Attachment_07_-_Section_M-Evaluation_Factors_for_Award.docx

FA4600-19-R-A001

Attachment 07 -- Section M - Evaluation factors for award

TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINMENT (TADS)

SOLICITATION SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA4600-19-R-A001

Attachment 07 24 June 2019

M1 GENERAL

M1.1 Basis for Contract Award This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15.3, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures dated 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory Procedures 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

M1.2 Contract to be Awarded The Government intends to award one single-award IDIQ contract 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 RFP, and provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation.

The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed our requirements affordably in a way that will be advantageous to the Government. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical superiority of the higher priced offeror outweighs the total evaluated price difference. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process is subjective by its nature; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process.

M1.3 Discussions The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions if determined necessary. Any discussions will be conducted in accordance with FAR 15.306. If the Contracting Officer determines that the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting Officer, with the concurrence of the SSA, may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly rated proposals.

M1.4 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Cyber Security Approach Subfactor 2: Management Approach Subfactor 3: Transition & Sustainment Subfactor 4: CAF Development & Integration

Factor 2: Cost/Price

M1.5 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the Technical Factor is significantly more important than cost or price. Within the Technical Factor, all Subfactors are each of equal importance.

M2 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL

Technical Factor: The term “Technical” as used herein and throughout the document, refers to non-cost factors and subfactors other than past performance. The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor.

M2.1 Definitions In accordance with the “Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures” dated 31 March 2016:

Strength – an aspect of an offeror's proposal that has merit or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance

Excess – an element of the proposal that exceeded mandatory minimums (in ways that are not integral to the design) whose removal and corresponding price decrease may make an offeror’s proposal more competitive.

Weakness – a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Significant Weakness – a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance

Deficiency – a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level

M2.2 Technical Rating

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor identified above will receive one of the color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures excerpted below, which focuses on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

M2.3 Technical Risk Rating Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses or significant weaknesses, assesses the degree to which an offeror’s proposed approach for the requirements of the solicitation may cause disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

The evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weaknesses and/or significant weaknesses, as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why that is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the table excerpted below. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall risk rating for the Technical factor.

M2.4 Technical Subfactors Each offeror’s written technical proposal shall be evaluated , based on the subfactors below, to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the stated requirements and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. The technical proposal addresses each of the following subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach.

M2.4.1 Subfactor 1: Cyber Security Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach to successfully execute and manage cybersecurity compliance through the application of Administrative, Management, Operational, Procedural, and Technical controls in support of Assessment and Accreditation and through the application of automated mechanisms.

M2.4.1.1 The government will evaluate the offeror’s capability to demonstrate 17-1303/8570.01M compliance and plan for continuing education to meet all certification requirements.

M2.4.1.2 The government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s processes to address time-sensitive security issues with minimal disruption to operations and ensure system accreditation is maintained.

M2.4.1.3 The government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s security testing approach in a DevOps environment.

M2.4.1.4 The government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s security vulnerability vetting process for information system and third-party software components.

M2.4.1.5 The government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s secure coding practices as part of DevOps and a Secure Software Development Lifecycle.

M2.4.1.6 The government will evaluate the strength of the offeror’s proactive approach to cybersecurity and application of institutional knowledge and subject matter expertise.

M2.4.2 Subfactor 2: Management Approach The Government will evaluate the offeror's approach to determine the extent that the offeror understands the management requirements, the quality of its proposal to fulfill the TADS objectives with a sound solution and approach.

The following criteria will be used to evaluate Management Approach:

M2.4.2.1 The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s human resource management strategy in meeting the objectives of the TADS IDIQ.

M2.4.2.2 The government will evaluate the quality and sufficiency of the offeror’s agile approach to multi-site development, automated testing, and integration into the enterprise.

M2.4.2.3 The government will evaluate how well the offeror applies MOSA principles design/development processes.

M2.4.2.4 The government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror has adopted a culture of innovation,will apply the innovative culture to produce benefits for the Air Force weather enterprise, and demonstrates experience that validates the offeror’s approach.

M2.4.2.5 The government will evaluate how well the offeror’s approach to data management provides complete, accurate, timely, and accessible documentation.

