Attachment_5_-_Section_M.pdf

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

SOLID STATE MODULE REPLACEMENT (SSM-R)

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

SOLICITATION NO: FA8723-18-R-0005

ATTACHMENT 5

30 JULY 18

Air Force Materiel Command

Air Force Life Cycle Management Center

Battle Management Directorate

Strategic Warning and Surveillance Systems Division

(AFLCMC/HBQ)

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1.0 SOURCE SELECTION (SS)

1.1 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best-value acquisition conducted In Accordance With (IAW) Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.101-1, Tradeoff Process, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) 5315.3, and Source Selection and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3 Source Selection.These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FARSite, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based on an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, Small Business Participation and Cost/Price. The Government may only award a contract to the Offeror who is deemed responsible IAW the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the Request For Proposal (RFP) requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by the instructions), and which is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the best value to the Government. Best value means the expected outcome of an acquisition that, in the Government’s estimation, provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirements. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Government 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 superiority and/or all over business approach and/or superior past performance of the higher price Offeror outweighs the cost difference.

1.1.1 The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all evaluation criteria in the RFP (described below). While the Government proposal evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the evaluation 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 select one contractor for this acquisition. However, the Government reserves the right not to award a contract at all, depending on the quality of the proposals and prices submitted and the availability of funds.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider throughout the evaluation, the “correction potential” of any proposal aspect evaluated as “unacceptable.” The judgment of such “correction potential” is within the sole discretion of the Government. If an aspect of an offeror's proposal not meeting the Government's requirements is not considered correctable or if the amount and/or complexity

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

of the corrections needed to meet the Government requirement requires a major proposal revision, the offeror may be eliminated from the competitive range.

1.4 Rejection of Offers

The Government may reject any evaluated proposal that fails to adequately address a significant portion of the requirement or contract terms and conditions. This may include rejection of a proposal that does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the contract/program requirements and/or displays a fundamental lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risk of the program. All aspects/volumes of the proposals may be reviewed to ensure adequate resources to perform the proposed technical approach.

1.5 Competitive Range Determination

During the evaluation process multiple competitive range determinations may be made that eliminates offerors from the competition. A competitive range determination may eliminate offerors based on their initial proposal evaluation results, after discussions (if necessary), prior to issuance of the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) request or for efficiency. If offerors are excluded from the competitive range they may request a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

1.6 Discussions

The Government intends to award without discussions, but reserves the right to conduct discussions, if necessary. Therefore, it is imperative that offerors submit their best terms initially. However, 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 (ENs) and the FPR will be considered in making the SS decision. Failure to include EN responses in the FPR may result in a final “unacceptable” technical rating, or otherwise make your company ineligible for award.

Offeror responses to ENs for Factor 2 (Past Performance) shall not be included in the FPR;

offeror responses to Past Performance ENs during discussions will automatically be considered in the final evaluation.

1.7 Solicitation Requirements (Terms and Conditions)

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and Statement of Work (SOW) requirements, in addition to those identified as factors and subfactors in this document. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. Offerors must clearly identify any exception to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. The Government reserves the right to determine any such exceptions unacceptable, and the proposal, therefore, ineligible for award.

2.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

2.1 Factors and Subfactors

The Government will use the following evaluation factors and subfactors to evaluate each proposal. The Government will award to the Offeror proposing the combination most

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

advantageous to the Government based upon an integrated assessment of the following evaluation factors and subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical o Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan o Subfactor 2: Critical Design Factors

Factor 2: Past Performance

Factor 3: Small Business Participation

Factor 4: Cost/Price

2.2 Relative Importance of Factors and Subfactors

2.2.1 The factors (other than Factor 3 – Small Business Participation) are listed in descending order of importance and Factors 1 (Technical) and 2 (Past Performance), when combined, are significantly more important than factor 3; however, factor 3 will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

Since Factor 3 (Small Business Participation) will be rated as either acceptable or unacceptable, an offeror must be rated as acceptable for Factor 3 in order to be part of the tradeoff decision and have the relative order of importance applied.

