ATTACHMENT22SectionMUPDATE.docx

SECTION M

Evaluation Factors for Award

M-I - Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

NOTICE: Pursuant to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 52.252-1, "SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE," the following provisions are incorporated herein by reference:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

M-II – Solicitation Provisions in Full Text

NOTICE: The following provisions are hereby incorporated in full text:

A. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

B. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT (48 CFR CHAPTER 2) SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

C. AIR FORCE FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION SUPPLEMENT SOLICITATION PROVISIONS:

D. ADMINISTRATIVE AND ONE-TIME USE PROVISIONS:

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value source selection conducted in accordance with (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR website, http://farsite.hill.af.mil. The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price Factors. 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 AF 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 and/or past performance 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; therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

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.

1.5 Competitive Advantage from Use of GFP

The Government intends to maintain a competitive environment by encouraging the use of open teaming arrangements and encouraging 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 H Clause to prohibit exclusive teaming arrangements to help alleviate co-use issues with GFP known to be encumbered on current efforts. If an offeror does not currently have access to the encumbered GFP, the Government will evaluate the offeror’s proposed approach to obtain facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS along with supporting information that the offeror is knowledgeable of the work to be performed. The Government will evaluate the breakout of lab costs spreadsheet to ensure there is fair pricing for internal/teaming customers and external customers.

1.6 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government 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 has been evaluated 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 rating.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

a. The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the offeror proposing the combination most advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors and subfactors described below.

Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Engineering Services Subfactor 2: Awardable Tasks Subfactor 3: Transition Subfactor 4: Program Management Support

Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

b. Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 (Technical) being most important, Factor 2 (Past Performance) next in importance, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is last in importance. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are in descending order of importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price; however, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

2.1.1 Factor 1: Technical

a. 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 evaluation of each Technical subfactor. The separate Technical Risk Rating includes consideration of risk in conjunction with proposal strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. Offerors shall describe their approaches and capabilities and explain how they will use their approaches and capabilities to accomplish/satisfy requirements, and not merely restate requirements. 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.

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

b. Technical Rating. The Technical Rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Technical Subfactors 1, 2, and 3 will receive one of the color ratings described in DOD Source Selection Procedures and shown in Table 1. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets or does not meet the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical Factor. Technical Subfactor 4 – Program Management Support will be evaluated as Acceptable/Unacceptable using Table 2.

TABLE 1 - TECHNICAL RATINGS

1) The Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating is based on:

TABLE 2 - TECHNICAL ACCEPTABLE/UNACCEPTABLE RATINGS

c. Technical Risk Rating. Assessment of technical risk which is manifested by the identification of weaknesses 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. The Technical subfactors will receive one of the Technical Risk Ratings described in DOD Source Selection Procedures and as shown in Table 3 – Technical Risk Ratings excerpted below. For any risk identified, the evaluation shall address the offeror's proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable. .

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.

2.1.1.1 Subfactor 1: Engineering Services

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities and the extent to which they can satisfy or exceed the requirements of the PWS, while considering risk of performance, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The proposed approach must be sound well developed, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team (including subcontractors) possesses for performing the PWS requirements. This subfactor is comprised of the following:

2.1.1.1.1 Configuration Management (PWS 1.6.4.1.6.1, 1.6.4.1.6.2) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical proposal, detailing their configuration management approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities, satisfies or exceeds Ground Subsystems’ configuration management requirements for hardware, software, and firmware. The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated for feasible and effective applicability to Ground Subsystems.

a. Configuration Identification. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate configuration identification into Ground Subsystems hardware, software, and firmware configuration management.

b. Configuration Control. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate configuration control into Ground Subsystems hardware, software, and firmware configuration management.

c. Configuration Status Accounting. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate configuration status accounting into Ground Subsystems hardware, software, and firmware configuration management.

d. Configuration Audits. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate configuration audits into Ground Subsystems hardware, software, and firmware configuration management.

