GSSC_2.0_Section_M_18Jan19.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 Basis for Contract Award through Source Selection

1.1 Source Selection Methodology

This acquisition will utilize the Tradeoff source selection procedures in accordance with FAR 15.3 as supplemented by the DoD Source Selection Procedures referenced in DFARS 215.300 and Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR website, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. In using the best value approach, the Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet or exceed the GSSC 2.0 contract requirements, in a way that will be the most advantageous to the Government. This may result in an award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical superiority and/or overall business approach of the higher priced offeror is determined to be of the best value to the Government. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the factors and subfactors described in this provision. While the Government will strive for maximum objectivity, the tradeoff process, by its nature, is subjective; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the selection process. Offerors are reminded that the Government will only evaluate one proposal from each offeror.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to select one contractor for this effort; however, the Government reserves the right to award no contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government reserves the right to conduct a price realism analysis to determine whether an offeror’s proposed prices are realistic for the work to be performed. The Government may reject any proposal that may be evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically high or low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal may be deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.4 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the "correction potential" of any deficiency. The judgment of such "correction potential" is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal does not meet the Government's requirements and is not considered correctable, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to all required terms and conditions, includes all required representations and certifications, meets or exceeds all requirements set forth in the RFP, has acceptable Small Business Participation, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation as described in Section 2.0 below.

1.5 Competitive Advantage

The Government intends to maintain a competitive environment by ensuring the use of open teaming arrangements and requiringing offerors to support access to Government-furnished property (GFP) and GFP related capabilities residing in contractor laboratories to help eliminate, to the maximum practical extent, any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP. The Government will implement a No Exclusive Teaming Arrangements Provision in Section H of the Solicitation to prohibit exclusive teaming arrangements to help alleviate co-use issues with GFP known to be encumbered on current efforts.

1.6 Discussions

The offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussions. However, the Government reserves the right, if it is determined to be in its best interest, to hold discussions. Offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (EN) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the Offeror’s proposal remains in the competitive range at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the Offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award or may affect the offeror’s ratings.

2.0 Factors and Subfactors used for Evaluation

2.1 A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed. Award will be made to the offeror with the proposal that is most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below:

Factor I: Technical

Subfactor One: Sample Task One – GMATS Subfactor Two: Sample Task Two – SELM Subfactor Three: Sample Task Three – Launch Facility Subfactor Four: Sample Task Four – IOSSP Subfactor Five: Sample Taks Five - SACCS

Subfactor Six: Technical Expertise

Factor II. Cost/Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

IAW FAR 15.304(e), the Technical factor, which includes the technical rating and technical risk rating, is significantly more important, than cost/price. However, cost/price will contribute to the selection decision. Within Factor I, subfactors One-Five are more important than subfactor Six. Subfactors One -Five are equal in importance.

2.3 Technical Assessment

The evaluation of the technical proposal provides for two distinct but related assessments: Technical Rating and Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the evaluation of each Technical subfactor. The Technical Rating includes consideration for:

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.

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. (See FAR 15.001)

The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal weaknesses.

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

Significant Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. (See FAR 15.001)

The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach and capabilities explanation and how they will use their approach and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements. The Government will also evaluate how Basis Of Estimates (BOE’s) support the offeror’s technical approach.

2.4 Technical Rating

The technical rating evaluates the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor 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 or exceeds the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

Technical Ratings:

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description Blue Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths.

Purple Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is unawardable.

2.5 Technical Risk Rating

Technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of 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. Each technical subfactor will receive a Technical Risk Rating (in addition to the color adjectival rating) as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted below.

Technical Risk Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance.

Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

2.6 Technical Acceptable/Unnaceptable Rating

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the No Exclusive Teaming Arrangement and Small Businesss Participation portions of Technical Subfactor Six on an acceptable or unacceptable basis as described in the DoD Source Selection Procuedures , as excerpted below. An “Unaceptable” rating in either of these two portions of Subfactor Two will be considered a deficiency and render the entire subfactor unacceptable.