2.2.2 IAW FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Small Business Participation, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 4 (Cost/Price); however, Cost/Price will contribute to the selection decision.

3.0 FACTOR 1 – TECHNICAL

3.1 Technical Factor Overview

The Government will assign each Technical Subfactor two (2) separate and distinct ratings: a Technical Rating and a Technical Risk Rating. The Technical Rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution, including requirements understanding, design, production, system integration, and fielding, for meeting the Government’s requirements; the Technical Risk Rating considers the risk, including risk-handling strategies, associated with the technical approach.

The Technical and Technical Risk Ratings, which will not be combined, have equal impact on the rating of each Technical subfactor. The Government will rate the Technical subfactors individually at the subfactor level; the Government will not assign an overall factor-level rating for either the Technical Rating or the Technical Risk Rating.

3.1.1 Data Rights

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's data rights approach to satisfy the Government's objectives for the sustainment strategy.

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

3.2 Technical Rating

The Technical Rating provides an assessment of how the Offeror’s technical approach, including requirements understanding, design, production, system integration and fielding as documented throughout the proposal, meets the Government’s requirements. The Government will assign each Technical Subfactor one of the color ratings described in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Technical Rating (DoD SS Procedures, Table 2A)

3.3 Technical Risk Rating

The Technical Risk Rating provides an assessment of the potential of an Offeror’s proposed approach to disrupt schedule, increase costs, degrade performance, create a need for increased Government oversight, or increase the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. In assessing technical risk, the Government will identify weaknesses, and may identify some weaknesses as significant. The Government will assign each Technical Subfactor one of the Technical Risk ratings described in Table 2 below. The Technical Risk Ratings consider the flaws associated with the technical approach, including requirements understanding, design, production, systems integration and fielding, to meeting the requirement. The ratings will take into account demonstrated capability implementing proposed risk-handling plans. For any risks the Offeror identifies, the Government’s evaluation will consider the proposed mitigation approach and why it is or is not manageable. Offeror silence on risk does not constitute the absence of risk. Should the Government conduct discussions with Offerors in the competitive range, for aspects of an Offeror’s approach the Government addresses through EN, the

Color Rating Description

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

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

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

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

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

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

Government’s evaluation may consider any proposed mitigation and why that mitigation approach is or is not manageable.

Table 2: Technical Risk Ratings (DoD SS Procedures, Table 2B)

3.4 Technical Subfactors There are two (2) technical subfactors.

3.4.1 Subfactor 1: Manufacturing Plan

The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror’s proposed Manufacturing Plan demonstrates the Offeror’s Program Management and Integration approach and understanding of the requirements identified in the SOW to effectively and efficiently manage cost, schedule, and performance.

3.4.2 Subfactor 2: Critical Design Factors

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s engineering approach and understanding of the following critical design factors to determine how well the Offeror’s proposal demonstrates SSM-R performance when operating alongside existing infrastructure in legacy mode as well as enabling improved future performance, maintainability, and reliability.

3.4.2.1 SSM-R Array Module Output Power

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's BMEWS/PAVE PAWS (BPP) SSM-R array module performance in meeting or exceeding the output power threshold Technical Performance Metrics

Rating Description

Low

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

Moderate

Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High

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

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

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

(TPM) as identified from the SSS (Subsystem Specification). Table 3 identifies the SSM-R array module TPM to meet the requirement. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s design and test approach to meet or exceed the current SSS requirements and the 4.5 dB increase in output power in enhanced configuration.