2.1.1.1.2 Hardware Development/Sustainment (PWS 1.6.4.1.8.1, 1.6.4.1.8.5, 1.6.4.1.10.2, 1.6.4.2.1, 1.6.4.2.3.2, 1.6.4.2.5.1.1, 1.6.4.2.5.1.2, 1.6.4.2.5.2, 1.6.4.2.5.2.1, 1.6.4.4.1.1, 1.6.4.4.1.2, 1.6.4.4.1.3) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical proposal, detailing their approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities, satisfies or exceeds the Ground Subsystems Hardware Development/Sustainment requirements to support the Ground Subsystems identified in the PWS. The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated for feasible and effective applicability to Ground Subsystems.

a. System Safety. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively incorporate system safety (risk management, nuclear safety, human factors, mishaps, and process improvement) into Ground Subsystems hardware development and sustainment.

b. Parts, Materials, and Maintenance. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively implement parts, material, and maintenance processes (counterfeit part reduction, item unique identification (IUID), environmental limitations, and foreign parts) into Ground Subsystems hardware development and sustainment.

c. Test and Evaluation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively implement Test and Evaluation processes IAW ICBMSD OI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation into Ground Subsystems hardware development and sustainment. The proposal must demonstrate integration of test and weapons system requirements, Ground Subsystems component interfaces, and hardware use requirements at depot, wing, and test facilities.

d. Deficiency Identification, Resolution, Implementation, and Documentation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively provide Ground Subsystems hardware problem evaluation and resolution in support of field and depot issues; support for new materials, processes, technologies, technical reviews; and material analysis, and assessments.

2.1.1.1.3 Software Development/Sustainment (PWS 1.6.4.1.12, 1.6.4.1.12.2.7, 1.6.4.1.12.2.8, 1.6.4.2.2.6) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical proposal, detailing their approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities, satisfies or exceeds the Ground Subsystems Software Development/Sustainment requirements to support the Ground Subsystems identified in the PWS. The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated for feasible and effective application and integration of the Ground Subsystems software of the ICBM weapon system or use in an equivalent strategic inertial-guided nuclear ballistic missile system as applied to Ground Subsystems.

a. Development and Modification. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively implement the required processes, modeling, tools, and data and the ability to develop/modify both nuclear and non-nuclear certified software IAW AFMAN 91119, Safety Design and Evaluation Criteria for Nuclear Weapon Systems Software.

b. Anomaly Resolution and Integration. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively assess, catalog, and resolve software anomalies and integrate them into the ICBM weapon system.

c. Test and Evaluation. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively perform test and evaluation IAW AFI 99-103, Capabilities-Based Test and Evaluation in support of the Ground Subsystems in the PWS.

2.1.1.1.4 Ground Subsystems Assessment (PWS 1.6.4.3.1.9, 1.6.4.3.4.1, 1.6.4.3.4.2, 1.6.4.3.4.3, 1.6.4.3.5.7, 1.6.4.3.5.8) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical proposal, detailing their approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities, satisfies or exceeds the Ground Subsystems Assessment requirements to support the Ground Subsystems identified in the PWS. The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated with for feasible and effective applicability to Ground Subsystems.

a. Nuclear hardness and survivability. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively conduct and report nuclear hardness and survivability assessments.

b. Nuclear surety. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively assess and report nuclear surety IAW AFI 91101, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Surety Program; AFI 91-103, Air Force Nuclear Safety Design Certification Program, and ICBMSD OI 9101, Nuclear Surety and Nuclear Certification.

c. Reliability assessment. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively assess and report mission reliability, perform Failure Modes and Effects and Criticality Analyses (FMECA) and assess risks against current and future operations of Ground Subsystems.

