Attachment L-2 PSSC II Section M (Rev 1).pdf

Attachment L-2

Section M - Evaluation for Award

M-1 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This is a best value source selection 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) and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). A contract will be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, and 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 best value to the Government. Failure to meet a requirement may result in an offer being determined technically unacceptable. All technically acceptable offers will be considered equal. The tradeoff will occur only between the past performance factor and the price/cost factor for technically acceptable proposals. 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 better Past Performance confidence assessment of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA 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 a single contract as a result of this solicitation. 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 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. If discussions do become necessary, offeror responses to evaluation notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If an Offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may risk the Offeror’s proposal being determined to be unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 Government Furnished Property (GFP). All GFP presently available is listed in Attachment 3. In accordance with FAR 45.201(c) and FAR 45.202(a), the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror's proposed use of any GFP that is in addition to the GFP listed in Attachment 3.

M-2 EVALUATION FACTOR: Volume I – Factor 1 – Technical

2.1. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror whose proposal offers the best value to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the factors and subfactors.

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Pad Safety Support Subfactor 3: Pressure Vessel Mechanical Integrity (PVMI) Support

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1.1. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. When combined, the Technical Factor and Past

Performance Factor are approximately equal in importance to Cost or Price in accordance with FAR 15.304(e). All of the Technical Subfactors are of equal importance.

2.2. Factor 1 – Technical Evaluation Factors, Subfactors and Ratings: The Technical Evaluation provides for a combined technical/risk rating.

2.2.1 Technical Rating. Each Offeror’s technical proposal shall be evaluated, based on the subfactors listed below, on a pass/fail basis assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable (as shown below). 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 whether the risk is at an acceptable level. Risk determined to be above an acceptable level is technically unacceptable. Offeror proposals may be determined unacceptable, even though the minimum requirements are met, if the proposed approach poses too great a risk. An Offeror’s proposal shall be evaluated to determine whether the proposal is acceptable or unacceptable, using the ratings and descriptions outlined below.

One technical rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, each subfactor must be rated acceptable. If a proposal receives an Unacceptable rating for one technical subfactor, the proposal will receive an Unacceptable Technical Capability/Risk rating. Risk evaluations are subjective and at the discretion of the Government.

Table 2.1 Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

2.2.2 Subfactor 1: Program Management

2.2.2.1 Organization. Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a sound organizational structure that defines responsibilities of all organizational elements in alignment with the Performance Work Statement (PWS), adequate staffing levels and skills to accomplish program requirements, effective interface with team members, subcontractors, associate contractors, and the Space Force that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.2.2 Resource Management. Offeror’s proposal demonstrates an acceptable approach to managing personnel in a manner conducive to executing a fluctuating workload driven by quick-response requirements of the PWS that represents an acceptable level of risk. The proposal demonstrates an acceptable plan for recruiting and retaining qualified personnel to accomplish the requirements of the PWS.

The proposal demonstrate sound financial management controls. Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a clear approach towards timely and accurate invoicing while adhering to Job Order Cost Accounting (JOCAS) procedures/requirements.

2.2.2.3 Phase-In Plan. Offeror’s proposal demonstrates a phase-in plan that will result in full performance 60 days after contract award to include procedures for transitioning and inventory of GFP that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3 Subfactor 2: Pad Safety Support

2.2.3.1 Demonstrates an acceptable approach to provide adequate safety oversight of hazardous, safety-critical, and launch countdown operations that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3.2 Demonstrates an acceptable approach to support mishaps, catastrophes, anomalies, emergencies, or other incidents with a potential safety consequence that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3.3 Demonstrates an acceptable approach to support safety inspections, tests of toxic shelters, audits, and site visits that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3.4 Demonstrates an acceptable approach for accomplishing operations safety reviews of non-hazardous, hazardous, and safety-critical procedures and plans that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3.5 Demonstrates an acceptable approach for accomplishing technical safety reviews of hazardous and safety-critical systems (hardware: operational, developmental and prototype), procedures, drawings, specifications, data packages, and test plans that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3.6 Demonstrates an acceptable approach to technically support the Range Safety approval process for new space lift programs (DoD, NASA, commercial) utilizing the Eastern Range that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3.7 Demonstrates an acceptable approach for accomplishing technical reviews of documents in areas such as toxics, explosives, lasers, pressure systems, handling equipment, chemicals, propulsion systems, ionizing and non-ionizing radiation, acoustics, electronics, human factors, and environmental considerations for the establishment of special safety criteria or characterization of hazards that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.2.3.8 Demonstrates acceptable processes to develop and provide safety-training courses;

maintain training records; collect, store, analyze, and report injury data; develop and implement an injury database; and develop and maintain a hazard abatement program that represents an acceptable level of risk.

2.4.2 Subfactor 3: PVMI Support

2.4.2.1 Demonstrates an acceptable approach to implement and manage a comprehensive process safety management (PSM) program for the 45 SW that supports both DoD and commercial customers IAW PWS 1.2.11 with an acceptable level of risk.