Table 3: Array Module Output Power TPM

SSM Type SSS paragraph Number Technical Performance Metrics

AM 3.1.3.4.2.1 AM67.0 – In legacy configuration, with output ports combined in quadrature a mean peak output power of +55.26 ± 1.00 dBm over the operating frequency and all phase settings

AM68.0 – In legacy configuration, with output ports combined in quadrature a minimum weighted mean peak output power of +55.08 dBm over the operating frequency and over all of the phase settings

3.1.3.4.2.2 AM69.0 – In enhanced configuration, with output

ports combined in quadrature a mean peak output power of +59.76 ± 1.00 dBm over the operating frequency and over all of the phase settings

AM70.0 – In enhanced configuration, with output ports combined in quadrature a minimum weighted mean peak output power of +59.58 dBm over the operating frequency and over all of the phase settings

3.4.2.2 Sensitivity (Noise Figure)

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's BPP SSM-R performance in meeting or exceeding the receive sensitivity threshold TPM as identified from the SSS. Table 4 identifies the SSM-R TPM to meet the requirement.

Table 4: Sensitivity (Noise Figure) TPM

SSM Type SSS paragraph number Technical Performance Metrics

AM 3.1.3.5.4 AM98.0 – noise figure no greater than 2.9 dB at any frequency in the operating range

AM99.0 – Root Mean Square (RMS) noise figure for a production lot no greater than 1.9 dB at any frequency

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

SSM Type SSS paragraph number Technical Performance Metrics in the operating range

SLB/SLC 3.1.3.4 SL20.0 – noise figure no greater than 2.20 dB at any frequency in the operating range

3.4.2.3 Efficiency

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's BPP SSM-R performance in meeting or exceeding the efficiency threshold TPM as identified from the SSS. Table 5 identifies the SSM-R TPM to meet the requirement. The Government will evaluate how exceeding the requirement will directly reduce operating and upgrading costs.

Table 5: Efficiency TPM

SSM Type SSS paragraph number Technical Performance Metrics

AGD 3.1.4.6 AG33.0 – mean efficiency of greater than 40% while in transmit mode

SAD 3.1.6.6 SG49.0 – mean efficiency of greater than 40% while in transmit mode

SG50.0 – average mean efficiency of at least 42% over a production lot

AM 3.1.5.7 AM130.0 – mean efficiency of greater than 40% while in transmit mode

AM131.0 – a mean efficiency of 44% averaged over a production lot

3.4.2.4 Out of Band Tolerances

The threshold requirement for SSM-R is that Out of Band (OoB) tolerances will meet PIDS-690:

“The UEWR equipment shall comply with DoD, national, and international regulations for the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, and … BMEWS III radar emissions bandwidths will be as defined in paragraph 147 of the International Telecommunications Union Radio Regulations (ITU).” Additionally, there is an objective to meet an OoB emissions mask from the UK’s Office of Communications (Ofcom) (SSM-R objective spectrum mask shown in Figure 1). The Government will evaluate Offeror's SSM-R performance at each representative operational frequency (in both legacy and enhanced power configurations) in mitigating or eliminating the

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

OoB spurious emissions from 370 to 420 MHz and 450 to 500 MHz, and meeting or exceeding the threshold ITU regulations, with an objective of meeting the Ofcom spectrum mask without affecting the performance of the units. Table 6 identifies the SSM-R TPM to meet the objective requirement.

Figure 1: SSM-R Objective Spectrum Mask

Table 6: Out of Band Objective TPM

SSM Types SSS paragraph numbers Technical Performance Metrics

AGD, SAD,

AM,

SLB/SLC

AM 3.1.3.5.1.2

SLB/SLC 3.1.3.3.2

Objective:

– 420 to 450 MHz: 0 dB reference level

– 420 to 415 MHz: roll off from -40dB to -70 dB

– 415 to 370 MHz: roll off from -70dB to -80 dB

– 450 to 455 MHz: roll off from -40dB to -70 dB

– 455 to 500 MHz: roll off from -70dB to -80 dB

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

3.4.2.5 Mean Time Between Failure

The Government will evaluate the Offeror's BPP SSM-R performance in meeting or exceeding the Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) TPM as identified from the SSS. Table 7 identifies the SSM-R TPM to meet the requirement. The Government will evaluate how exceeding the requirement will directly reduce repair and replacement costs.