M2.4.2.6 The Government will evaluate the how well the offeror’s Small Business Participation approach assimilates small businesses into the total TADS performance, meets or exceeds the small business subcontracting goal, and demonstrates experience successfully applying the offeror’s approach while meeting small business subcontracting goals.

M2.4.2.7 The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s approach to perform systems engineering and integration.

M2.4.3 Subfactor 3: Transition & Sustainment The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for Transition and Sustainment.

M2.4.3.1 The Government will evaluate the adequacy and completeness of the offeror’s transition plan.

M2.4.3.2 The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s approach meets the subsystem operational availability and operational dependability.

M2.4.3.3 The Government will evaluate the quality and sufficiency of the offeror’s approach for hardware maintenance.

M2.4.3.4 The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s approach meets sustainment systems analysis requirements.

M2.4.3.5 The Government will evaluate the quality and sufficiency of the offeror’s sustainment configuration management processes.

M2.4.3.6 The Government will evaluate how well the offeror’s systems administration approach meets operational availability and operational dependability.

M2.4.3.7 The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s processes to implement corrective software changes.

M2.4.4 Subfactor 4: CAF Development & Integration The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for the Cloud Analysis and Forecasting (CAF) Integration task order.

M2.4.4.1 The Government will evaluate the sufficiency and quality of the offeror’s processes for identifying and correcting errors and deficiencies.

M2.4.4.2 The Government will evaluate the quality and sufficiency of the offeror's approach to provide continuous improvement and development of new or enhanced capabilities and data sources across multiple security enclaves.

M2.4.4.3 The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s approach that ensures all scientific enhancements are properly referenced, documented and delivered to the Government.

M2.4.4.4 The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s release documentation and training procedures.

M2.4.4.5 The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s approach for the use of a sandbox testbed environment.

M2.4.4.6 The Government will evaluate the adequacy of the offeror’s approach that ensures that the proper scientific expertise is obtained as needed and how that expertise will be utilized throughout task order performance.

M2.4.4.7 The Government will evaluate the quality of the offeror’s enhancement of a current capability or newly prototyped capability.

M3 FACTOR 2: COST/PRICE

M3.1 Overview

M3.1.1 The Government will use one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1, in order to evaluate Cost/Price proposals. The Government will evaluate the initial proposed costs/prices, as well as any revisions the offeror may make.

M3.1.2 The Government will not assign a color rating or risk rating to Factor 2, Cost/Price; however, the Government may assign Weakness(es) or Significant Weakness(es) to the applicable Technical subfactors in accordance with M2.1. All Weakness(es) or Significant Weakness(es) assigned as a result of Factor 2 will contribute to the Technical Risk Ratings in accordance with M2.3.

M3.1.3 The Contracting Officer anticipates adequate price competition; therefore, certified cost or pricing data is not required. The Government will evaluate information other than certified cost or pricing data for purposes.

M3.2 Reasonableness The Government will evaluate the offeror’s price proposal to ensure it is fair and reasonable. For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For additional information, see FAR 31.201-3. The Government’s concern in making a price reasonableness determination focuses primarily on whether the offered prices are higher than warranted. The Government may determine an offer is unacceptable, and therefore unawardable, if the Government finds the price proposal not to be fair and reasonable. If the Government evaluates an aspect of the offeror’s price proposal to be unreasonable, the Government will rate the proposal as “Unreasonable.”

M3.3 Cost Realism A Cost Realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.305(a)(1) and 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Cost Realism analysis only on the cost type CLINs contained in Task Order 01 – Transition and Sustainment and Task Order 02 – CAF Development and Integration.

M3.3.1 Cost realism analysis considers the extent to which proposed elements of cost under the cost type CLINs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements.

M3.3.2 If the Government determines an offer is unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance, the Government will consider the technical risk introduced by the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements. The Government may assign a Weakness or Significant Weakness to the applicable Technical subfactor in accordance with M2.1.

M3.3.3 Based upon the cost realism assessment, a Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) may be constructed in the realism evaluation. If a GEMPC is produced for any cost type CLINs, the GEMPC will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine the best value, not the offeror’s proposed cost.

M3.3.4 If the Government determines a proposed cost is unrealistic, the Government will rate the proposal as “Unrealistic.”

M3.4 Price Realism A Price Realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Price Realism analysis only on the Fixed Price type CLINs contained in Task Order 01 – Transition and Sustainment.

