Atch 7 WICS II Section M 05 Aug 20 FA255020R0004.docx

Solicitation FA255020R0004 Amend 0605 Atch 7

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE – SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104

RFP Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

1.0 Evaluation Factors for Award

1.1 Basis for Contract Award: This acquisition will utilize the tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 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. 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 benefits of a higher priced offeror outweighs the cost difference. 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. 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 Request for Proposal (RFP), and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described below.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded: The Government intends to award one contract for the Wing Information and Communications Support (WICS-II). However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract.

1.3 Discussions: Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer (CO) later determines it to be necessary, IAW FAR 15.306. If the CO 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 CO, 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. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs), if required and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the 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 introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

1.4 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors for Award: 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 factor and subfactors described below:

Factor One: Technical Subfactor 1: Technical Experience (Acceptable / Unacceptable) Subfactor 2: Draft Mission Essential Plan (Acceptable / Unacceptable) Subfactor 3: Scenarios (Tradeoff) Factor Two: Past Performance (Tradeoff) Factor Three: Cost / Price (Tradeoff)

2.0 Relative Importance of Factors, Factors and Ratings

2.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows:

Most Important: Factor Two: Past Performance

Next in Importance: Factor One: Technical, Subfactor 3: Scenarios

Least Important: Cost / Price

2.1.1 In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost / Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price. In order to be awarded the contract, the offeror must receive an acceptable rating in both subfactors 1 and 2.

2.2 Factor 1 – Technical (Volume I)

2.2.1 Phase 1: Technical Experience and the Mission Essential Plan (Subfactors 1 & 2) will be evaluated. Mission Essential Plans will be supported by the staffing plan provided in Volume IV – Contract Documentation. Offerors rated “unacceptable” in either Technical Experience or the Mission Essential Plan area will be removed from consideration. Offerors successfully completing Phase 1 will move on to Phase 2, Technical Capability Scenarios evaluation.

2.2.2 Phase 2: Technical Capability Scenarios (Subfactor 3) will be evaluated. If an offeror receives an “unacceptable” rating in subfactor 3, the technical proposal will receive an “unacceptable” rating and the offeror will be removed from further consideration and will not be eligible for award. All offerors completing Phase 2 will move on to Factor 2, Past Performance evaluation.

2.2.2.1 Subfactor 1 - Technical Experience: Subfactor 1 evaluates the offerors minimum technical experience in the following specific areas: MILSATCOM, Global Broadcast Service Operations Center (GBSOC), Space Command Digital Integrated Network (SDIN), and Mission Impact Reporting (MIR). The standard is met when the narrative and supporting data, support the conclusion that three years of technical experience in each of the four specific areas was obtained within the last seven years (between March 2013, and March 2020).

2.2.2.2 The Section L, Attachment L-8 - Experience Matrix must provide necessary data for the Government to assess and confirm minimum technical experience. Data provided for evaluation under the Technical Experience subfactor is independent from any data submitted for any other Subfactor. Data provided for evaluation for any other factor/subfactor will only be used in the evaluation of the factor/subfactor for which it was submitted. The standards are distinctly different from past performance particularly noting that ratings are not applied to this subfactor. Experience provided can be based on other government or commercial contracts.

2.2.2.3 Narratives must explain how the experience is like or similar to the WICS II required capability in operating, maintain and administering MILSATCOM, Global Broadcast Service Operations Center (GBSOC), Space Command Digital Integrated Network (SDIN), and Mission Impact Reporting (MIR). The narrative should correlate past experience with the requirements detailed in the PWS. A separate narrative shall be supplied for each of the above capabilities.

2.2.3 Subfactor 2 - Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan: Subfactor 2 evaluates the offerors draft Mission Essential Plan submitted IAW the provision at DFARS 252.237-7024 - Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services.

