FA4600-13-R-0001-03.pdf

TBDUSAMS3

AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION/MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT

Except as provided herein, all terms and conditions of the document referenced in Item 9A or 10A, as heretofore changed, remains unchanged and in full force and effect.

15A. NAME AND TITLE OF SIGNER (Type or print)

30-105-04EXCEPTION TO SF 30

APPROVED BY OIRM 11-84

STANDARD FORM 30 (Rev. 10-83)

Prescribed by GSA

FAR (48 CFR) 53.243

1. Sec M: Para M3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation Procedures: References to "nine mission areas" are changed to "ten past performance subfactors" and "technical" subfactors are changed to "past performance subfactors". (See para M3.2.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2.2,

3.2.2.2 Table 2, M3.2.2.3, M3.2.2.4, and M3.2.2.5. All changes marked w ith a bar on the right side of the page.)

2. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

1. CONTRACT ID CODE PAGE OF PAGES

S 1 13

16A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

16C. DATE SIGNED

BY 25-Sep-2013

16B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA15C. DATE SIGNED15B. CONTRACTOR/OFFEROR

(Signature of Contracting Officer)(Signature of person authorized to sign)

8. NAME AND ADDRESS OF CONTRACTOR (No., Street, County, State and Zip Code) X FA4600-13-R-0001

X 9B. DATED (SEE ITEM 11)

03-Sep-2013

10B. DATED (SEE ITEM 13)

9A. AMENDMENT OF SOLICITATION NO.

11. THIS ITEM ONLY APPLIES TO AMENDMENTS OF SOLICITATIONS

X The above numbered solicitation is amended as set forth in Item 14. The hour and date specified for receipt of Offer is extended, X is not extended.

Offer must acknowledge receipt of this amendment prior to the hour and date specified in the solicitation or as amended by one of the following methods:

(a) By completing Items 8 and 15, and returning 1 copies of the amendment; (b) By acknowledging receipt of this amendment on each copy of the offer submitted;

or (c) By separate letter or telegram which includes a reference to the solicitation and amendment numbers. FAILURE OF YOUR ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO BE

RECEIVED AT THE PLACE DESIGNATED FOR THE RECEIPT OF OFFERS PRIOR TO THE HOUR AND DATE SPECIFIED MAY RESULT IN

REJECTION OF YOUR OFFER. If by virtue of this amendment you desire to change an offer already submitted, such change may be made by telegram or letter, provided each telegram or letter makes reference to the solicitation and this amendment, and is received prior to the opening hour and date specified.

12. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA (If required)

13. THIS ITEM APPLIES ONLY TO MODIFICATIONS OF CONTRACTS/ORDERS.

IT MODIFIES THE CONTRACT/ORDER NO. AS DESCRIBED IN ITEM 14.

A. THIS CHANGE ORDER IS ISSUED PURSUANT TO: (Specify authority) THE CHANGES SET FORTH IN ITEM 14 ARE MADE IN THE

CONTRACT ORDER NO. IN ITEM 10A.

B. THE ABOVE NUMBERED CONTRACT/ORDER IS MODIFIED TO REFLECT THE ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (such as changes in paying office, appropriation date, etc.) SET FORTH IN ITEM 14, PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF FAR 43.103(B).

C. THIS SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO AUTHORITY OF:

D. OTHER (Specify type of modification and authority)

E. IMPORTANT: Contractor is not, is required to sign this document and return copies to the issuing office.

14. DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION (Organized by UCF section headings, including solicitation/contract subject matter where feasible.)

10A. MOD. OF CONTRACT/ORDER NO.

2. AMENDMENT/MODIFICATION NO. 5. PROJECT NO.(If applicable)

6. ISSUED BY

3. EFFECTIVE DATE

25-Sep-2013

CODE

55 CONTRACTING SQUADRON

101 WASHINGTON SQ BLDG 40

OFFUTT AFB NE 68113-2107

FA4600 7. ADMINISTERED BY (If other than item 6)

4. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQ. NO.