M3.4.1 Price realism analysis considers the extent to which proposed elements of cost under the fixed price type CLINs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements.

M3.4.2 If the Government determines an offer is unrealistically low compared to the anticipated price, the Government will consider the technical risk introduced by the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements. The Government may assign a Weakness or Significant Weakness to the applicable Technical subfactor in accordance with M2.1.

M3.4.3 A GEMPC will not be constructed for any Fixed Price type CLINs.

M3.4.4 If the Government determines a proposed price is unrealistic, the Government will rate the proposal as “Unrealistic.”

M3.5 Unbalanced Pricing The Government will analyze proposed costs and prices to determine if they are unbalanced.

M3.5.1 Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of price analysis techniques.

M3.5.2 If the Government determines an offer is unbalanced, the Government will consider the technical risk introduced by the offeror’s lack of understanding of the technical requirements. The Government may assign a Weakness or Significant Weakness to the applicable Technical subfactor in accordance with M2.1.

M3.5.3 If the Government determines the proposal contains unbalanced pricing, the Government may rate the proposal as “Unbalanced.”

M3.6 Affordability The Government will analyze proposed costs and prices to determine if they are affordable. The Government will evaluate affordability only on the Task Order 01 – Transition and Sustainment and Task Order 02 – CAF Development and Integration.

The Government will evaluate the affordability of each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included below. The evaluation shall be made on the basis of a separate comparison for each fiscal year as well as a comparison between the total price and the total budgetary information included below.

M3.6.1 The budget profile for Task Order 01 – Transition and Sustainment is:

Base Year Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Option Year 3 Option Year 4 Six-Month Extension Total Budget

Task Order 01 Affordability will be evaluated by comparing the budget profile against the sum of the prices for all CLINs.

M3.6.2 The budget profile for Task Order 02 – CAF Development and Integration is:

Base Year Option Year 1 Option Year 2 Option Year 3 Total Budget

Task Order 02 Affordability will be evaluated by comparing the budget profile against the sum of the prices for all CLINs.

M3.7 Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees The Government will evaluate the realism of the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan in accordance with FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees.

M3.7.1 For the plan to be realistic, it must reflect a clear understanding of work to be performed and should indicate the capability of the proposed compensation structure to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgement and lack of understanding of the requirement.

M3.7.2 If the Government determines a proposed plan is unrealistic, the Government may rate the proposal as “Unrealistic” and assign a Weakness or Significant Weakness to the applicable Technical subfactor in accordance with M2.1.

M3.8 Government Furnished Property The Government will, to the maximum extent practicable, eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror’s proposed use of Government-Owned Facilities or Government-Furnished Property (GFP) already in its possession where the contractor is specifically authorized such use without charge. Section L, paragraph L4.4.4.5 requires an offeror to identify any such GFP the offeror proposes to use.

M3.8.1 In accordance with FAR 45.202, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage by adjusting the offer by applying, for evaluation purposes only, a rental equivalent evaluation factor as specified in FAR 52.245-9. In cases where the use of such GFP would be on a shared/pro-rated basis, the Government will include the rental equivalent in the TEP.

M3.8.2 If offeror’s proposal relies on Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and the proposed Government Support is unavailable, the Government may assign a Weakness or Significant Weakness to the applicable Technical subfactor in accordance with M2.1.

M3.9 Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The Government will use the TEP as a factor in determining the best value offer. The Government evaluating options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options. The Government will calculate the Total Evaluated Price (TEP) as the sum of the evaluated prices identified below:

M3.9.1 Task Order 1 – Transition and Sustainment:

The Government will establish the evaluated price as follows:

M3.9.1.1 All Firm Fixed Price (FFP) CLINs, except Transition Labor CLIN 0011, will be evaluated at the sum of the proposed prices. Transition Labor CLIN 0011 is exluded from the TEP.

M3.9.1.2 All Cost Plus Fixed Fee CLINs will be evaluated at the sum of Target Cost plus Fixed Fee dollars; however, if a GEMPC is produced per M3.3.3, these CPFF CLINs will be evaluated at the sum of GEMPC plus Fixed Fee dollars.

M3.9.1.3 All Cost Reimbursable (CR) CLINs for Government-Directed Software Licenses/Support Agreements/Spare Parts will be evaluated as the sum of the Government-populated direct cost (L4.3.1.2) plus all applicable burdens such as G&A, material handling, and Facilities Capital Cost of Money.

M3.9.1.4 All CR CLINs for Travel and Miscellaneous Direct Costs will be evaluated at the sum of the proposed costs; however, if a GEMPC is produced per M3.3.3, these CR CLINs will be evaluated at the sum of GEMPC.

M3.9.1.5 If any Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support is proposed and accepted by the Government, the Government-computed equivalent value will be added to the TEP.

M3.9.2 Task Order 2 – CAF Development and Integration:

M3.9.2.1 All Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) CLINs will be evaluated at the sum of Target Cost plus Fixed Fee dollars; however, if a GEMPC is produced per M3.3.3, these CPFF CLINs will be evaluated at the sum of GEMPC plus Fixed Fee dollars.

M3.9.2.2 All CR CLINs will be evaluated at the sum of the proposed costs; however, if a GEMPC is produced per M3.3.3, these CR CLINs will be evaluated at the sum of GEMPC.

M3.9.2.3 If any Government-Owned Facilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support is proposed and accepted by the Government, the Government-computed equivalent value will be added to the TEP.

M3.9.3 Model FFP CLINs 0001 and 1001 Pricing will be evaluated as the sum of the Government-populated cost of $50,000,000 plus Profit. (reference L4.3.3.2)

Profit = $50,000,000 x proposed profit rate

M3.9.4 Model CPFF CLINs 0002 and 1002 Pricing will be evaluated as the sum of the Government-populated cost of $80,000,000 plus Fixed Fee dollars. (reference L4.3.4.2)

Fixed Fee dollars = $80,000,000 x proposed fixed fee rate

M3.9.5 Model CPFF CLINs 0003 and 1003 Pricing will be evaluated as the sum of the Government-populated cost of $80,000,000 plus Fixed Fee dollars. (reference L4.3.5.2)

Fixed Fee dollars = $80,000,000 x proposed fixed fee rate

M3.9.6 Model CPIF CLINs 0004 and 1004 Pricing will be evaluated as shown below:

M3.9.6.1 The Target Cost is established as $10,000,000.

M3.9.6.2 The Government has pre-determined the total allowable cost as the price-point for evaluation. This value is documented in the Source Selection Plan, but will not be disclosed to any offeror prior to the contract award decision.

M3.9.6.3 Based on the pre-determined total allowable cost and the proposed rates from L4.3.6.2, the Government will calculate the price to be included in the overall TEP as the sum of the total allowable cost plus the calculated fee.

M3.9.7 Model CPIF CLINs 0005 and 1005 Pricing will be evaluated as shown below:

M3.9.7.1 The Target Cost is established as $10,000,000.

M3.9.7.2 The Government has pre-determined the total allowable cost as the price-point for evaluation. This value is documented in the Source Selection Plan, but will not be disclosed to any offeror prior to the contract award decision.

M3.9.7.3 Based on the pre-determined total allowable cost and the proposed rates from L4.3.7.2, the Government will calculate the price to be included in the overall TEP as the sum of the total allowable cost plus the calculated fee.

M3.9.8 Model High-Dollar Materials CLINs 0007 and 1007 Pricing will be evaluated as the ceiling price based on a Government-populated Target Cost of $25,000,000. (reference L4.3.8.2)

Ceiling Price = $25,000,000 x proposed ceiling percentage

M4 CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

M4.1 Exceptions to Solicitation Requirements 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. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

M4.2 Exclusive Teaming Arrangements that Inhibit Competition Offerors who propose teaming arrangements on an exclusive basis will be evaluated to determine whether such teaming agreements unreasonably inhibit competition for acquisitions that support the Air Force weather enterprise. Offerors are advised that if the Government determines that any such proposed, exclusive teaming arrangement unreasonably inhibits competition, the Government may assign a a Weakness or Significant Weakness to Technical Subfactor 2: Management Approach in accordance with M2.1. An assigned Weakness(es) or Significant Weakness(es) will contribute to the Technical Risk Ratings in accordance with M2.3.

M4.3 Capability Maturity Model Integration® Development The offeror has satisfied all requirements for CMMI-DEV: Maturity Level 3 and the current (unexpired) appraisal is available for verification on the CMMI Institute’s Published Appraisal Result site: https://cmmiinstitute.com/learning/appraisals/results