DRAFT_BAT_Section_M_-_As_of_5_Feb_16.pdf

DRAFT – BAT SECTION M

EVALUATION BASIS FOR AWARD

As of 5 Feb 16

1. Basis for Contract Award

1.1 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 the AFFARS Mandatory Procedures 5315.3 to make an integrated assessment for a best value award decision. The Government intends to award one contract as a result of this solicitation. A decision will be made on the technical acceptability and technical risk of each offeror’s proposal. For those offerors whose proposals are determined to be technically acceptable with a low or moderate technical risk rating, and an acceptable Small Business Concern Utilization, tradeoffs may be made between past performance and cost/price. Past performance is significantly more important than cost/price; however, price will contribute substantially to the decision. Proposals determined technically acceptable with a high technical risk rating will be considered unawardable. 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. Award will be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is technically acceptable with low to moderate technical risk, conforms to all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, technical requirements, and also provides the best value to the Government based on the results of the evaluation described in Paragraph 2 below.

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

1.3 The cross reference matrix will be utilized as a tool to show critical interrelationships and dependencies among the technical requirements document Section L (Instructions to Offerors), Section M (Evaluation Basis for Award), the Statement of Work (SOW), the Performance Specification, the Contract Line Item Numbers (CLINs), and the Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL). The cross reference matrix will help offerors ensure they have responded to all the evaluation criteria and proposal submittal requirements identified in the solicitation. If the matrix conflicts with any other requirement, direction, or provision of this solicitation, the other reference shall take precedence over this matrix. Section M references in the matrix are for informational purposes only, and the Government shall be obligated to evaluate proposals solely in conformance with the provisions of Section M of the solicitation.

2. Factors and Subfactors

2.1 The factors for this requirement are Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Concern Utilization, and Cost/Price. A detailed and complete analysis of each offeror’s proposal will be performed on each of the factors and subfactors. The Government’s evaluation will be based on the following factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical (which includes both Technical Acceptability and Technical Risk Ratings)

Subfactor One: Systems Engineering Unit Under Test (UUT) Analysis Risk Mitigation Plan Functional Allocation & UUT Utilization Matrix Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale

Subfactor Two: Reliability Reliability Tasks Configuration Item Reliability Risk Mitigation

Subfactor Three: Cybersecurity Cyber-Secure Design Cyber-Secure Development Environment

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Small Business Concern Utilization Factor 4: Cost/Price

There is no level of evaluation importance hierarchy assigned within the subfactors under Factor 1: Technical. All Factor 1 technical subfactors are of equal value.

3. Proposal Evaluation. The evaluation process will be accomplished as follows:

3.1 Technical Factor

Each offeror’s written proposal shall be evaluated on all technical subfactors with an Acceptable or Unacceptable rating to include a technical risk rating. The technical proposal must address each of the subfactors in sufficient detail. For each subfactor, the offeror identifies risks, if any, associated with the proposed approach and actions the offeror will take to mitigate the identified risks. If no risks/mitigations are identified in the offeror’s proposal, it indicates the offeror does not consider there to be any risk associated with their proposed approach. No extra consideration will be given to an offeror that exceeds technical requirements. One technical acceptability rating and technical risk rating will be assigned to each technical subfactor. In order to be considered awardable, there must be a “technically acceptable with a low or moderate technical risk” rating in every subfactor.

3.1.1 Technical Acceptability Rating

The technical acceptability rating (Table 1) reflects the Government’s evaluation of the acceptability of the offeror’s technical approach for meeting the Bomber Armament Tester requirement in each technical subfactor. Technical acceptability is to determine if the offeror provides a sound, compliant approach that meets the requirements of the Performance Specification and Statement of Work, and demonstrates a thorough knowledge and understanding of those requirements and their associated risks. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the technical acceptability ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, as defined in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Technical Acceptability Ratings

TECHNICAL ACCEPTABILITY 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.