Table 7: MTBF TPM

SSM Type SSS paragraph number Technical Performance Metrics

AGD 3.3.4 AG75.0 – Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of no less than 180,000 hours

AG76.0 – predicted and designed MTBF be at least 270,000 hours

SAD 3.3.4 SG98.0 – Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of no less than 180,000 hours.

SG99.0 – predicted and designed MTBF be at least 270,000 hours

AM 3.3.3 AM209.0 – Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of at least 70,000 hours

AM210.0 – predicted and designed MTBF be at least 140,000

SLB/SLC 3.3.3 SL81.0 – Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) of no less than 410,000 hours

SL82.0 – predicted and designed MTBF shall be at least 615,000 hours

3.4.2.6 Interoperability with Legacy SSM

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s BPP SSM-R form, fit, function and interface design to ensure they meet interoperability with legacy SSMs allowing them to support any deployment scenario from attrition (one unit at a time) to a forward-sweeping motion of replacing an entire Corporate Feed and Face.

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

4.0 FACTOR 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 Past Performance Factor Overview

The Government will conduct an evaluation of the Offeror’s past and present performance. The past and present performance evaluation results in an assessment of the Offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements. The past and present performance evaluation considers the Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant performance record in supplying services and products similar to those required in the solicitation. After evaluating the quality of the Offeror’s recent past and present performance that is relevant to the contract requirements, the Government will assign the Offeror one Performance Confidence Assessment Rating as shown in Table 10.

4.2 Evaluation Process

4.2.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth review and evaluation of past and present performance information to determine how closely the work performed under those efforts relates to SSM-R. The Government will assess performance confidence at the overall Past Performance Factor level after evaluating the recency, relevancy, and quality of the Offeror’s recent past and present performance.

4.2.2 In conducting the past performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both the information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume and information obtained from other sources available to the Government, to include, but not limited to: Past Performance Questionnaires (PPQ); the 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.

4.3 Recency Assessment

In conducting the evaluation, the Government will assess the Past Performance information to determine if it is recent. A recent contract/project is defined as effort or work that has been performed within the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of the SSM-R solicitation up to an award decision and must be one of the following:

A single US or Foreign Government or commercial (non-Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity [non-IDIQ] or ordering type) contract; or, A single US or Foreign Government or commercial TO placed under a Single Award or Multiple Award IDIQ (FAR 16.501-1, 16.501-2); or, A single US or Foreign Government or commercial TO placed under a Single Award or Multiple Award Blanket Purchase Agreement (BPA) (FAR 8.405-3 or FAR 13.303).

Only the work performed within this window will be considered. Past Performance information that fails to meet these conditions will not be evaluated.

4.4 Relevancy Evaluation

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

4.4.1 The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the supplied services and products under those contracts relate to the requirements of the SSM-R solicitation. In determining relevancy for an individual contract/project, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the Offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract/project is being reviewed and evaluated.

4.4.2 The Offeror’s past and present performance citations do not need to satisfy all of these relevancy elements on a single effort. The Offeror can cite multiple efforts that demonstrate one or more of the above requirements in each citation. However, each contract effort will receive a single, discrete relevance determination based on the work performed on that past contract. The citations should also include subcontractors, teaming partners, and/or joint venture partners that will perform key functions or provide significant resources critical to overall successful performance (e.g., responsible for critical tasks in the proposed approach or have significant workshare). With respect to relevancy, more relevant Past Performance will typically be a stronger predictor of future success and have more influence on the Performance Confidence Assessment Rating than Past Performance of lesser relevance.

4.4.3 The Government is not bound by the Offeror’s opinion of relevancy. The Government will make its own judgment of relevancy based on all information received from all sources.

4.4.4 While the relevancy ratings for individual citations will reflect the relevancy against the complete set of elements, the Government’s integrated assessment and final Performance Confidence Assessment Rating will consider the relevancy of the complete set of Past Performance citations against the complete set of elements.

4.4.5 For each past and present performance citation that meets the recency requirement, the Government will assign one of the Past Performance Relevancy Ratings described in Table 8 below.