CODE

See Item 6

FACILITY CODECODE

EMAIL:TEL:

FA4600-13-R-0001

SECTION SF 30 BLOCK 14 CONTINUATION PAGE

SUMMARY OF CHANGES

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

The following have been modified:

SECTION M

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

EVALUATION PROCESS

M1.0 BASIS FOR AWARD

The Government contemplates award of a multiple award IDIQ contract resulting from this solicitation. The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Department of

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.3, DoD Source Selection Procedures effective 1

July 2011, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation supplement (AFFARS) 5315, Mandatory Procedure (MP)

5315.3, dated 27 Mar 2013, and this solicitation. The Government reserves the right to award more than eight (8) or fewer than six (6) to eight (8) prime contracts based upon Source Selection Authority (SSA) determination that it is in the Government's best interest. Award will be made to the offerors who are deemed responsible in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 9 (including, if appropriate under L6.3.3, an OCI mitigation plan as evaluted IAW FAR Part 9.5), conform to the solicitation requirements (to include terms and conditions, representations and certifications), meet all technical requirements, and present the best value to the government, with a tradeoff between past performance and price. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being considered unawardable. Any exceptions to the solicitation’s terms and conditions must be fully explained and justified. The Government reserves the right not to award a contract, depending on the quality of proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

All proposals shall be evaluated for technical acceptability, performance confidence and price.

Technical Acceptability. Initially, the Government technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on a pass/fail basis, assigning ratings of Acceptable or Unacceptable. A proposal is rated "acceptable" when the evaluation team determines that all technical criteria have been met by the offeror's proposal.

Performance Confidence Assessment. The Past Performance Team will conduct an in-depth review of all offers. The

Past Performance Team will evaluate all recent and relevant past performance data provided and obtained as referenced in M3.2, to determine the quality of the work performed. The result of that evaluation will lead to a confidence rating for each offeror.

Price Evaluation. The Government will evaluate total price, including all option prices.

Following completion of an integrated assessment of the proposals received, the SSA’s best interest determination will be based on a consideration of one or more of the following items: available funding, the need to sustain adequate competition, and the availability of awardable proposals. To arrive at a source selection decision, the

Government will evaluate the factors, subfactors (described below), and proposed price. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective. This is a competitive trade-off source selection in which past performance is significantly more important than price. Performance Price

Tradeoff allows for SSA discretion in awarding to higher rated performers over lower rated performers if the price differential is warranted and considered to be best value. The Government may award to a higher priced offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the superior past performance of the higher priced offeror outweighs the price difference. In addition, the Government may award to a lower priced, lower rated offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the lower price outweighs the rating difference.

M.1.1. AWARD WITHOUT DISCUSSIONS

The Government reserves the right to award without discussions IAW FAR 52.215-1. Therefore, offerors are advised to submit proposals that are fully and clearly acceptable without additional information. If award will be made without conducting discussions, offerors may only be given the opportunity to clarify certain aspects of proposals (e.g., the relevance of an offeror’s past performance information and adverse past performance information to which the offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond) or to resolve minor or clerical errors. Adverse past performance includes 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.

M1.2 COMPETITIVE RANGE/DISCUSSIONS

The Government reserves the right to open and conduct discussions if it deems them to be necessary. Discussions will be held only with those offerors determined to be in the competitive range. The Contracting Officer may establish a competitive range comprised of the most highly rated proposals based on the rating of each offeror’s proposal against the evaluation criteria. The competitive range may be further reduced for purposes of efficiency pursuant to FAR 15.306(c)(2). If the Government elects to open discussions, it has sole discretion as to whether an offeror is in the competitive range, and may include proposals rated “Unacceptable” under the Technical factor.

Offerors whose proposals are not included in the competitive range will be notified as soon as practicable.

Discussions will include issuance of evaluation notices. At the conclusion of discussions, each offeror still within the competitive range shall be given an opportunity to submit a Final Proposal Revision (FPR). Only offerors deemed “Acceptable” in all Technical subfactors are eligible for award.