2.2.3.1 The draft Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan shall be supported by the offeror’s staffing plan to show capacity and capability to support crisis situations. IAW DFARS 252.237-7024 - Notice of Continuation of Essential Contractor Services, offerors shall submit a draft of their Mission Essential Contractor Services Plan to support the services listed in the PWS, Appendix E. The plan will be finalized after award and prior to the first day of performance. Once approved, the plan shall be incorporated into the resultant contract IAW DFARS 252.237-7023.

2.2.4 Subfactor 3 – Scenarios: Subfactor 3 evaluates the proposed response to five technical scenario’s involving realistic problems that may occur in support of GBSOC, SDIN, MIR, MOC and MILSATCOM. For offeror’s who remain in consideration after evaluation of Subfactors 1 and 2, scenarios will be provided to offerors with at least three business days notice, on a yet to be determined date.on 06 August 2020. Offerors will receive scenarios via email at 9:00 A.M. MDT and will be allowed 30 hours to provide scenario responses. Offeror’s shall provide an email address and phone number of the individual accepting the scenarios on behalf of the company. Responses shall not exceed 10 pages (as defined in Section L, paragraph 3.8.5). In the scenario responses, the offeror shall provide a sound technical approach demonstrating an understanding and an approach to resolving the problems identified in the scenarios provided. The offeror shall include all assumptions used within the scenario responses.

2.2.4.1 Technical Factor Ratings: The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical experience, solution to meeting the Government’s mission essential requirements and responses to scenarios.

2.2.4.2 Subfactors 1 and 2: Subfactors 1 and 2 will receive an acceptable or unacceptable rating as defined in Table 2.1 – Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating Method.

Table 2.1 - Technical Acceptable / Unacceptable Rating Method

2.2.5 Subfactor 3: For Subfactor 3, the combined technical / risk rating definitions are described in Table 2.2 – Combined Technical / Risk Rating Method. The combined technical / risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses and deficiencies in determining technical ratings. The Combined Technical / Risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement and resolving the scenario. Each scenario will receive one of the adjectival ratings described in Table 2.2 – Combined Technical / Risk Rating Method. The technical ratings focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's scenario responses. The adjectival rating depicts how well the offeror’s scenario responses meet the Technical subfactor requirements. Ratings for each scenario shall be rolled up into an overall Combined Technical / Risk Capability adjectival rating for the rating. In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, for performance, knowledge, and / or capability in excess of the PWS requirements, and may be used as tradeoff for a higher cost proposal.

2.2.5.1 If the Offeror attempts to identify “strengths”, the Government reserves the right to accept or not accept the Offeror’s assessment of strengths. Offerors are notified that any strengths identified by the Government will be incorporated into the resulting contract. The awarded contract will reflect any beneficial and/or advantageous aspects of the awardee’s proposal that have merit or exceed performance or capability requirements.

Table 2.2 - Combined Technical / Risk Rating Method

2.3 Factor 2 – Past Performance (Volume II): The Government will evaluate past performance information to establish the Government’s level of confidence in the offeror’s ability to perform the work.

2.3.1 The Past performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in Table 2.3 - Performance Confidence Assessments.

Table 2.3 - 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.

2.3.2 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 requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror, affiliates, subcontractors, teaming partners, or Joint Venture partners. Recent past performance should focus on relevant performance in the areas detailed in Section L, Attachment L-7 – Relevancy Matrix.

2.3.2.1 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), or other databases; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and interviews with Program Managers, COs, and Fee Determining Officials.

2.3.2.2 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 and/or have been performed within the past seven years. Past performance, information that fails to meet this condition will not be evaluated.

2.3.2.3 Relevancy Assessment The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information performed by the offeror, affiliates, subcontractors, teaming partners, or Joint Venture partners. This evaluation will determine how closely the services performed under those contracts relate to the categories identified in Attachment L-7. The five technical requirements of MILSATCOM, GBSOC, SDIN, MOC and MIR are considered to be of greater importance than the remaining services within the PWS. All other areas are considered equal to each other. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will be assessed on Table 2.4 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Table 2.4 - Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

2.3.2.4 Quality 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 products or services, and the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost / Price Factor (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 available, 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.