Table 8: Past Performance Relevancy Ratings (DoD SS Procedures, Table 4)

Description

VERY RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

RELEVANT

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

SOMEWHAT RELEVANT

Present/past performance effort involved some of the 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.

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

4.4.6 Past and Present Performance Quality Assessment

4.4.6.1 The Government will consider the performance quality of relevant past and present performance efforts. For each relevant past and present performance citation reviewed, the Government will assess the performance quality of the work accomplished, but all aspects of performance related to the SSM-R may be considered. This assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of past and present performance information available, regardless of its source.

4.4.6.2 The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information from a recent or relevant contract/project which the Offeror has not had an opportunity to respond to in a formal rating system that negatively impacts the Government’s performance confidence assessment. If an Offeror’s performance record indicates performance problems, the team will consider the number and severity of the problems and the appropriateness and effectiveness of any corrective actions taken (not just planned or promised).

The Government may review more recent efforts or performance evaluations to ensure the Offeror implemented corrective actions and to evaluate the effectiveness of those actions. If the Government is unable to gather information from the customer of the past performance effort (the customer is considered to be the entity that has a contractual agreement with the offeror for that effort) regarding the quality of performance of the Offeror, then the Government will not use that past performance effort as part of its evaluation.

4.4.6.3 The Government will use the Performance Quality Level Ratings in Table 9 when assessing recent, relevant past and present performance.

Table 9: Quality Levels Color Rating Description

Blue Exceptional (E)

Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements and exceeded (or exceeds) many contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with few, if any, minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) highly effective.

Purple Very Good (VG)

Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements and exceeded (or exceeds) some contractual requirements to the Government’s benefit. Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) effective.

Green Satisfactory (S)

Contractor performance met (or meets) contractual requirements. Contractor accomplished (or is accomplishing) contractual performance with some minor problems for which corrective actions taken were (or are) or appear to be satisfactory.

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

4.4.7 Assigning Ratings

Based on the performance quality assessments of all recent and relevant past and present performance, the Government will assign a single, overall, integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating (see Table 10). Although the past and present performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to scope, magnitude, and complexity of the SSM-R effort, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents an overall evaluation of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to perform the SSM-R effort. Offerors without a record of recent and relevant past and/or present performance or for whom information is so sparse the Government cannot reasonably assign a meaningful confidence assessment rating will not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on Past Performance. In this case, the Government will assign an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating for the Past Performance Factor. A strong record of relevant past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating. Likewise, a strong record of higher quality Past Performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an “Unknown Confidence (Neutral)” rating. Additionally, a more relevant Past Performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant or lower-quality record of favorable performance.

Finally, a higher quality Past Performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant or lower-quality record of favorable performance.

4.5 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

The Government will assign the Past Performance Factor one of the Performance Confidence Assessment Ratings described in Table 10 below.

Yellow Marginal (M)

Contractor performance did (or does) not meet some contractual requirements. Contractor performance contained (or contains) a serious problem for which corrective actions have not yet been identified or were not fully implemented.

Red Unsatisfactory (U)

Contractor performance did (or does) not meet many contractual requirements and recovery did not occur (or is not likely to occur) in a timely manner. Contractor performance contained (or contains) one or more serious problem for which corrective actions were (or appear to be) ineffective.

White Not Applicable

(NA)

Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect.

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

Table 10: Performance Confidence Assessments (DoD SS Procedures, Table 5)

5.0 FACTOR 3 – SMALL BUSINESS PARTICIPATION

5.1 Overview

5.1.1 The Government will evaluate the offeror’s approach for Small Business Participation and will assess it as “Acceptable” or “Unacceptable” as described in Table 11.

5.1.2 The Contracting Office (CO) will review the Small Business Subcontracting Plan for compliance with the requirements identified in FAR 19.704. If the offeror fails to submit and negotiate a Subcontracting Plan acceptable to the CO, the offeror’s proposal will be ineligible for award and will be rated as ‘Unacceptable’ for this factor.