M2.0. EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

The Government will evaluate proposals based upon the following factors:

Factor 1: Technical (acceptable/unacceptable) – Technical is broken down into the following subfactors:

Subfactor 1 – Program Management

Subfactor 2 – Strategic Deterrence

Subfactor 3 – Space Operations

Subfactor 4 – Cyberspace Operations

Subfactor 5 – Joint Electronic Warfare

Subfactor 6 – Global Strike

Subfactor 7 – Missile Defense

Subfactor 8 – Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR)

Subfactor 9 – Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction

Subfactor 10 – Analysis and Targeting

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Price

The Technical Factor will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis according to the criteria described in section M3.1. Within the Technical factor, all subfactors are of equal weight. Price will be evaluated to assess reasonable and fair pricing. Past performance is significantly more important than price. Within the Past

Performance factor only recent and relevant performance will be assessed.

M3.0. EVALUATION PROCEDURES FOR EACH FACTOR

M3.1. Factor 1: Technical Evaluation Procedures. The Government technical evaluation team shall evaluate the offerors’ technical proposals on an acceptable/unacceptable basis by assigning ratings of “Acceptable” or

“Unacceptable,” respectively.

M3.1.1. The offeror’s proposal shall address each of the subfactors below. Detailed instructions are included in the proposal preparation instructions in Section L of this solicitation. During evaluation of each proposal, the

Government will assign each subfactor a rating as shown in Table 1. A rating of “Unacceptable” in one or more technical subfactors will constitute an overall rating of “Unacceptable” for the technical evaluation. Offerors must pass standards listed for each subfactor to receive an “Acceptable” rating for that subfactor.

M3.1.2. The Technical evaluation will use the ratings and descriptions outlined in Table 1:

M3.1.3. The proposals shall be evaluated against the following subfactors:

M3.1.3.1 Subfactor 1 – Program Management: The Government shall evaluate Program Management as follows:

M3.1.3.1.1. Organizational Structure. Demonstrate effective lines of authority and communication, position responsibilities, functional relationships, reach back capabilities and roles and responsibilities, to include integration of teaming partners and subcontractors, to ensure successful mission accomplishment. Demonstrate effective management approach for proactively meeting USAMS III requirements to include being responsive to Government requests and resolving problems. Demonstrate an effective approach to manage teaming partners and/or subcontractor relationships. Provide qualification summaries for key leaders to include Program Manager (PM), Deputy Program Manager and Facility Security Officer (FSO).

M3.1.3.1.2. Human Resources. Demonstrate a sound management approach and the ability to attract, recruit, hire, train, and retain qualified personnel as well as certified, trained, and qualified technical personnel to meet task order requirements both onsite and off-site. Demonstrate the ability to ensure continuity of services during personnel absences due to sickness, leave, and voluntary or involuntary termination from employment such that disruption to mission accomplishment is minimal.

M3.1.3.1.3. Quality Control Plan (QCP). Demonstrate an effective and efficient quality management structure and processes that are integrated into the overall management approach and allow management of task order requirements. Demonstrate the ability to maintain an inspection system that is integrated into the overall management approach and which meets the requirements of PWS paragraph 1.4 and Table 1, Services Summary.

M3.1.3.1.4. Organizational Conflict of Interest (OCI) Plan (per FAR Subparts 9.5 and 9.6). Demonstrate an effective strategy for detecting, disclosing, avoiding and mitigating OCI issues and risks, to include those resulting from teaming arrangements, at both the USAMS III ID/IQ contract level and at the task order level. Demonstrate the ability to mitigate OCI when companies propose as both a Prime and as a subcontractor or teaming partner on another Prime’s proposal. Identify cross-teaming or exclusive teaming arrangements. Demonstrate effective processes to provide employee conflict of interest training and compliance with non-disclosure policy.

TABLE 1 – TECHNICAL RATINGS

Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal clearly meets the minimum requirements of the solicitation.

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

M3.1.3.1.5. Security. Demonstrate an effective process to obtain appropriate company and personnel security clearances (e.g. Secret, Top Secret/SCI with eligibility to special access programs) to support the USAMS III requirements throughout the life of the contract. Demonstrate effective processes for safeguarding classified materials in compliance with Government regulations. Demonstrate effective processes to ensure personnel understand and comply with applicable security requirements. Demonstrate effective processes for obtaining security clearances for short-notice task orders. Demonstrate, at time of award, the ability to access DSS certified work locations for performing classified work up to TS/SCI as required in PWS 1.8.1.