Acceptable/Unnaceptable Ratings:

Adjectival Rating Description Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unnaceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation

2.7 Proposal Evaluation

The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows (Organized by volume):

2.7.1 Volume I, Factor I: Technical

The technical volume will be evaluated to determine the extent to which the offeror addresses the sample tasks, the proposed approach, capabilities, and shows evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each Technical subfactor.

As part of Volume I the Government will evaluate the following six subfactors:

Subfactor One: Sample Task One – GMATS Subfactor Two: Sample Task Two – SELM Subfactor Three: Sample Task Three – Launch Facility Subfactor Four: Sample Task Four – IOSSP Subfactor Five: Sample Taks Five - SACCS

Subfactor Six: Technical Expertise

2.7.1.1. Subfactor One: Sample Task One - Ground Minuteman Automatic Test Station (GMATS) (PWS – Attachment 6 GMATS 1.4.2) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the extent to which the offeror’s proposed approach satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-D).

The Government will evaluate:

A) the offeror’s description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables for a Service Life Extension (SLE) to determine if the proposed approach ensures adequate oscilloscope support, to include:

i. Regression testing

ii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support regression testing

iii. Systems engineering integration

iv. Products required to ensure future parts supportability

v. Deployment of oscilloscope solution

vi. Other notable aspects of SLE

B) the plan of action and demonstrated ability to address anticipated spares shortfall C) the proposed approach’s ablility to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to:

i. Nuclear surety (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.8)

ii. Cybersecurity (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1)

iii. Testing (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1.8)

iv. Configuration management (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

D) the BOE’s ability to support the estimate of work to be completed within 6 months

2.7.1.2 Subfactor Two: Sample Task Two – Simulated Electronic Launch Minuteman (SELM) (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1) In the Technical Volume, address the sample tasks, the proposed approach, capabilities, and evidence of meeting or exceeding the minimum performance or capability requirements of each Technical subfactor.

A) the offerors description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to include:

i. Troubleshooting to determine root cause

ii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support testing

iii. Systems engineering integration

iv. Software deployment

B) The offeror’s ability to manufacture parts based on current drawings C) the proposed approach’s ablility to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to:

i. Nuclear surety (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.8)

ii. Nuclear Certification (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.8.3)

iii. Cybersecurity (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1)

iv. Testing (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1.8)

v. Configuration management (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

D) the BOE’s ability to support the estimate of work to be completed within 6 months

2.7.1.3 Subfactor Three: Sample Task Three – Launch Facility (LF) (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.7; 1.4.10.3) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the offeror’s proposed approach and how well it satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-C).

A) the offerors description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to include:

i. Root cause analysis

ii. Impact assessment

iii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support solution

iv. Systems engineering integration

v. Products required

vi. Solution deployment

B) the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to :

i. Nuclear surety - PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.8

i. Nuclear Hardness - PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.7.1

ii. Testing - PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.4

ii. Configuration management - PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.2.7

C) the BOE’s ability to support the estimate of work to be completed within 8 months

2.7.1.4 Subfactor Four: Sample Task Four – ICBM Operational Software Sustainment Program (IOSSP) (PWS – Attachment 2 IOSSP 1.4.22) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the offeror’s proposed approach and how well it satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-C). :

A) the offerors description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to include:

i. Impact assessment

ii. Interfacing organizations (government or non-government) required to support solution

iii. Systems engineering integration

iv. Requirements Traceability Matrix

v. Deployment impacts

B) the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to :

iii. Nuclear surety PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.8

iii. Testing PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.1.1.8

iv. Configuration management PWS Attachment 1 – General Sustainment 1.4.2.7

C) the BOE’s ability to support the estimate of work to be completed within 18 months

2.7.1.5 Subfactor Five: Sample Task Five – Strategic Automated Command Control System (SACCS) (PWS

– Attachment 7 SACCS 2.1.4) The Government’s evaluation of this sample task will focus on the offeror’s proposed approach and how well it satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements (A-D).

