Attachment_24_-_Section_M.pdf

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a competitive, best-value, trade-off source selection conducted In Accordance With (IAW) FAR 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the DFARS, and the AFFARS. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors: 1) Technical Approach/Technical Risk 2) Technical Data/Computer Software and associated license rights 3) Cost/Price 4) Past Performance 5) Small Business Participation. The contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. 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 and/or overall business approach of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below).

While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective, and therefore professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

1.2 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the Advanced Radar Threat System-Variant 2 (ARTS-V2); 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 Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

By submission of its offer, the offeror accedes to all solicitation requirements, including terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as evaluation 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.

1.4 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.

1.5 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property (GFP) The Government will appropriately address any competitive advantage resulting from an offeror's proposed use of GFP.

2.0 DISCUSSIONS

The Government intends to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, if it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the FPR are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal may be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

2.1 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.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

Award will be made to the offeror proposing the most advantageous solution to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

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

Factor 1: Technical Approach/Technical Risk Subfactor 1: Technical Acceptability Subfactor 2: Design Adaptability Subfactor 3: Logistics Supportability

Factor 2: Technical Data and Computer Software and Associated License Rights Factor 3: Cost/Price Factor 4: Past Performance Factor 5: Small Business Participation

3.1 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors.

3.1.1 Factors are listed in descending order of importance in Section 3.0, however, Factor 1 (Technical Approach/Technical Risk) and Factor 2 (Technical Data and Computer Software and Associated License Rights) are approximately equal in importance.

3.1.2 Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are approximately equal in order of importance.

3.1.3 IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

3.1.4. The relative order of importance listed above may result in an award to a better rated, higher priced offeror, where the SSA reasonably determines that the following areas of the higher priced offeror’s approach outweigh the cost difference:

Factor 1: Subfactor 1: Technical Risk (approach must first be found acceptable) Subfactor 2: Strengths and risk level of Design Adaptability Subfactor 3: Strengths and risk level of Logistics Supportability

Factor 2: Combined Strengths and risk level of Technical Data and Computer Software and Associated License Rights.

4.0 FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL APPROACH/TECHNICAL RISK

The Technical Approach/Technical Risk rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirements.

4.1 TECHNICAL APPROACH/TECHNICAL RISK SUBFACTORS

The following three subfactors comprise the Technical Approach/Technical Risk factor:

• Subfactor 1: Technical Acceptability

• Subfactor 2: Design Adaptability

• Subfactor 3: Logistics Supportability

Subfactor ratings will not be rolled up into an overall rating for the Technical Approach/Technical Risk factor.

4.2 SUBFACTOR EVALUATION METHODS

4.2.1 Subfactor 1: Technical Acceptability

The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate Subfactor 1 on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, excerpted below. A rating of “Unacceptable” on this subfactor will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable.

4.2.1.1 Subfactor 1 will also receive one of the technical risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any risk identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. The Government will not be bound by the offeror’s proposed acceptable level of risk mitigation or proposed risk rating determination and the Government will make the final determination of the technical risk rating assigned in the evaluation.

TABLE A-1. TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE 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.

4.2.2 Subfactors 2 & 3: Design Adaptability and Logistics Supportability The evaluation of Subfactors 2 and 3 will each be IAW paragraph 3.1.2.2 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, “Methodology 2: Separate Technical/Risk Rating Process”.

This provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical Approach Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have approximately equal impact for the rating of each subfactor. The separate technical risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies.

4.2.2.1 Strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies are defined as:

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. (DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.21)

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(FAR 15.001 and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.22)

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. (FAR 15.001 and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.4)

4.2.2.2 In arriving at a best value decision, the Government in its sole discretion reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a strength for a design approach exceeding threshold requirements.

4.2.2.3 Subfactors 2 and 3 will each receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2 – Technical Ratings, excerpted below. They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror's proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the subfactors’ requirements.

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low

Has 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

Can 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

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.

4.2.2.4 Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

4.2.2.4.1 Subfactors 2 and 3 will each receive one of the technical risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. For any weakness identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. The Government will not be bound by the offeror’s proposed acceptable level of risk mitigation or proposed risk rating determination and the Government in its sole discretion will make the final determination of the technical risk rating assigned in the evaluation.

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal contains multiple strengths and no deficiencies.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains at least one strength and no deficiencies.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal has no strengths or deficiencies.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies and is not awardable.

4.3 TECHNICAL APPROACH/TECHNICAL RISK SUBFACTORS

4.3.1 SUBFACTOR 1: TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY (Statement of Objectives [SOO] paragraphs 2, 3.1) Subfactor 1 will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2.1 of this document.