M3.1.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Strategic Deterrence:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Strategic Deterrence mission area in accordance with the PWS.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements supporting the following tasks:

M3.1.3.2.1 Strategic deterrence planning and execution

M3.1.3.2.2 Nuclear operations planning

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Strategic Deterrence mission area and provide appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of contractor support.

M3.1.3.3 Subfactor 3 – Space Operations:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Space Operations mission area in accordance with the PWS. Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements supporting the following tasks:

M3.1.3.3.1 Planning and conducting space force enhancement, space support, defensive space control, space situational awareness, and offensive space control and space force application

M3.1.3.3.2 Conducting space situational awareness operations for the US Government and commercial space capabilities, services used for national and homeland security purposes; civil space capabilities and human space flight activities

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Space Operations mission area and provide

M3.1.3.4 Subfactor 4 – Cyberspace Operations:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Cyberspace Operations mission area in accordance with the PWS.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements

M3.1.3.4.1 Conducting DOD information networks operations and defense planning against designated cyberspace threats

M3.1.3.4.2 Integrating theater security cooperation activities, deployments, and capabilities that support cyberspace operations

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Cyberspace Operations mission and provide

M3.1.3.5 Subfactor 5 – Joint Electronic Warfare:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Joint Electronic Warfare mission area in accordance with the PWS.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements

M3.1.3.5.1 Providing contingency electronic warfare support to other Combatant Commands

M3.1.3.5.2 Supporting Combatant Command joint training and planning related to controlling the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS)

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Joint Electronic Warfare mission area and provide appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of contractor support.

M3.1.3.6 Subfactor 6 – Global Strike:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Global Strike mission area in accordance with the PWS. Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements supporting the following tasks:

M3.1.3.6.1 Planning, coordinating and executing kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic global strike operations

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Global Strike mission area and provide

M3.1.3.7 Subfactor 7 – Missile Defense:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Missile Defense mission area in accordance with the PWS. Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements supporting the following tasks:

M3.1.3.7.1 Coordinating and supporting global missile defense operations

M3.1.3.7.2 Providing missile warning information and assessment of missile attack

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Missile Defense mission area and provide

M3.1.3.8 Subfactor 8 – Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR):

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) mission area in accordance with the PWS. Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements supporting the following tasks:

M3.1.3.8.1 Planning, integrating and coordinating ISR in support of strategic and global operations

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the ISR mission and provide appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of contractor support.

M3.1.3.9 Subfactor 9 – Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction mission area in accordance with the PWS. Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements supporting the following tasks:

M3.1.3.9.1 Planning, integrating, and coordinating global CWMD operations support of strategic and global operations

M3.1.3.9.2 Planning against designated global WMD threats

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction mission area and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of contractor support.

M3.1.3.10 Subfactor 10 – Analysis and Targeting:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for at least one of the following areas; Management and Professional Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and

Engineering and Technical Services for the Analysis and Targeting mission area in accordance with the PWS.

Proposals will be evaluated based on the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements

M3.1.3.10.1 Providing in-depth analysis and precision-targeting for selected networks and nodes in support of the Chairman, Combatant Commands, the Services and appropriate U.S. Government agencies

Standard: Clearly demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Analysis and Targeting mission area and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of contractor support.

M3.2 Factor 2: Past Performance Evaluation Procedures:

M3.2.1. Description of factor:

The offeror's proposal shall address past performance in related contracts as it applies to the Past Performance subfactors in this section. For the purpose of this evaluation, the term “offeror” includes the prime offeror and/or team members and major subcontractors performing 10% or more of the effort. The Past Performance Team will conduct a past performance review of each offeror and then make an overall assessment of the Government's confidence that the offeror will successfully perform this contract. In evaluating past performance, information may be obtained through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRs), similar systems of other

Government departments and agencies, questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of this acquisition, Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA) channels, interviews with program managers and contracting officers and other sources known to the Government, including commercial sources. Offerors are to note that, in conducting this assessment, the Government reserves the right to use both data provided by each offeror and data obtained from other sources. The Government will evaluate the offeror’s performance record as indicated in Section L4. The

Government will consider the relevancy, recency and quality of the past performance data as well as general trends in offeror’s performance. (NOTE: The Government reserves the right to evaluate more references that it locates through past performance evaluation research.)