3.1.2 Technical Risk Rating

The technical risk rating (Table 2) assessment reflects the Government’s evaluation of the offeror’s technical approach in all subfactors for meeting the Bomber Armament Tester requirement. The technical risk focuses on the weaknesses associated with an offeror’s proposed approach and includes an assessment of the potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased contractor emphasis or Government oversight and likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. For each identified risk, the evaluation shall address the Source Selection Team’s identification of any weakness as well as the offeror’s identified risks and proposed mitigation (if applicable) and document why defined mitigation offered is or is not manageable. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, as defined in Table 2 below.

Table 2: Technical Risk Ratings

TECHNICAL RISK RATINGS

Rating Description

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.

Subfactor One: SYSTEMS ENGINEERING:

This subfactor is met when the offeror’s technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the requirements identified in each subfactor and specified Performance Specification and Statement of Work paragraphs.

UUT Analysis Risk Mitigation Plan This is met when the offeror has provided a detailed narrative with supporting documentation providing a realistic Risk Mitigation Plan that addresses the scheduled activities and resources necessary for the development of the UUT Test Requirements Analysis Report required by Statement of Work, Paragraph 4.1.1(a). The risk mitigation plan shall address the following UUTs:

a) Multi-Purpose Rotary Launcher (MPRL) (B-1B)

b) Conventional Bomb Module (CBM) 28-Station (B-1B)

c) 1760 Enhanced Conventional Bomb Module (SECBM) 10-Station (B-1B)

d) Common Weapons Interface Unit (CWIU) (B-1B)

e) B-1B On-Aircraft SMS testing (B-1B)

f) SUU-67/A Pylon Disconnect On-Aircraft (part of on-aircraft SMS testing) (B-52H)

g) Pylon Assy., B-52 Conventional Weapons Integration (B-52H)

h) Conventional Rotary Launcher (CRL) 1760 Cluster Bomb Rack (CBR) (B-52H)

i) B-52 On-Aircraft SMS testing (B-52H)

Functional Allocation & UUT Utilization Matrix

This is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided a functional allocation of Core Tester hardware and software Configuration Items (CIs) in accordance with Performance Specification, Paragraph 3.1.2, identification of all CIs as non-developmental or developmental, and a complete UUT utilization matrix that identifies all CIs by function that is required for testing each UUT.

Integrated Master Schedule with Rationale This is met when the offeror’s proposal has provided a preliminary Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) in accordance with SOW Paragraph 3.8.2.2 for the Increment 1 EMD phase per SOW paragraph 4.1, to include all sub paragraphs. To be acceptable, the proposed IMS must show how the Contractor will meet the Increment 1 Production Readiness Review within 27 months after contract award. The offeror must have identified and defined those assumptions used when constructing the IMS. The proposed IMS identifies the start date, duration, dependencies, and the end date for schedule activities, events, and milestones. The proposed IMS identities the critical path and provides acceptable schedule rationale narrative identifying, explaining, and providing mitigation plans for moderate and high risk activities and events along the critical path.

Subfactor Two: RELIABILITY This subfactor is met when the offeror’s technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation, such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the reliability requirements identified in Performance Specification, Paragraph 3.2.2.2.1.

Reliability Tasks This is met when the offeror’s technical proposal has identified reliability tasks and activities to be conducted and methods to be used with sound rationale behind why those tasks/activities/methods were chosen, and identified the key resources required to perform the tasks/activities necessary to achieve and verify the 1500 hour Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) requirement in accordance with SOW paragraph 3.4(d).

Configuration Item Reliability Risk Mitigation This is met when the offeror’s technical proposal has identified at least five (5) configuration items that pose the greatest reliability risk with sound rationale to explain why it is a risk and how design for reliability will be applied to mitigate that risk IAW SOW Paragraph 3.4(f).

Subfactor Three: CYBERSECURITY This subfactor is met when the offeror’s technical proposal has provided an acceptable detailed narrative discussion and supporting documentation such as (but not limited to) charts, diagrams, figures, graphs, and illustrations, to demonstrate the offeror’s technical approach will meet the cybersecurity requirements identified in each subfactor specified in Performance Specification and Statement of Work paragraphs.

Cyber-Secure Design This is met when the offeror’s technical proposal has a sound approach for the integration of the cybersecurity requirements identified in Performance Specification, paragraphs 3.1.20.