A) the offerors description of engineering analysis, strategy, processes, and deliverables, to included:

i. Possible interface related issues

ii. Risk Management Framework (RMF)

iii. Training and hardware updates

iv. Emergency Action Messages (EAM) certification

B) the offeror’s proposed schedule and rapid completion plan and its ability to ensure mission continuity C) the proposed approach’s ability to ensure all Air Force requirements are met with respect to :

i. Cybersecurity (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.1.1)

ii. Configuration management (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.2.7)

iii. Nuclear hardness and surety in the LCC environment

D) the BOEs ability to support rapid completion of KIV-7M replacement

2.7.1.6 Subfactor Six: Technical Expertise

2.7.1.6.1 Recruitment and Retention Plan (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.3.3.4) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s Recruitment and Retention plan shows evidence of its ability to maintain a technically competent workorce for the duration of this contract through an evaluation of :

A) The offeror’s description of how personnel, including Subject Matter Experts, are grown, promoted and retained within the company B) The offeror’s description of how the company addresses recruitment for all personnel, specifically for technical expertise, C) The offeror’s description of employee turn-over rates and how the company is addressing loss of critical skills over the life of the contract.

2.7.1.6.2 Teaming Arrangements (PWS – Attachment 1 General Sustainment 1.4.3.3.4; 1.4.3.3.5) The Governement will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposed team structure, including partnerships, demonstrates how the offeror will provide the required level of skills and experience to perform the acquisition and sustainment services for this contract. The evaluation will include:

A) The offeror’s proposed team organization, written explanation detailing the roles, responsibilities and capabilities of all team members (to included subcontractor, supplier, and interdivisional team), and explanation of the relevance of skills and prior strategic nuclear weapons/ICBM acquisition/sustainment experience to the team, as well as the interdependencies, key relationships, and communication channels. .

B) The offeror’s ability to obtain and provide Associated Contractor Agreements (ACA) or other agreements that show commitment to the program at a minimum for the base contract period.

C) A determination that the offeror has provided an affirmative statement that they have not entered into any exclusive teaming arrangements as defined in the No Exclusive Teaming Arrangement H Solicitation Provision.

D) A determination that the offeror’s Small Business Participation approach meets the small business subcontracting goals identified within PWS – BASIC 2.21.

3.0 Volume II, Factor II: Cost/Price

3.1 The Pricing criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism (on portions of the volume as detailed below), Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be computed and provided to the Source Selection Authority for award purposes only and does not become part of the contract at award. However, the CLIN prices and rates proposed in the Labor Rate Matrices used to calculate the TEP will become contractually binding.

3.2 Evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

3.3 Price Reasonableness

All task orders and CLINs will be reviewed for price reasonableness IAW the techniques described in FAR 15.404-

1. Generally adequate price competition is sufficient to satisfy the requirement for ensuring price reasonableness.

For a price to be considered reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay when consideration is given to prices in the market and its affordability. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined, additional information will be required to support the proposed price. Any proposed task order that is under the provided budget in Section L, Table 1 relays an unreasonable bid and may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition.

3.4 Realism

The Government will evaluate the realism of each offeror’s proposed costs of the sample tasks described in Subfactor One of the Technical Volume and the labor rates of all Cost-Plus Award Fee (CPAF) CLINs of the awardable task orders. This will include an evaluation of the extent to which proposed costs are sufficient for the work to be performed, reflective of a clear understanding of the requirements, and consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the offeror’s technical proposal (FAR 15.404-1(d)(1) and 2.101). Any proposed task order that is under the provided budget in Section L, Table 1 relays an unrealistic bid and may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. If the Government evaluates the offeror’s probable cost as different from its proposed cost, the Government reserves the right to utilize the probable cost for purposes of best value IAW FAR 15.404-1(d)(2). It is anticipated that the same burdened base rates (less profit/fee) for all cost type rates will be identical to the fixed price type rates in Section J, Attachment 10, Labor Rate Matrix. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government determines it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

3.5 Balance

Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit Task Order, CLIN, or sample task pricing. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more line items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of analysis techniques such as those defined by FAR Part 15.404-1. Offers that are determined to be unbalanced may be rejected if the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government.