M3.2.2. Factor Assessment:

The Government will place more weight and consideration on more relevant past performance information.

Offerors that demonstrate the highest level of performance quality (L4.11) on the most relevant work (M3.2.2.2) covering the ten past performance subfactors will receive higher confidence ratings (M3.2.2.4). A single confidence assessment of the offeror’s past performance (which includes, if applicable, the extent of its subcontractors’ and teaming partners’ involvement) will be made. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s interpretation of relevance.

M3.2.2.1. Recency: In determining recency, the Government will only consider contracts with performance ending on or after 1 January 2009. Contracts with recent performance totalling less than 1 year (12 months) in the period of performance proceeding the release date of the USAMS III solicitation will not be considered.

M3.2.2.2. Relevancy: The Government will perform an independent analysis in determining the relevancy of a contract based on the data provided and/or obtained. The determination of relevancy is contingent on an assessment of the similiarities in contract type, dollar valueand scope complexity of the efforts performed on the contract being reviewed to those of the USAMS III requirements. The assessment of relevancy focuses on criteria relevant to the

USAMS III Past Performance subfactors. Relevancy rating will be given at the subfactor level for each contract. In order to be considered Relevant, the effort must have been performed by the same division or corporate business unit that is proposing to perform the USAMS III requirement.

Relevance of an effort where the offeror participated under a joint venture arrangement will be determined based on the dollar value and type of work performed by the offeror. If a third party or customer cannot discern what work the offeror performed, this effort will not be considered relevant.

Scope of effort is defined as that documented in the USAMS III PWS. The following relevancy definitions apply:

* Although each past performance information document must address at least one of the subfactors, some references will address more than one subfactor. All ten subfactors must be addressed within the maximum number of past performance information documents to receive substantial confidence.

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

VERY RELEVANT (VR) Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Specifically, past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the USAMS III PWS for work performed on contracts

$1.5M or greater annually. Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate performance for USSTRATCOM or another COCOM of one or more of

USSTRATCOM’s ten subfactors as defined in PWS paragraph 1.3 .

RELEVANT (R) Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Specifically, past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the USAMS III PWS for work performed on contracts from

$800K to under $1.5M annually. Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate performance of one or more of USSTRATCOM’s ten subfactors for other DoD agencies.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and

Specifically, past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the USAMS III PWS for work performed on contracts from

$350K to under $800K annually. Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate the ability to perform one or more of USSTRATCOM’s ten subfactors at other Government agencies.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and

Specifically, past performance effort did not involve identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the USAMS III PWS or work performed on contracts under

$350K annually. Offerors’ efforts did not demonstrate the ability to perform one or more of USSTRATCOM’s ten subfactors for work performed at other Government agencies.

M3.2.2.2.1. Past Performance Relevancy Criteria: In conjunction with the definitions above, relevance will be determined considering the criteria listed below:

M3.2.2.2.1.1. Subfactor One - Program Management

M3.2.2.2.1.1.1. The offeror performed overall contract management (including ability to lead, manage, and control the program) similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.1.2. The offeror hired, trained and retained qualified personnel who were able to obtain appropriate security clearances to support contract requirements similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.1.3. The offeror provided corporate expertise and reach back capabilities to support mission requirements similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.1.4 The offeror managed subcontractors to effectively deliver results similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Strategic Deterrence:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Strategic

Deterrence mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III

PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.2.1 Strategic deterrence planning and execution

M3.2.2.2.1.2.2 Nuclear operations planning

M3.2.2.2.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Space Operations:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Space

Operations mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III

M3.2.2.2.1.3.1 Planning and conducting space force enhancement, space support, defensive space control, space situational awareness, and offensive space control and space force application