Cyber-Secure Development Environment This is met when the offeror’s technical proposal has a sound approach that demonstrates the contractor’s implementation and maintenance of a cyber-secure development environment as defined in Statement of Work, paragraph 3.5.3.5.

4. Past Performance Factor

4.1 Ratings: The past performance evaluation will assess the confidence in the offeror’s ability to successfully accomplish the proposed effort based on the offeror’s demonstrated present and past work record. The Past Performance factor will receive one performance confidence assessment rating described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, as defined in Table 3 below.

Table 3: Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings

PERFORMANCE CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT RATINGS

Ratings Description

Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence

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

Unknown Confidence (Neutral)

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

4.2 Evaluation Process: The Past Performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet user’s needs, including costs and schedule. The Government will evaluate the quality of an offeror’s recent performance deemed relevant to the requirements of this solicitation.

The Past Performance Team evaluation is not limited to the offeror’s Present/Past Performance volume to assesses and assign a degree of relevancy, the Government will employ several approaches, including, but not limited to questionnaires, Counter Performance Assessment Report System (CPARS), Government’s Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), etc. The Government reserves the right to use performance information from other sources such as Defense

Contract Management Agency (DCMA), Fee Determining Officials, or commercial sources. Data from previous source selections may be used if the data is recent and relevant. The recency and relevancy of the information, the source of the information, context of the data and general trends in the contractor’s performance will be considered.

More recent and more relevant performance usually has a greater impact in the confidence assessment than less recent and less relevant performance.

4.3 Recency Assessment: An assessment of the Past Performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. For purposes of this evaluation, recency is defined as active or completed efforts performed within the past ten (10) years from the issuance date of this solicitation.

4.4 RelevancyAssessment: The Government will perform an independent relevancy determination of the data provided or obtained. An aggregate relevancy determination will be made of three (3) submitted contracts.

Submitted contracts will be evaluated for concurrent contract performance effort (in part or in whole) that involve essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort as well as the complexity required in this solicitation for design, development, and production. The Government will consider present and past performance of the offeror’s contracts in aggregate when assigning a confidence rating. A confidence assessment rating will be assigned for the team as a whole. When these contracts are performed concurrently (in part or in whole) and are assessed in the aggregate, the work may reflect greater magnitude of complexities and/or magnitude of effort and such may be reflected in the confidence assessment. The Government is not bound by the offeror’s opinion of relevancy. For each effort identified in Volume III of the offeror’s proposal, the Government will assign Relevancy Ratings as described in the Relevancy Ratings Table 4 below:

Table 4: Relevancy Ratings

RELEVANCY RATINGS

Ratings Description

Very Relevant

Present/past performance effort involving essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Very relevant efforts must have involved the design, development, and production of at least one (1) Mission Design Series (MDS) organizational-level United States Air Force fighter or bomber, armament automatic test system [core tester, core software, Test Program Sets (TPS) (Unit Under Test (UUT) test software and Interface Test Adaptor (ITA))], that is listed on the Master Nuclear Certification List

(MNCL)

Relevant

Present/past performance effort involving essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires. Relevant efforts must have involved the design, development, and production of at least one (1) MDS organizational-level Department of Defense (DoD) fighter or bomber armament automatic tester (core tester and core software) or an organizational-level DoD fighter or bomber armament TPS (UUT test software and ITA)

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involving some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat relevant efforts must have involved the design, development, and production of an organizational or intermediate-level armament or avionics automatic tester, or organizational or intermediate-level armament or avionics TPSs (UUT test software and ITA)

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

NOTE: Scope and magnitude of effort and complexities in the above definitions not only includes the technical features and characteristics identified for each effort, but also the logistical and programmatic considerations, including (but not limited to) the quantity of testers or UUT TPSs produced, length of effort, dollar values, type and complexity of data deliverables, etc. When assigning a relevancy rating to a contract effort, the Government will consider the technical complexities and the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort as separate aspects. If both of these aspects are not reflected in the submitted contract effort, the overall relevancy rating assigned to that contract will be affected. For example, if the submitted contract meets essentially the same technical complexities but involves only some of the programmatic/logistical scope and magnitude of effort, a lesser relevancy rating will be assigned.