3.6 Awardable Tasks

The cost and technical teams will perform an integrated assessment on Awardable Tasks. Awardable Tasks may be awarded at contract award and the offeror will be held to the prices submitted. However, the Government reserves the right to not award these tasks.

3.7 Sample Tasks

The cost and technical teams will perform an integrated assessment on Sample Tasks. The Sample Tasks’ pricing will be included as part of the TEP evaluation. The sample tasks will not be awarded, but will be utilized to evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach and how well it satisfies or exceeds the minimum sample task requirements.

3.8 Total Evaluated Price, Section J Attachment 14

The TEP will be computed as the sum of:

The five (5) sample tasks (GMATS, SELM, LF, IOSSP, and SACCS). All rates and labor categories shall conform to the labor rate matrix.

3.9 Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications/Task Orders for all specified pricing arrangements. Fully loaded rates are inclusive of base labor rates and all applicable direct and indirect costs less profit which will be included as a separate percentage for each pricing arrangement.

3.10 Basis of Estimate (BOE)

The offeror’s priced BOE for all sample tasks will be evaluated for price reasonableness, cost realism, and balance.

If the offerors fee or price is determined to be either unbalanced, unreasonable or not have cost realism, the offeror’s proposal may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition.

3.11 Professional Employee Compensation Plan

IAW with FAR Provision 52.222-46, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation plan to ensure that it reflects a sound management approach and understanding of the contract requirements. This evaluation will include an assessment of the offeror’s ability to provide uninterrupted high-quality work. The professional compensation proposed will be considered in terms of its impact upon recruiting and retention, its realism, and its consistency with a total plan for compensation. The Government may utilize supporting information to include data, such as recognized national and regional compensation surveys and studies of professional, public and private organizations, used in establishing the total compensation structure as a basis for evaluation of the offeror’s Professional Employee Compensation Plan.

Additionally, proposals including compensation levels lower than those of industry supported rates for the same work will be evaluated on the basis of maintaining program continuity, uninterrupted high-quality work, and availability of required competent professional service employees. Offerors are cautioned that lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may indicate lack of sound management judgment and lack of understanding of the requirement.

Professional compensation that is unrealistically low or not in reasonable relationship to the various job categories, since it may impair the Contractor’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees, may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements. Failure to comply with these provisions may be grounds for the offeror to be eliminated from the competition.

4.0 Representations and Instructions

4.1 Data Rights Evaluation Criteria

4.1.1 The Government will evaluate (1) the completeness and correctness of the asserted rights in tables 1 through 4 in Section J, Attachment 2A-H, Government Rights in Data (GRID) of the solicitation and (2) the data rights therein to ensure they are complete and correct in accordance with DFARS clauses 252.227-7013, 252.227-7014, 252.227-7015, and 252.227-7017. An incomplete or incorrect submission may result in a rejection of the proposal.

4.1.2 The Government will evaluate the extent to which any limitations on rights in technical data, computer software, or computer software documentation (e.g., Government Purpose Rights, or Limited Rights) negatively impacts the Government’s ability to compete future contracting actions.

5.0 Pre-Award Survey

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

6.0 Reviews and Visits

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for determining the offeror's potential for correcting deficiencies, quality of development or manufacturing practices/processes, or other areas useful in evaluating the offer. If conducted, the results will be assessed under the applicable factors/subfactors and will be used to validate the offeror's written proposal.

7.0 Solicitation Requirements, Terms, and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors or subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale.