USAMS_III_Section_M___FBO_Draft.pdf

Section M - Evaluation Factors for Award

CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

52.217-5 Evaluation Of Options JUL 1990

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, and this solicitation. The Government is seeking to award six (6) to eight (8) prime contracts within the

USAMS III multiple award ID/IQ. The Government reserves the right to award more than 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, conform to the solicitation requirements (such as 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.

Step 1 – 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.

Step 2 – 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.

Step 3 – Price Evaluation. The Government will rank all offers by total evaluated price, including option prices.

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 price 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.

An offeror initially included in the competitive range may be eliminated from consideration for award during discussions. 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.

M1.3. AWARD

The Government reserves the right to award more than 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. 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, following completion of an integrated assessment of the proposals received. 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. 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.

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 Factors will be evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis according to the criteria described in section M3.1. Price will be evaluated to assess reasonable and fair pricing.

Past performance is 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 all of the thresholds listed under 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:

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 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.

M3.1.3.1.2. Human Resources. Demonstrate a sound management approach and the ability to attract, recruit, hire, train, and retain qualified management personnel as well as certified, trained, and qualified technical personnel to meet task order requirements. Demonstrate 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 ability to maintain an inspection system that is integrated into the overall management approach and meet 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 the USAMS III ID/IQ contract and task order levels. Demonstrate 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 process to provide employee conflict of interest training and compliance with non-disclosure policy.

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.

M3.1.3.1.6. Outside the Continental United States (OCONUS) Support. Demonstrate effective processes for supporting OCONUS requirements that reflect a clear understanding of theater/country clearance procedures required to successfully perform and manage OCONUS task order requirements. Demonstrate sound process to ensure personnel are available to begin contract performance within 30 days of contract award.

Standard. Demonstrates an ability to effectively conduct Program Management without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate mitigation for continuity of operations

(COOP).

M3.1.3.2 Subfactor 2 – Strategic Deterrence:

The Offeror shall demonstrate Technical Capability to provide Advisory and Assistance Services for 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. The offeror’s proposal needs to demonstrate the ability to meet this mission area’s requirements without introducing unacceptable risk supporting the following tasks:

M3.1.3.2.1 Strategic deterrence planning and execution

M3.1.3.2.2 Nuclear operations planning

Standard: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Strategic Deterrence mission area without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of operations.

M3.1.3.3 Subfactor 3 – Space Operations:

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements without introducing unacceptable risk 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: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Space Operations mission area

M3.1.3.4 Subfactor 4 – Cyberspace Operations:

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements without introducing unacceptable risk supporting the following

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: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Cyberspace Operations mission area without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of operations.

M3.1.3.5 Subfactor 5 – Joint Electronic Warfare:

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet

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: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Joint Electronic Warfare mission

M3.1.3.6 Subfactor 6 – Global Strike:

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements without introducing unacceptable risk supporting the following tasks:

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

Standard: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Global Strike mission area without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of operations.

M3.1.3.7 Subfactor 7 – Missile Defense:

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements without introducing unacceptable risk 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: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Missile Defense mission area

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

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements without introducing unacceptable risk supporting the following tasks:

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

Standard: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the ISR mission area without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of operations.

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

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet this mission area’s requirements without introducing unacceptable risk 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: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Combating Weapons of Mass

Destruction mission area without introducing unacceptable risk, and provides appropriate insight, technical capabilities, and mitigation for continuity of operations.

M3.1.3.10 Subfactor 10 – Analysis and Targeting:

for 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 the ability to demonstrate capability to meet

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: Demonstrates an ability to effectively support the Analysis and Targeting mission

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

Technical subfactors in this section. 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 and recency of the past performance, source of the past performance information (and may consider their grading history/specific program background context), context of the data, general trends in offeror’s performance, and the size and complexity of the past performance relative to this acquisition’s requirements. (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 evaluate past performance through an integrated analysis of those strengths and weaknesses the Government identifies in the offeror’s recent and relevant contract performance. The Government will place more weight and consideration on more relevant past performance information. The rating for the past performance factor is the Government’s assessment of confidence, based upon the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s performance record, that the offeror will successfully perform the requirements of this acquisition as proposed. For the purposes of the Past Performance evaluation, the term “offeror” includes the prime offeror and/or team members and major subcontractors performing 10% or more of the effort. 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. Performance of less than 1 year from 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 contract type, dollar value, similarities and 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 technical subfactors and will be given a relevancy rating at the subfactor level with an overall relevancy rating also assigned for each contract. In order to be considered Relevant, the effort must have been performed by the same division or business unit that is being proposed 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 of relevant 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. The Government may consider the offeror’s (including subcontractors) past performance in aggregate, rather than on an effort

(contract) by effort basis. This takes into consideration joint ventures or teaming arrangements in which the proposing partners participated, either with each other or with other entities, in performing work similar to that which they are proposing to perform for the current effort. For example, the offeror is a joint venture where there are four partners that share equally in the proposed effort. They established the joint venture for this requirement so past performance information is not available on the joint venture but is available on each of the partners. Past performance on each of the partners of the joint venture may be only somewhat relevant because work, although the same, is not the same size or dollar value of the current requirement.