2.1.1.1.5 Aging Surveillance (AS) (PWS 1.6.4.3.3)

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s technical proposal, detailing their approach (processes/methodologies) and capabilities, satisfies or exceeds the Ground Subsystems Aging Surveillance requirements to support the Ground Subsystems identified in the PWS. The offeror’s technical proposal will be evaluated for feasible and effective applicability to Ground Subsystems.

a. Service life assessment. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively conduct AS activities to include: what data sources will be used, how the data will be analyzed and service life developed, and how results from the analysis will be used to prioritize future testing and sustainment activities.

b. AS database. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively maintain an AS database and ensure AS data is added to a central database that is accessible by other contractors (e.g., ISC contractor) and Government for future analysis and that the offeror can provide means to transition historical AS data.

2.1.1.1.6 Team Structure and Partnerships (PWS 1.6.3.1.6.2, 1.6.3.1.6.2.2, 1.6.3.1.6.2.2.1, 1.6.3.1.6.2.2.2, 1.6.3.1.6.2.2.3) The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s proposal demonstrates the ability to feasibly and effectively perform the acquisition and sustainment services for this contract.

a. Team organization. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed team organization and written explanation demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS.

b. Exclusive teaming arrangements. The proposal will be evaluated to determine 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 Clause.

c. Key Personnel skill level and experience. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed skill level, education, and strategic nuclear weapon/ICBM acquisition/sustainment experience of key personnel demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS.

d. Skill sets and experience. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed skill sets and strategic nuclear weapon/ICBM acquisition/sustainment experience levels for the remainder of personnel demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively meet or exceed the requirements of the PWS.

2.1.1.1.7 Sample Sustainment Scenario

The Government will evaluate the quality, thoroughness, and timeliness of the offeror’s solution and how well it synthesizes the solution activities required to successfully resolve and implement the sample scenario. Any discussions resulting from weaknesses or deficiencies in the initial proposal for this sample scenario will be considered in the risk assessment of Subfactor 1.

2.1.1.2 Subfactor 2: Awardable Tasks (Statement of Objectives (SOO))

2.1.1.2.1 Awardable Task 1: Simulated Electronic Launch Minuteman/Guided Missile Launcher Electrical Circuit (SELM/GMLEC) The Government’s evaluation of this awardable task will focus on the offeror’s solution, and how well it satisfies or exceeds the Statement of Objectives (SOO). The proposed solution must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for performing SELM/GMLEC efforts to meet the SOO.

a. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and solution demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively complete the requirements of the SELM/GMLEC SOO within the proposed cost and schedule.

b. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively apply the processes and capabilities proposed to Subfactor 1 elements (Configuration Management, Hardware Development/Sustainment, and Software Development/Sustainment) and any other necessary PWS paragraphs to future Ground Subsystems development/modification programs.

2.1.1.2.2 Awardable Task 2: Software Modification Task

The Government’s evaluation of this awardable task will focus on the offeror’s solution, and how well it satisfies or exceeds the SOO. The proposed solution must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for performing software modification efforts to meet the SOO.

a. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and solution demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively complete the requirements of the software modification task SOO within the proposed cost and schedule.

b. The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the proposed approach and capability demonstrate the ability to feasibly and effectively apply the processes and capabilities proposed to Subfactor 1 elements (Configuration Management and Software Development/Sustainment) and any other necessary PWS paragraphs to successfully complete the requirements of the SOO while providing integrated interfaces and managing the interdependencies between software and hardware, various Ground Subsystems components, and other weapon system subsystems.

2.1.1.3 Subfactor 3: Transition

2.1.1.3.1 Tasks and Responsibilities Transfer (PWS 1.6.3.2.3.1, 1.6.3.2.3.2, 1.6.3.2.3.3) The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s transition strategy and how well it satisfies or exceeds PWS requirements. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach adequately satisfies the full scope of the PWS requirements while minimizing negative impacts to other on-going Ground Subsystems efforts, including transition risk identification and mitigation and how data rights issues will be handled. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for assuming the full responsibilities of the GSSC effort no later than 6 months after the Post Award Conference.