4.3.1.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s Contract Statement of Work (CSOW), Contractor Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS) (with Dictionary), Event Schedule, and Integrated Master Plan (IMP) containing their approach (processes), detailing how they will meet the requirements contained in the SOO, Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), and the Initial Operational Capability (IOC)/Full Operational Capability (FOC) dates.

4.3.1.2 This subfactor also evaluates each offeror’s technical hardware and software approach (processes, methodologies, and capabilities) detailing how the System Performance Specification (SPS) requirements for Realistic Radio Frequency Environment, Realistic Operational Employment, and Physical Representation (Radar Cross Section) are met.

4.3.1.3 Subfactor 1 is met when the offeror’s proposed solution addresses each paragraph of Section L, paragraph 4.3.1, and with low or moderate risk.

4.3.2 SUBFACTOR 2: DESIGN ADAPTABILITY (SOO paragraphs 3.1.4) Subfactor 2 will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2.2 of this document.

4.3.2.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s proposed approach to provide adaptability, modularity, and scalability to support future updates to the base threat (Threat C) and upgrades to add a future threat (Threat G).

4.3.2.2 Subfactor 2 is met when the offeror’s proposed solution addresses each paragraph of Section L, paragraph 4.3.2, and with no worse than moderate risk.

4.3.2.3 Strengths will be assessed based on offerors’ explicit written evidence and examples that the approach maximizes adaptability, modularity, and scalability to support future updates to the base threat (Threat C) and upgrades to add a future threat (Threat G).

TABLE 3 – TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Low

Has 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

Can 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

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.

4.3.2.4 Risk will be evaluated based on design flexibility that allows for future updates to the base threat (Threat C) and upgrades to add a future threat (Threat G). More flexibility will be considered lower risk.

4.3.3 SUBFACTOR 3: LOGISTICS SUPPORTABILITY (SOO paragraph 3.1) Subfactor 3 will be evaluated IAW paragraph 4.2.2 of this document.

4.3.3.1 This subfactor evaluates each offeror’s approach to maximize maintainability, ease of deployability, and mobility operations as defined in paragraph 4.3.3 of Section L of this solicitation.

4.3.3.2 The requirement for Subfactor 3 is met when the offeror’s response provides adequate detail to demonstrate the proposed solution meets each paragraph of Section L, paragraph 4.3.3, and with no worse than moderate risk.

4.3.3.3 Strengths will be assessed based on offerors’ explicit written evidence and examples that the approach provides for efficient and expedient deployment, mobility and maintainability with low risk.

4.3.3.4 Risk will be evaluated based on Government-assessed ability to operate and maintain the system throughout its lifecycle. Greater expediency and efficiency will be considered lower risk.

5.0 FACTOR 2: TECHNICAL DATA AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE AND

ASSOCIATED LICENSE RIGHTS (SOO paragraph 3.11)

5.1 EVALUATION METHOD

5.1.1 The Government will evaluate the proposal under Factor 2 as to whether the proposed solution concerning technical data and computer software and associated license rights that will be delivered to the Government will be sufficient for the Government to successfully execute the ARTS-V2 Program by minimizing life-cycle costs to the Government. For example, allowing the Government to use FAR Part 6.1 Full and Open Competition for production, maintenance, sustainment, overhaul, and modifications and upgrades of the ARTS-V2 system.

5.1.2 The evaluation of Factor 2 will be IAW paragraph 3.1.2.1 of the DoD Source Selection Procedures, “Methodology 1: Combined Technical/Risk Rating”: “The combined technical/risk rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with the strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in determining technical ratings.” Factor 2 will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 1 – Combined Technical/Risk Ratings, excerpted below.

5.1.3 Strengths and weaknesses will be assessed on risk to the Government to successfully execute an ARTS-V2 Program that will minimize life-cycle costs to the Government. For example, allowing the Government to use FAR Part 6.1 Full and Open Competition for production, maintenance, sustainment, overhaul, and modifications and upgrades of the ARTS- V2 system based on the offeror’s proposed Technical Data and Computer Software and Associated License Rights that will be delivered to the Government.

NOTE: Risks in this factor are inversely proportional to the strengths (e.g. more strengths equate to lower risk).

5.1.4 Strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies are defined as:

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. (DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.21)

Weakness: A flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

(FAR 15.001 and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.22)

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. (FAR 15.001 and DoD Source Selection Procedures 5.4)

TABLE 1 – COMBINED TECHNICAL/RISK RATINGS

Color Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal meets requirements and indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths far outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is very low.

Purple Good Proposal meets requirements and indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements. Proposal contains strengths which outweigh any weaknesses. Risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Green Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. Strengths and weaknesses are offsetting or will have little or no impact on contract performance.

Risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Yellow Marginal Proposal does not clearly meet requirements, and has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements. The proposal has one or more weaknesses which are not offset by strengths. Risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements and contains one or more deficiencies. Proposal is unawardable.

5.1.5 Evaluation of Gap Analysis:

5.1.5.1 For any risk identified, the evaluation will address the offeror's proposed mitigation in the gap analysis and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

5.1.5.2 The Government will not be bound by the offeror’s proposed acceptable level of risk mitigation or proposed risk rating determination.

5.1.5.3 The Government in its sole discretion will make the final determination of the combined technical approach and technical risk rating for Factor 2 IAW Paragraph 5.1.2 of this document.

5.2 FACTOR 2 MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS MET WHEN:

5.2.1 The proposed Technical Data and Computer Software and Associated License Rights satisfy the Government’s minimum needs as described in Section J, Attachment 6, Government Rights in Data and Software (GRIDS).

5.2.2 The Technical Data and Computer Software and Associated License Rights elements of Section J, Attachment 6, GRIDS, including all tables and appendices, are completed correctly IAW Section J, Attachment 6.

5.2.3 The solution demonstrates no worse than moderate risk (a high risk solution, resulting in a yellow or red rating for Factor 2, will be considered unawardable).

5.3 A HIGHLY RATED APPROACH UNDER FACTOR 2 WILL:

Describe how the Technical Data and Computer Software and Associated License Rights proposed to be delivered to the Government listed in Section J, Attachment 6, GRIDS, will provide low or very low risk (i.e. strengths outweigh or far outweigh weaknesses) to the Government to successfully execute the ARTS-V2 Program by minimizing life-cycle costs to the Government by, for example, allowing the Government to use FAR Part 6.1 Full and Open Competition for production, maintenance, sustainment, overhaul, and modifications and upgrades of the ARTS-V2 system.

6.0 FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE

6.1 PRICING CRITERIA

The criteria used for evaluation of the Cost/Price Factor will be Price Reasonableness, Realism, Balance, and Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target (FPIF) cost, target profit, unit price, and ceiling price, when accepted by the Government, will be contractually binding for all FPIF Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs). The Firm Fixed Price (FFP) proposed unit price, when accepted by the Government, will be contractually binding for all FFP CLINs. The Fixed Fee portion of the Cost Plus Fixed Fee (CPFF) when accepted by the Government, will be contractually binding for all CPFF CLINs. The estimated cost plus the fixed fee will constitute the initial cost ceiling for all CPFF CLINs. The Cost Reimbursable (CR) proposed estimated unit cost will not be included in the TEP, but when accepted by the Government, will constitute the initial cost ceiling for all CR CLINs.

6.1.1 Reasonableness

The offeror’s price proposal will be evaluated to ensure it is fair and reasonable, pursuant to FAR

15.404. For additional information see FAR 31.201-3. The reasonableness evaluation will be performed for all CLINs. In general, price reasonableness is an assessment of whether or not the price is too high. Unreasonably high pricing may give the government cause to eliminate a proposal from consideration.

6.1.2 Realism

The offerors proposal for all CPFF CLINs included in the TEP will be evaluated for realism.

This evaluation will be performed to determine if a proposed amount is too low. Unrealistically low pricing may give the government cause to eliminate a proposal from consideration.

6.1.3 Balance

The Government will analyze proposals to determine whether they are balanced with respect to prices, variable quantity matrix factors, and separately priced line items in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. An offer may be rejected if the contracting officer determines that the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government. The balance evaluation will be performed for all FPIF and FFP CLINs.

6.1.4 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be computed and provided to the SSA for award purposes only and will not be incorporated into the contract at award. The TEP will be a consideration in the best value award decision. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the following elements:

6.1.4.1 The ceiling price for FPIF CLIN 0001.

6.1.4.2 The sum of the total price for FFP CLINs 0003, 0004, 0006, 0007, 0008, 0010, 0501, 0504, 0505, 0508, 0510, 0511, 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1010, 2001, 2002, 2006, 3001, 3002, 3006, 4001, 4002, 4006, 5005, 6005, 7005, 8005, and 9005. The total price inputs for production CLINs 1001, 2001, 3001, and 4001 will be calculated by applying the proposed unit price to one of the quantities within each CLIN. These notional quantities will be selected by the Government Source Selection Evaluation Team before proposals are received and will not be disclosed to offerors; Government selected notional quantities will not be contractually binding.