5. Performance Quality Ratings

5.1 Performance Quality Assessment: For each recent and relevant Past Performance effort reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed and assigned a Performance Quality Rating in the areas of Technical Performance, Management Schedule and Cost/Price. The quality assessment and resulting rating consists of an in-depth evaluation of all Past Performance information available, regardless of its source. The performance quality rating 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. Process changes will be considered only when objectively measurable improvements in performance were implemented and demonstrated. Offerors shall be given an opportunity to address adverse past performance information if the offeror has not had a previous opportunity to respond to the information. Recent contracts will be examined to ensure that corrective measures have been implemented. The confidence assessment will consider issues including, but not limited to, the number and severity of the problems, the appropriateness and/or effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised), and the overall work record. Prompt corrective action in isolated instances may not outweigh overall negative trends. The Government will assess and assign a Performance Quality Rating of recent and relevant efforts as defined in Table 5 below.

Table 5: Performance Quality Rating Table

PERFORMANCE QUALITY RATINGS

Ratings Description

E Exceptional/Blue

During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered. Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

G Very Good/Purple During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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

M Marginal/Yellow

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.

U Unsatisfactory/Re d

During the contract period, contractor performance is failing (or failed) to meet most contract requirements. Serious problems encountered. Corrective actions were either ineffective or non-existent. Extensive customer oversight and involvement was required.

N Neutral/White Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect.

Do not know.

5.2 Assignment Ratings: As a result of the recency, relevancy, and quality assessment of the recent past performance contracts evaluated, the offerors will be assigned a single integrated performance confidence assessment rating for the Past Performance factor as defined in Table 3. Offerors without a record of past performance or for whom information is so sparse that no 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. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence” rating.

Pursuant to DFARS 215.305(a)(2), the assessment will consider whether the past performance demonstrated the offeror’s compliance with FAR 52.219-8, Utilization of Small Business Concerns, or FAR 52.219-9, Small Business Subcontracting Plan, when these clauses were contained in the submitted contracts. That is, on the three

(3) respective contracts submitted for evaluation by the offeror when subcontracting possibilities existed, did the offeror award subcontracts to small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and/or women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

(Please note that FAR 52.219-8 does apply to ALL offerors, whereas FAR 52.219-9 only applies to large businesses). If none of the contracts submitted by the offeror included these clauses when subcontracting possibilities existed in the performance of these contracts, address whether or not it was the offeror’s policy to utilize small business concerns, veteran-owned small business concerns, service-disabled veteran-owned small business concerns, HUBZone small business concerns, small disadvantaged business concerns, and women-owned small business concerns to the fullest extent consistent with efficient contract performance.

6. Small Business Concern Utilization Factor The Small Business Concern Utilization factor rating of “acceptable” or “unacceptable” shall be assigned to this factor utilizing the ratings in Table 6 and the descriptions identified below. The description of the subcontracted work to be performed by proposed small businesses along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars shall be identified. The evaluation will consider the extent to which:

i) An adequate description of the extent of participation of proposed Small Businesses (SB) when subcontracting possibilities exist is provided; and,

ii) An adequate description of the subcontracted work to be performed by small businesses, the company names/CAGE codes, along with the associated goals expressed in terms of percentages of the total planned subcontracted dollars is provided; and,

iii) Adequate rationale is provided if limited or no subcontracting possibilities exist for these socio-economic entities. Offerors are cautioned against only acknowledging a goal is not met, if applicable. Adequate rationale includes specific reasons why a goal is unmet and any actions being taken to increase any unmet goals.

iv) The associated goals in Paragraph ii above in the offeror’s Small Business Utilization Plan will be evaluated against the FY15 DoD Small Business Subcontracting goals, as defined in Table 7 below.

Table 6: Small Business Utilization Concern

Table 7: DoD FY15 Small Business Subcontracting Goals

DoD FY15 Small Business Subcontracting Goals Business Size Sub

Small Business 36.0%

SMALL BUSINESS UTILIZATION CONCERN 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.

7. Cost/Price Factor

To Be Determined.