2.1.1.3.2 Facilities, Equipment, and Qualified Personnel (PWS 1.6.3.2.3.3.1, 1.6.3.2.3.3.2) The Government will evaluate the offeror’s description of the facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel and/or their approach to obtain facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel necessary to meet the requirements of the PWS. The Government will evaluate the extent to which the offeror’s approach adequately satisfies the full scope of the PWS requirements while minimizing negative impacts to other on-going Ground Subsystems efforts. The offeror must also demonstrate the ability to obtain and effectively utilize these facilities, equipment, and qualified personnel within the 6-month transition period and provide supporting information that the offeror is knowledgeable of the work to be performed.

2.1.1.4 Subfactor 4: Program Management Support

The Government’s evaluation of this subfactor will focus on the offeror’s approach and how it meets the Program Management Support requirements of the PWS, risk of performance, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies. The proposed approach must be sound, feasible, effective, and clearly demonstrate with explicit evidence the full capability and experience their team possesses for performing program management activities to meet PWS requirements. The offeror is considered to have met the Program Management Support Subfactor when the following criteria are satisfied:

2.1.1.4.1 Small Business Subcontracting Plan (PWS 1.6.3.1.6.5) The proposal will be evaluated IAW H clause to determine if the small business subcontracting plan provides an approach for meeting the small business goals.

2.1.1.4.2 Cost Management Process (PWS 1.6.3.1.4)

The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the cost management processes meet the cost management requirements of the PWS.

2.1.1.4.3 Time Management Process (PWS 1.6.3.1.1.3, 1.6.3.1.3) The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the time management and earned value management processes meet the time management and earned value management requirements of the PWS.

2.1.1.4.4 Quality Management Process (PWS 1.6.3.1.5)

The proposal will be evaluated to determine if the quality management processes meet the quality management requirements of the PWS.

2.1.2 Factor 2: Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

a. Ratings. The Past Performance Factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DOD Source Selection Procedures and as shown in Table 4 – Performance Confidence Assessments excerpted below.

TABLE 4 - PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENTS

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.

b. 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 contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis. 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 questionnaires, Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

1) Recency Assessment. An assessment of the past performance information 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 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2) Relevancy Assessment. The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely 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). Consideration will be given to the contractor’s role, similarity, and complexity of the effort accomplished by the contractor, subcontractor, and/or teaming partner on previous/current contract efforts of similar magnitude and complexity in areas related to strategic nuclear weapon systems/ICBMs. The Government will consider the contractor's experience with integrating highly complex system-of-systems interfaces and managing multiple simultaneous baselines. Past performance for a subcontractor and/or teaming partner will be considered based upon whether or not that same subcontractor and/or teaming partner is to perform a similar function on the proposed effort. Higher relevancy based on Table 5 below, will have a corresponding impact on the offeror's overall performance confidence assessment rating. Contracts will be evaluated individually, but the relevancy/performance of the offeror’s team may also be considered in aggregate. The relevancy ratings will be integrated in the overall confidence assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror's opinion of relevancy. 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 relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIF) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance. The Government will use the following Table 5 – Relevancy Assessment when assessing recent, relevant contracts IAW DOD Source Selection Procedures:

TABLE 5 - RELEVANCY ASSESSMENT

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 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). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. 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. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory 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. The Government will use the following Table 6 – Performance Quality Assessment when assessing recent, relevant contracts IAW DOD Source Selection Procedures:

TABLE 6 - PERFORMANCE QUALITY ASSESSMENT

c. Assigning Ratings. As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of contractor performance. Offerors without a record of recent/relevant past performance or for whom information on past performance is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on past performance and, as a result, will receive an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

d. More recent and/or relevant performance may have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or relevant effort. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an "Unknown Confidence" 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.

2.1.3 Factor 3: Cost/Price

2.1.3.1 Pricing

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 the sum of all prepriced Contract Line Item Numbers (CLIN) and application of fully loaded rates to notional hours. 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. The notional hours, labor mix, and distribution among pricing arrangements selected by the Government to be included in the TEP will not become contractually binding and will not be disclosed to the offerors.