M3.2.2.2.1.3.2 Conducting space situational awareness operations for the US Government and commercial space capabilities to include: services used for national and homeland security purposes, civil space capabilities and human space flight activities

M3.2.2.2.1.4. Subfactor 4 - Cyberspace Operations:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Cyberspace

Operations mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III

M3.2.2.2.1.4.1 Conducting DOD information networks operations and defense planning against designated cyberspace threats

M3.2.2.2.1.4.2 Integrating theater security cooperation activities, deployments, and capabilities that support cyberspace operations

M3.2.2.2.1.5. Subfactor 5 – Joint Electronic Warfare:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Joint

Electronic Warfare mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the

USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.5.1 Providing contingency electronic warfare support to Combatant Commands

M3.2.2.2.1.5.2 Supporting Combatant Command joint training and planning related to controlling the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS)

M3.2.2.2.1.6. Subfactor 6 – Global Strike:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Global Strike mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.6 Planning, coordinating and executing kinetic (nuclear and conventional) and non-kinetic global strike

M3.2.2.2.1.7. Subfactor 7 – Missile Defense:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Missile

Defense mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.7.1 Coordinating and supporting global missile defense operations

M3.2.2.2.1.7.2 Providing missile warning information and assessment of missile attack

M3.2.2.2.1.8. Subfactor 8 – Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (ISR):

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.8.1 Planning, integrating and coordinating ISR in support of strategic and global operations

M3.2.2.2.1.9. Subfactor 9 – Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Combating

Weapons of Mass Destruction mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III PWS.

M3.2.2.2.1.9.1 Planning, integrating, and coordinating global CWMD operations support of strategic and global

M3.2.2.2.1.9.2 Planning against designated global WMD threats

M3.2.2.2.1.10. Subfactor 10 – Analysis and Targeting:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support in at least one of the following areas: Management and Professional

Support Services, Studies, Analyses and Evaluations, and Engineering and Technical Services for the Analysis and

Targeting mission area similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts required in the USAMS III

M3.2.2.2.1.10.1 Providing in-depth analysis and precision-targeting for selected networks and nodes in support of the Chairman, Combatant Commands, the Services and associated U.S. Government agencies

M3.2.2.3. Quality Performance Ratings:

The Government will evaluate recent and relevant performance to determine its confidence in the offeror's ability to successfully perform the USAMS III requirements. An offeror’s past performance information will be evaluated for the ten Past Performance subfactors of this acquisition. Performance ratings will be based on the following definitions (as reflected in the Past and Present Performance Questionnaire).

TABLE 3 - PERFORMANCE RATING

CODE PERFORMANCE RATING

E EXCEPTIONAL (E) – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds many to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with few minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was highly effective.

V VERY GOOD (V) – Performance meets contractual requirements and exceeds some to the Government’s benefit. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed was accomplished with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor was effective.

S SATISFACTORY (S) – Performance meets contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains some minor problems for which corrective actions taken by the contractor appear or were satisfactory.

M MARGINAL (M) – Performance does not meet some contractual requirements. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element being assessed reflects a serious problem for which the contractor has not yet identified corrective actions. The contractor’s proposed actions appear only marginally effective or were not fully implemented.

U UNSATISFACTORY (U) – Performance does not meet most contractual requirements and recovery is not likely in a timely manner. The contractual performance of the element or sub-element contains a serious problem(s) for which the contractor’s corrective actions appear or were ineffective.

N NOT APPLICABLE (N) – Unable to provide a rating.

Contract did not include performance on this element or sub-element, or information was not available. Do not know.

M3.2.2.4. Performance Confidence Assessment:

As a result of an integrated analysis of the offeror’s past efforts, each offeror will receive a single overall

Performance Confidence Assessment rating, as defined in the Table 4 below. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the past performance subfactors, the resulting Performance

Confidence Assessment is made at the factor level and represents the Government’s single overall evaluation. For an

Offeror to receive a Substantial Confidence rating, an Offeror shall provide past performance covering all

USSTRATCOM ten (10) Past Performance Subfactors identified in M2.0. Any Offeror’s past performance volume addressing less than the ten (10) Past Performance Subfactors will result in a rating of less than a Substantial

Confidence.

M3.2.2.5. Considerations: Where a relevant performance record indicates performance problems, the Government will consider the number and severity of the problems as well as the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised). The Government may review more recent contract performance evaluations to ensure corrective actions have been implemented and to evaluate their effectiveness.

Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. Prime offeror performance as a prime on the past performance subfactors will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence

Assessment than performance a subcontractor. More relevant performance will have a greater impact on the

Performance Confidence Assessment than a less relevant effort. A strong past performance record may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence past performance 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. If adverse past performance information, to which the offeror has had no opportunity to respond, is the reason an offeror may not receive an award without discussions, be excluded from the competitive range, or not receive the award, the offeror shall be provided an opportunity to address the information. For this acquisition, adverse past performance is defined as a “limited confidence” or “no confidence” Performance Confidence Assessment rating.

M3.2.2.6. Neutral Rating: Offerors without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and as a result, will receive a “neutral/unknown confidence” rating. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than a neutral/unknown confidence past performance rating.

M3.2.2.7. Confidentiality of Sources: Past performance information, including questionnaires and past performance sources are confidential and are not to be released to anyone outside the Government source selection process. Offerors are cautioned that contacting or seeking out the source(s) of past performance information is strictly prohibited. Any attempts to contact individuals concerning the past performance information will be perceived negatively and could impact your performance rating. Any questions regarding source selection information should be addressed directly to the source selection Contracting Officer only and not to any other

TABLE 4 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

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.

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE

(NEUTRAL)

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.

individuals. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that all their subcontractors and teaming partners are aware of this information and are in compliance.

M3.3. Factor 3: Price Evaluation Procedures.

M3.3.1. A price analysis will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Price reasonableness will be determined based on a comparison of offerors’ total overall evaluated prices. The total overall evaluated price consists of the offeror’s loaded hourly labor rates proposed in Attachment 03 USAMS III Pricing Model, to include all priced options (option years and task order performance periods). The total overall evaluated price is an estimate based on a full time equivalent work year for each labor category to determine price reasonableness, and has no relation to the USAMS III $500M ceiling. The Government will evaluate proposed prices to determine whether prices reflect a clear understanding of the ID/IQ requirements and established labor categories and are consistent with the various aspects of the offerors’ technical proposals.

M3.3.2. Comparison of proposed prices in response to the solicitation is the preferred and intended price analysis technique. Other techniques and procedures, if deemed necessary, may be used to ensure a fair and reasonable price, to include, but not limited to, the following: comparison of previously proposed prices and previous

Government and commercial contract prices with current proposed prices for the same or similar service/items;

comparison with competitive market prices of similar indexes; GSA Schedule(s) or Department of Labor wage/salary indexes; or comparison of proposed prices with the Independent Government estimate.

M3.3.3. There is a great expectation of competition for this requirement; thus offerors are cautioned to present their best price proposal up-front. The offeror’s price proposal shall represent the offeror’s best effort to respond to the solicitation. As a trade-off source selection, the Government reserves the right to, but is not required to conduct a price realism analysis on offers that appear to be exceptionally low and not supported by the offeror’s technical approach. In instances where an offeror receives acceptable technical and past performance ratings, yet proposed prices appear exceptionally low, offerors may be requested to address this disparity, providing evidence of their capability and/or experience providing similar service(s) at similar price(s). An exceptionally or unrealistically low offer may pose an unacceptable risk to the Government and may be a reason to reject an offeror’s proposal.

M3.3.4. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine whether they are unbalanced with respect to price. An example of an unbalanced offer would be proposed labor rates that are significantly less than or significantly overstated in relation to the proposed rates for other labor categories (either of the offeror’s proposal or the same labor categories as proposed by other offerors).

The Government may also consider an offer unbalanced if there is a significant difference between proposed labor rates in the same labor category between option periods or the proposed prices from year to year are above what would be considered a reasonable adjustment for inflation. Offers that are determined unbalanced may be rejected.

(End of Summary of Changes)