5.1.3 The Government will evaluate and rate the offeror’s small business participation based on the rating the offeror received on their most recent Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) Review of Contractor’s Subcontracting Program, DCMA Form 640 or equivalent. The Government will assign a Technical Rating of “Acceptable” for any DCMA Form 640 rating above “Unsatisfactory.” The Government will assign a Technical Rating of “Unacceptable” for any DCMA Form 640 rating of “Unsatisfactory.” For offerors that do not have a DCMA Form 640 review, the Government will base the evaluation and rating on the most recent rating the offeror received according to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DCMA and

Rating 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 performance recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

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. The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

the U.S. Small Business Administration, dated November 12, 2009. “Acceptable” is defined as anything other than an “Unsatisfactory” rating according to Attachment 1 to the MOU.

Table 11: Small Business Ratings (DoD SS Procedures, Table 6)

6.0 FACTOR 4 – COST/PRICE

6.1 Overview

6.1.1 The Offerors’ Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is reasonable and balanced. The Government will evaluate the initial proposed Cost/Price Volume, along with any revisions the Offeror may make. The Government will not assign a color code rating to the Cost/Price Factor.

6.1.2 Reasonableness

In accordance with FAR 31.201-3, a cost/price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b), the Government is requiring the submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of reasonableness.

The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore unawardable, if prices are found to not be reasonable.

6.1.3 Unbalanced Pricing

Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. The Government will analyze offers to determine if they are unbalanced with respect to prices for separately priced line items and B-Table Unit Prices despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items, and/or B-Table Unit Price, is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of cost and price analysis techniques. An offer may be rejected if the Government determines the lack of balance poses an unacceptable risk to the Government (FAR 15.404-1(g)).

6.1.4 Government-Owned Facilities, Government Furnished Equipment/ Property/Information/Supplies/Services, and Government Support

The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government-Owned Facilities, Government Furnished Equpment/Property/Information/Supplies/Services, and Government Support. This will be

Color Rating Description

Green Acceptable Proposal indicates an adequate approach and understanding of small business objectives.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet small business objectives

SSM-R, ATTACHMENT 5 FA8723-18-R-0005

accomplished by assessing the equivalent value (see FAR 45.2) of those resources as part of the offer. Any adjustments made resulting in the use of Government-Owned Factilities, GFE/P/I/S/S, and Government Support will be captured in the TEP.

The Government may reject any offeror-proposed Government-Owned Facilities, Government Furnished Equpment/Property/Information/Supplies/Services, and Government Support that is evaluated as unavailable. If an Offeror’s proposal relies on Government-Owned Facilities, Government Furnished equpment/Property/Information/Supplies/Services, and Government Support that is unavailable, the proposal may be evaluated as deficient.

6.2 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

6.2.1 The total evaluated price for award purposes will be the sum of the following:

6.2.1.1 FFP CLINs 0001, 0005AA, 0005AB, 0005AC, 0005AD, and 0005AE will be evaluated at their proposed price.

6.2.1.2 FFP CLINs 0002, 0003, and 0004 will be evaluated at the applicable Best Estimated Quantitiy (BEQ) multiplied by the appropriate B-Table Unit Price.

6.2.1.3 FFP Option CLINs 0007 and 0008 will be evaluated at the applicable BEQ multiplied by the appropriate B-Table Unit Price.

6.2.1.4 CR CLINs 0006AA, 0006AB, 0006AC, 0006AD, and 0006AE will each be evaluated at the Government-Established value of $15,000.

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

TEP.

6.3 Evaluation of Options

All options under the contract will be evaluated as indicated above; however, evaluation of options shall not obligate the Government to exercise such options.

7.0 SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as factors. 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 exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions and must provide complete supporting rationale. Offeror’s final modified SOW/Specifications (if applicable) will be evaluated prior to award. The selected offeror’s modified SOW/Specifications will then become part of the final contract.