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

b. Price Reasonableness. The determination of price reasonableness will consist of reviewing all the proposed CLINs with the exception of the Cost Reimbursable No Fee (CRNF) CLINs. The CRNF CLINs will be evaluated for reasonableness during the contract when the requirements covered under them are specified, incurred, and determined reasonable by the administrative contracting officer. All other 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.

c. Realism. The Government will evaluate the realism of each offerors’ proposed Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) CLINs. 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). When the Government evaluates an offer as unrealistically low compared to the anticipated costs of performance and offeror fails to explain these underestimated costs, the Government will consider, under the Technical Risk Rating, the offerors lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the applicable Technical subfactors. Proposal Analysis Techniques found in FAR 15.404-1 will be utilized. If the Government feels the offeror’s probable cost differs 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 the Labor Rate Matrices. This is anticipated to satisfy the realism evaluation for these labor rates. If this is not the case or the Government feels it needs further information to support price realism the Government reserves the right to request further information.

d. Balance. Offerors are cautioned against submitting an offer that contains unbalanced unit CLIN 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.

e. Awardable Task. The cost and technical teams will perform an integrated assessment on Awardable Tasks.

f. Total Evaluated Price. The TEP will be computed as the sum of the following elements:

1) All FFP and CPAF CLINs for the basic and all ordering and option periods

2) Labor Rates will be established for pricing all future contractual modifications for all specified pricing arrangements. These fully loaded rates (less profit/fee) will be multiplied by Government-generated notional hours. The distribution of rates and number of hours will be based on the Government's best estimate of efforts for all years of the contract. The labor categories, labor mix, and distribution amongst pricing arrangements will be established by the Government, but neither the labor mix (weighting), pricing arrangement distribution, nor allocation of notional hours will be disclosed to the offeror. 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) The Awardable Tasks pricing will be included as part of the TEP evaluation. 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.

g. Basis of Estimate (BOE): The offeror’s priced BOE for Cost Plus Award Fee (CPAF) line items 0001, 0006, 0007, 0010, 0022 (Awardable Tasks 1 & 2) 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 rated as unacceptable.

h. Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees: IAW FAR 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 and allows the offeror to obtain and keep suitably qualified personnel to meet mission objectives base labor rates, fringe, and overall benefits will be evaluated and compared against current standards. Lowered compensation for essentially the same professional work may impair the offeror’s ability to attract and retain competent professional service employees. This may be viewed as evidence of failure to comprehend the complexity of the contract requirements which may lead to rejection of the proposal.

i. Breakout of Lab Costs: The breakout of lab costs spreadsheet will be evaluated to ensure there is fair pricing for internal/teaming customers and external customers for the costs associated with the contractor labs identified in the No Exclusive Teaming H Clause. Failure to substantiate to the Government’s satisfaction any differences in cost may call the reasonableness and balance of the offeror’s price into question.

3.0 REPRESENATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

3.1 Data Rights Evaluation Criteria

a. The Government will review (1) the completeness, correctness and meets Government asserted rights of tables 1 through 4 in Attachments 2,7, and 10, Section J (GRID) of the solicitation and (2) the data rights therein to ensure they are completed 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.

b. The Offeror proposes, in accordance with Attachments 2,7, and 10, Section J (GRID), rights in data that satisfies the Government’s minimum needs as described in this RFP. The Government will not assign a strength to an Offeror’s proposal that proposes to deliver rights in data greater than the minimum specified in this RFP. The analysis conducted by the Offeror (including all assumptions made) demonstrates that the quantity associated with the licenses for commercial item technical data and computer software the Offeror proposes to deliver to the Government listed in Table 2 of its completed Attachments 2,7, and 10, Section J (GRID) will be sufficient for the Government to successfully execute all programs that comprise the AFNWC nuclear enterprise.

c. 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 impact immediate and potential future costs of using such data, including potential impacts on future competitive contracting actions. Proposals that include Government Purpose Rights or Limited Rights data may be negatively impacted based on the Government’s estimate of future costs.

4.0 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.

5.0 REVIEWS AND VISITS

The Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) may conduct site visits during the evaluation phase to gather information for judging 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 and confirm the offeror's written proposal and/or oral presentation.

6.0 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.