6.1.4.3 The sum of estimated cost for CPFF CLINs 0002, 0500, 0507, 5001, 6001, 7001, 8001, and 9001.

6.1.5 Affordability

A proposal is considered to be affordable if the purchase of the elements being funded at award can be made within the budgeted amount. Unfunded items are affordable if the projected items can be procured at or below the projected amount of funding.

6.2 OPTIONS

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

6.3 FUNDING AVAILABILITY

The cost/price evaluation will compare proposed costs/prices to available funding. The award decision will be based on available funding. The Government may choose not to award a contract if it is not possible to make an award within the amount of funding available for obligation.

7.0 FACTOR 4: PAST PERFORMANCE FACTOR

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. Offerors must receive a past performance rating of “Acceptable” to be eligible for award.

7.1 EVALUATION METHOD

The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-2, excerpted below.

7.2 EVALUATION PROCESS

The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the solicitation requirements.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the offeror’s Past Performance Proposal Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS); Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS); Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; and interviews/questionnaires with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials, the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

7.2.1 Recency Assessment

An assessment of the Past Performance Information (PPI) will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years prior to the date of issuance of this solicitation. PPI that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

TABLE A-2. PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION RATINGS

Acceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort, or the offeror’s performance record is unknown. (See note below.)

Unacceptable Based on the offeror’s performance record, the Government has no reasonable expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

Note: In the case of an offeror without a record of relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is not available or so sparse that no meaningful past performance rating can be reasonably assigned, the offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance (see FAR 15.305(a)(2)(iv)). Therefore, the offeror shall be determined to have unknown past performance. In the context of acceptability/unacceptability, “unknown” shall be considered “acceptable.”

7.2.2 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine whether the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining the relevancy of effort performed under individual past performance contracts, the Government will only consider the specific effort or portion consistent with that proposed by the prime, subcontractor or teaming partner. The offeror’s PPI Tool entries and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the relevancy of past performance.

7.2.2.1 The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts:

Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant: Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

7.2.3 Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent, relevant past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical Subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).

7.2.3.1 Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will also consider the extent to which the offeror’s evaluated past performance demonstrates compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns and FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan.

7.2.3.2 The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as PPI that supports an unsatisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated.

7.2.3.3 The Government will use the following quality assessment definitions when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Satisfactory: During the contract period, contractor performance is substantially meeting (or substantially met) contract requirements. For any problems encountered, contractor took effective corrective action.

Unsatisfactory: During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented. Customer involvement was required.

7.2.4 Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and performance quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated past performance rating at the factor level (see Table A-2 in paragraph 7.1 above).

8.0 FACTOR 5: SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

8.1 EVALUATION METHOD

Factor 5 will be evaluated on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, as described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table A-1 – Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Ratings, and paragraph

4.2.1 of this document. A rating of “Unacceptable” on this subfactor will render the entire proposal unacceptable and, therefore, unawardable. Only those proposals determined to be acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

8.2 SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION PLAN

The Small Business Participation Factor is considered to be acceptable when the offeror’s Small Business Participation Plan clearly demonstrates the course of action to meet the requirements of the small business subcontracting goals as defined in SOO Paragraph 4.4.8, Small Business Participation Requirements. The Small Business Participation Plan is not to be confused with Small Business Subcontracting Plan. All offerors will be evaluated on their Small Business Participation Plan.

9.0 SECTION M ACRONYMS

AFFARS Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement ARTS-V2 Advanced Radar Threat System – Variant 2 CDRL Contract Data Requirements List CLINs Contract Line Item Numbers CPFF Cost Plus Fixed Fee CR Cost Reimbursable CSOW Contract Statement of Work CWBS Contractor Work Breakdown DCMA Defense Contract Management Agency DFARS Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement DoD Department of Defense EN Evaluation Notice eSRS Electronic Subcontract Reporting System FAPIIS Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System FAR Federal Acquisition Regulation FFP Firm Fixed Price FPIF Fixed Price Incentive Firm Target

FPR Final Proposal Revision GFP Government-Furnished Property GRIDS Government Rights in Data and Software IAW In Accordance With IMP Integrated Master Plan PAS Pre-Award Survey PPI Past Performance Information PPIRS Past Performance Information Retrieval System SOO Statement of Objectives SPS System Performance Specification SSA Source Selection Authority TEP Total Evaluated Price WBS Work Breakdown Structure