However, when the partners’ past performance is viewed in the aggregate, the past performance information may more accurately reflect a higher rating. The offeror/joint venture shall identify the specific contracts submitted as an aggregate for evaluation purposes in the Contractor’s Past

Performance Information Document. As a result of an integrated analysis of the offeror’s past efforts, each contract submitted for past performance purposes will receive Past Performance

Relevancy Ratings, as defined in the Table 2 below. The Prime Offeror, to include their teaming arrangements or joint ventures, may only submit a maximum number of ten (10). In order to receive relevancy ratings addressing all nine (9) USSTRATCOM Mission areas, the Offeror must submit information applicable to all nine (9) missions areas within the maximum number of past performance information documents allowed. Three (3) of the references provided shall be on the Prime. Additional references may be on the Prime, teaming partner, joint venture partner or subcontractor deemed major or critical to the performance of this contract. More weight will be given to the references on the Prime. Each contract reference shall be submitted on a separate

PPI document. The contractor’s past performance evaluation information submitted on the

Contractor Contract Past Performance Information Documents shall be the same contracts named on the questionnaires.

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

TABLE 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE RELEVANCY RATINGS

RATING DEFINITION

VERY RELEVANT (VR) Past performance effort involved in identifying and sourcing qualified personnel required to support the scope of effort identified in the USAMS

* Although each past performance information document must address at least one of the mission areas, all nine mission areas must be addressed within the maximum number of past performance information documents to receive substantial confidence.

M3.2.2.2.1. Past Performance Relevancy Criteria: The determination of relevancy is contingent on an assessment of the type(s) of tasks performed, contract type, dollar value, complexity, and other similarities on the contract being reviewed to those of the USAMS III requirements. 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).

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.

M3.2.2.2.1.1.3. The offeror provided corporate expertise and reach back capabilities to support mission requirements.

M3.2.2.2.1.2. Subfactor 2 – Strategic Deterrence:

The Offeror provided A&AS Contract Support for Management and Professional Support

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

III PWS for work performed on contracts $1.5M or greater annually.

Offerors’ efforts shall demonstrate performance for USSTRATCOM of one or more of USSTRATCOM’s nine mission areas at multiple locations.

RELEVANT (R) 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 nine mission areas at multiple locations, or like work at other COCOMs.

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT (SR) 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 nine mission areas at other Government agencies.

NOT RELEVANT (NR) 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 nine mission areas for work performed at other

Government agencies.

Strategic Deterrence mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts performed for the USAMS III acquisition.

M3.2.2.2.1.3. Subfactor 3 – Space Operations:

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

Space Operations mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and

M3.2.2.2.1.4. Subfactor 4 - Cyberspace Operations:

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

Cyberspace Operations mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts performed for the USAMS III acquisition.

M3.2.2.2.1.5. Subfactor 5 – Joint Electronic Warfare:

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

Joint Electronic Warfare mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, M3.2.2.2.1.6. Subfactor 6 – Global Strike:

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

Global Strike mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts performed for the USAMS III acquisition.

M3.2.2.2.1.7. Subfactor 7 – Missile Defense:

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

Missile Defense mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and

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

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

Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts performed for the USAMS III acquisition.

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

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

Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, and efforts performed for the USAMS III acquisition.

M3.2.2.2.1.10. Subfactor 10 – Analysis and Targeting:

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

Analysis and Targeting mission area which is similar in contract type, dollar value, complexity, 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 in the areas of Program Management and the

USSTRATCOM Mission Areas: Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, Global Strike, Missile Defense, Intelligence/Surveillance/and Reconnaissance (ISR), Space Operations, Strategic Deterrence, Cyberspace Operations, Joint Electronic Warfare, and Analysis and

Targeting as related to the Technical subfactors of this acquisition. Performance ratings will be based on the following definitions (as reflected in the Past and Present Performance

Questionnaire).

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 3 below. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical 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 nine

(9) Mission areas. Anything less than nine (9) will result in a rating 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 contracts or 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. 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

TABLE 3 - 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.

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 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 04 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 historical work 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. Unrealistically low proposed prices, initially or subsequently, may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition. An example of an unrealistically low proposed price would be proposed labor rates that were so low that the Government could not make a reasonable determination that an offeror could successfully provide qualified personnel for the labor categories proposed.

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.