2.4.2.2 Demonstrates an acceptable approach to administer, facilitate and implement a comprehensive pressure system certification/re-certification program, process safety information and a mechanical integrity program for pressure systems at the 45 SW IAW PWS Section 1.3 with an acceptable level of risk.

2.4.2.3 Demonstrates an acceptable approach to evaluating hazards associated with pre-launch/launch operations including establishing/maintaining inventory of highly pressurized systems and managing in-service programs IAW PWS 1.3.1 with an acceptable level of risk.

M-3 EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume II – Factor 2 – Past Performance

3.1. Past Performance Factor. The Past Performance evaluation is in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

3.1.1. The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 3.1 Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 3.1 Performance Confidence Assessments

Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/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.

Limited Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the Offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

3.1.2 Evaluation Process. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements.

Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical Subfactors and magnitude. For Joint Venture offerors, recent past performance of both partners will be considered.

The past performance of team members proposed to perform at least 5% of the total proposed contract value will be evaluated for recency and relevancy if the team member is proposed to perform work under the subfactor for which the citation is provided.

In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s past performance proposal volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), commercial sources, or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, and Fee Determining Officials.

3.1.2.1 Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past four years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

3.1.2.2 Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). Consideration will be given to relevant efforts performed for other agencies of the federal, state or local governments and commercial customers.

A relevancy determination of the Offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations. In determining relevancy for each citation, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, proposed to be performed by the company whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. Only the prime offeror’s past performance will be determined relevant for the Program

Management subfactor. An effort will be deemed relevant if it demonstrates experience with providing support services similar to those specified in Table 3.3. The past performance narratives, questionnaires, and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish relevancy of past performance. Table

3.2 outlines the relevancy ratings that will be assigned based on the criteria in Table 3.3. These areas relate to each subfactor within the Technical factor.

Table 3.2 Past Performance Relevancy Ratings

Rating Definition 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.

Table 3.3 – Relevancy Areas Relevancy Areas:

Program Management Pad Safety Support PVMI Support

Very Relevant

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and all three relevancy elements are met.

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and the first three relevancy elements and at least two other relevancy elements are met.

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and all relevancy elements are met.

Relevant Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and the first two relevancy elements are met.

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and the first three relevancy elements and at least one other relevancy element s are met.

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and the first two relevancy elements are met.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and the first relevancy element is met.

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and the first three relevancy elements are met.

Present/past performance citation is similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and first the first relevancy element is met.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance citation is not similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and none of the first two relevancy elements are not met.

Present/past performance citation is not similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and the first three relevancy elements and one other relevancy element are not met.

Present/past performance citation is not similar in scope, magnitude and complexity and first two relevancy elements are not met.

Magnitude

To be considered relevant, the citation must $250k annually or greater

$1M annually or greater

$200K annually or greater

Relevancy Elements

1) An organizational structure that defines responsibilities of all organizational elements with adequate staffing levels and skills to accomplish program requirements.

2) A evolution of management approach and management controls (organization and approach) while maintaining the ability to execute the fluctuating workloads and distribution of available resources

3) Effective executions of phase-in procedures such as transitioning of inventory and Government furnished property

1) Ability to provide adequate safety oversight of hazardous, safety-critical, and launch countdown operations

2) Ability to support mishaps, catastrophes, anomalies, emergencies, or other incidents with a potential safety consequence

3) Support safety inspections, tests of toxic shelters, audits, site visits, etc.

4) Accomplish operation safety reviews of non-hazardous, hazardous, and safety-critical procedures and plans

5) Handle technical safety reviews of hazardous and safety-critical systems (hardware: operational, developmental and prototype), procedures, drawings, specifications, data packages, and test plans

6) Accomplish technical reviews of documents in areas pertinent to the Safety Acquisition and establish environmental considerations 7 ) Processes to develop and provide safety training courses;

maintain training records;

collect, store, analyze, and report injury data; develop and implement an injury database;

and develop and maintain a hazard abatement program

1) Implement and manage a comprehensive process safety management (PSM) programs for DoD and commercial customers

2) Administer, facilitate and implement a comprehensive pressure system certification/re-certification program, process safety information and a mechanical integrity programs for pressure systems

3) Evaluate hazards associated with pre-launch/launch operations including establishing/maintaining inventory of high pressure and/or hazardous commodity pressure systems and managing in-service programs.

3.1.2.3 Quality of Services Assessment. The Government will consider information from customers on how well the offeror performed on past contract citations. For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and magnitude (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality of services assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information that the Government found to be relevant, regardless of its source. The quality of services assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

3.1.3 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessments Rating. The past performance confidence assessment rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevance, and quality of services assessments.

Offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating at the factor level (see Table 3.1 above). Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance.

Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive a "Neutral Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than less recent effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a "Neutral Confidence" rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. For example, the team could consider together different citations that might individually not be Very Relevant because one meets only half the VR criteria while another citation only meets the other VR criteria; but when taken together is tantamount to VR past performance, which could lead to an overall higher confidence rating.

3.2. In evaluating past performance, the Government reserves the right to give greater consideration to information on those contract citations deemed most relevant to the effort described in this Request for Proposal (RFP).

Table 3.4 Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method Adjectival Rating Description Substantial Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence No recent/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.

Limited Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Offerors are cautioned to submit sufficient information and in the format specified in Section L. Offeror’s may be asked to clarify certain aspects of their proposal (for example, the relevance of past performance information) or respond to adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond. Adverse past performance is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comments received from sources without a formal rating system. Communication conducted to resolve minor or clerical errors will not constitute discussions and the contracting officer reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

M-4 EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume III – Factor 3 – Cost/Price:

The Offeror’s Price/Cost proposal will be evaluated to determine that the proposal is complete, reasonable, realistic (Cost CLINs), balanced, and affordable. Proposals determined not to be reasonable, realistic, balanced, and affordable will result in the offeror being deemed not acceptable for award. Total evaluated price will consist of all CLINs, except CLIN 0006, Phase-In. This information will then be used in the tradeoff analysis to make a best value determination. Price/Cost Proposal evaluation will be as follows:

4.1. Complete Proposal: The Government will evaluate completeness of the Offeror’s submitted cost/price volume. The cost/price volume shall address all Section L Volume 3 requirements. The proposal shall include completed versions of the offeror’s Cost/Price Workbook with supporting cost detail and the Labor Rate Listings.

Failure to provide required narrative description, applicable worksheets or supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

4.2 Price Reasonableness. The techniques and procedures described under FAR 15.404-1(b) will be the primary means of assessing proposal reasonableness. Further, the evaluation techniques described under FAR 15.404-1(c), as determined appropriate, may also be performed in further determining the reasonableness of the proposal.

4.3 Cost Realism. Cost Evaluation Criteria. In accordance with FAR 15.404-1(d), each Offeror’s cost proposal will be evaluated for realism for Cost CLINs only (CLIN X001and CLIN X002). A Probable Cost (PC) analysis will be performed on Cost CLINs. The Government’s determined PC may differ from the proposed cost and will reflect the Government’s best estimate of the cost for the effort that is most likely to result from the Offeror’s proposal. The PC is determined by adjusting the Offeror’s proposed cost and fee, when appropriate, to reflect any additions or reductions in cost elements to realistic levels based on the results of the cost realism analysis. If the Government determines a probable cost adjustment is necessary, the probable cost will be included as part of the total evaluated price and shall be used in the evaluation to determine best value. Refer to FAR 15.404-1(d) for a discussion of “cost realism” and “probable cost”. The cost realism assessment will also consider technical and management aspects identified during the evaluation of the proposal. The burden of proof for cost realism rests with the offeror. Offerors are advised to clearly show justification for unique practices that significantly lower costs. An assessment that the proposal is not realistic or reasonable will result in the proposal being deemed unacceptable for award.

4.4 Balanced Pricing: The Government will analyze the Offeror’s proposal submission to determine whether it is unbalanced with respect to prices, costs, variable labor hour quantities, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1(g). A proposal may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

4.5 Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each Offeror’s Price proposal for CLIN X001 and CLIN X003 is affordable if the total of the CLIN(s) do not exceed the amounts shown below, in any year. If the offeror exceeds these amounts, the Government will determine the proposal to be unawardable.

CY22 - CY24

3 Yr Base

Period CY25 CY26 CY27 CY28 CY29 CY30 CY31 6-Month

Extension

CLIN X001/CLIN

X003

4.2M 1.5M 1.5M 1.6M 1.6M 1.7M 1.7M 1.8M 900K

4.6 Options: Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

4.7 Professional Employee Compensation Plan: 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 compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered as failing to meet the RFP terms and conditions.

4.8 Total Evaluated Price: The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for award purposes using the total price proposed for fixed-price CLINs and the Probable Cost for cost type CLINs for all 10 years plus 50% of the CY31 CLIN value (for purposes of evaluating the potential cost of an extension under FAR 52.217-8, Option to Extend Services).

M-5. EVALUATION FACTORS: Volume IV – Administrative Documents

5.1 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Should an offeror taken any exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offeror must clearly identify any such exception(s) and explain why the offeror is taking said exception(s).

5.2 Past Performance Information. Offerors’ past performance information will be used as a basis for the Contracting Officer’s determination of responsibility. Offerors must be deemed responsible to receive contract award IAW FAR 9.104.

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

5.4 Mission-Essential Contractor Services. The Mission-Essential Contractor Services Plan IAW DFARS 252.237-7023 and DFARS 252.237-7024 will be evaluated to determine each Offeror’s capability to meet the requirements of the solicitation and the PWS.