2.3.3 Assigning Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings: 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 (Table 2.3 - Performance Confidence Assessments). The past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost / Price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. For offerors without a record of recent / relevant past performance or when information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably. As a result, the offeror will receive a "neutral confidence" rating for the past performance factor.

2.3.3.1 More recent performance will have a greater impact on the performance confidence rating than a 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.

2.3.4 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 RFP.

2.3.5 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 CO reserves the right to award a contract without the opportunity for proposal revision.

2.4 Factor 3 – Cost / Price: The offeror’s Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated to determine that the proposal is complete, reasonable, and balanced. This information will then be used in the tradeoff analysis to make a best value determination.

The Cost / Price volume will be evaluated in two parts:

A. The Preliminary Cost / Price Data Proposal will be evaluated to assist in determining the initial competitive range and;

B. The Complete Cost / Price Data Proposal will be evaluated to make a best value determination.

2.4.1 Complete Proposal: The Government will evaluate completeness of the offeror’s submitted Cost / Price volume. The Cost / Price volume shall address all Section L, paragraph 4.3 Volume III – Cost / Price requirements. The proposal shall include completed versions of Section L, Attachment L-1 – Cost and Pricing Summary with supporting cost detail. Failure to provide the required, applicable worksheets, and supporting detail may make the proposal ineligible for award.

2.4.2 Initial Submission: Preliminary Cost / Price Proposal:

The Government will evaluate each offeror’s proposed prices submitted in Volume 3, Cost / Price proposal for completeness (Section M, paragraph 2.4.1), reasonableness (Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.1.), balance (Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.2.), and affordability (Section M, paragraph 2.4.2.3) to assist with determining the competitive range.

2.4.2.1 Reasonableness: The offeror’s proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR 15.404. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3.

2.4.2.2 Balanced: The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to prices, costs and separately priced line items IAW FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the CO determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

2.4.2.3 Affordability: The affordability assessment will consider the total estimated contract price (to include the cost of the cost reimbursable government inserted amounts) as compared to the projected budget for this program (Section L, paragraph 1.0). If the Offeror’s total estimated contract price exceeds the available budget in any given period or in total, the government shall determine the proposal to be unaffordable and it may be excluded from the competitive range and will be ineligible for contract award.

2.4.2.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP): For award purposes, the offeror’s Cost / Price proposal will be evaluated using the total price proposed for the fixed-price CLINs plus the applicable G&A overhead using the “ceiling rate” based upon the estimated total Cost Reimbursable amounts. The fixed-price CLINs include the phase–in period, the one-year base period, the six one-year option period CLINs, as well as the six-month Option to Extend Services CLIN. For the purposes of this evaluation, the Option to Extend Services CLIN will be evaluated as 50% of the option 6 CLIN value.

2.4.2.5 Price Analysis: Competition is anticipated to establish a fair and reasonable price IAW FAR 15.404-1(b). Should additional data be required to establish price reasonableness, offerors must be prepared to provide cost or pricing data to support their proposed pricing. Offerors are not expected to propose costs or price for Cost Reimbursable CLINS. These amounts are estimates for ceiling costs anticipated. The Total Evaluated Price (TEP) is the sum of all fixed price CLINs and the value of the proposed G&A ceiling rate applied against the total cost reimbursable values.

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

2.4.2.7 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 to submit this professional employee compensation plan will result in the offeror being considered unresponsive to the RFP terms and conditions.

2.5 Administrative Documents - Volume IV

2.5.1 Solicitations 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 take an exception to the terms and conditions of the solicitation, the offerors must clearly identify any such exception(s) to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale to explain why it is taking said exception(s).

2.5.2 Past Performance Information

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

2.5.3 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.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

SOURCE SELECTION SENSITIVE (SEE FAR 2.101 AND FAR 3.104)

WICS-II Source Selection Plan

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY (FOUO)

SOURCE SELECTION INFORMATION – SEE FAR 2.101 & 3.104

Page 5 of 9 pages