to assure it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. Failure by the offeror/populated joint venture/each joint venture partner in an unpopulated joint venture to submit this professional employee

X001 RISK Model Sustainment $ X002 FLIGHT Model Sustainment $ X003 Work Requests ($5M/YR) $ 500X Option to Extend Services $

TOTAL EVALUATED PRICE $

compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions Analysis techniques may include but not limited to:

3.3.1.1. Review/validation of data submitted by the offeror

3.3.1.2. Comparing proposed compensation to actual paid by the incumbent

3.3.1.3. Comparing proposed to compensation indices (example; BLS, www.salary.com, etc.)

3.3.1.4. Realism analysis: The analysis shall be confined to that required by FAR 52.222- 46 only

3.3.1.5. Reasonableness: The analysis shall be confined to that required by FAR 52.222- 46 only

3.4. Reasonableness

3.4.1. The offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. The total/sum of all proposed prices for separately priced line items CLINs X001, X002, X003 and CLIN 500X (option to extend services). The CLINs’ associated “loaded labor rates” for each labor category listed on Table 1.A (All Years) will be evaluated for reasonableness.

3.5. Unbalanced Pricing

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced pricing. Unbalanced pricing may increase performance risk and could result in payment of unreasonably high prices. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques. The Government shall analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with the respect to separately priced line items. An offer may be rejected if the PCO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

M-4 ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTATION

4.1. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Mitigation Plan (If submitted)

4.1.1. The proposed OCI plan will be evaluated in accordance with AFFARS Clause 5352.209- 9000 Organizational Conflict of this solicitation. The plan is acceptable when potential conflicts of interest are identified and mitigation and disclosure plans ensure that proper safeguards are in place to ensure objectivity and protection of the government's interest when providing service for, http://www.salary.com/ evaluating and assessing other contractors, or advising the government concerning its own products or services.

M-III PRE-AWARD SURVEY

The Government may conduct a pre-award survey (PAS) as part of this source selection. Results of the PAS (if conducted) will be evaluated to determine each offeror's capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation.