DLE_IDIQ_-_Section_M_Rev22__3-27-2017.docx

Section M

SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

DATA LINK ENTERPRISE (DLE)

INDEFINITE DELIVERY/ INDEFINITE QUANTITY (ID/IQ)

27 March 2017

Prepared By:

CDL Program Office

AFLCMC/HNAG

5 Eglin Street Hanscom AFB, MA 01731-2100

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.

Section M

Section M ii

UNCLASSIFIED

Table of Contents

SECTION M - EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

M-I - SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

NOTICE: Pursuant to 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:

M001. SOURCE SELECTION

1.0 Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 15, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Part 215, Department of Defense (DoD) Source Selection Procedures, Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS) Part 5315 and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are current as of the date of this solicitation and available electronically at the Air Force (AF) FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall offer(s), based upon an integrated assessment of Technical, Past Performance, and Cost/Price factors. Contract(s) may be awarded to the Offeror(s) who are deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR Part 9, 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, to represent the best value tradeoff to the Government.

The Government seeks to award to the Offeror(s) who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet, or exceed, the requirements of this solicitation. This may result in an award to higher rated, higher priced Offeror(s), where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors, and the Source Selection Authority (SSA) reasonably determines that the technical capability and/or overall business approach and/or past performance of the higher price Offeror(s) outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against the evaluation criteria described below. While the Government source selection evaluation team and the SSA will strive for maximum objectivity, the source selection process, by its nature, is subjective and, therefore, professional judgment is implicit throughout the entire process.

Offeror(s) are cautioned that the Government will evaluate every Statement of Work (SOW) requirement against the evaluation criteria identified below. Furthermore, should an Offeror indicate in its proposal that: it cannot or will not meet any SOW requirement; provides an approach that clearly does not meet any SOW requirement; or, includes data which prompts the Government to question the Offerors compliance with any SOW requirement, the Government may determine, at its discretion, that the Offerors proposal is non-compliant, and therefore, ineligible for award.

The Government reserves the right to eliminate from consideration for award any or all offers at any time prior to award of the contract; to conduct discussions with Offerors in an established competitive range; and to award the contract to the Offeror(s) submitting the proposal determined to represent the best value tradeoff and the proposal most advantageous to the Government, with price and other factors considered.

Offeror(s) are advised that Government sponsored support contractors may be used during the evaluation and throughout the administration of any resulting contract. These individuals will be authorized access only to those portions of the proposal data and discussions that are necessary to enable them to perform their respective duties. If Government sponsored support contractors are used, they will be required to sign nondisclosure agreements and statements of financial interest with the Government.

Prior to award, a determination will be made regarding whether any possible Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) exist with respect to the apparent successful Offeror(s) or whether there is little or no likelihood that such conflict exists. In making this determination, the Contracting Officer (CO) will consider the representation required by Section K of this solicitation. An award will be made if there is no OCI or if any potential OCI can be appropriately avoided or mitigated.

1.1 Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award approximately five (5) to seven (7) contracts for the Data Link Enterprise (DLE) Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make any number of awards, or no award, if considered to be in the Government's best interest to do so. For the best value tradeoff award determination, the evaluation for Factor 1: Technical will be based on the Offeror’s proposal(s) for both the DLE ID/IQ contract and the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration (FA8726-17-F-0009). For Factor 2: Past Performance the Best Value Tradeoff award evaluation will be based on Past Performance Information submitted by the Offeror(s) and/or obtained from Government databases. For Factor 3: Cost/Price the Best Value Tradeoff award evaluation will be limited to the cost/price proposal for the High Capacity Backbone Demonstration (FA8726-17-F-0009).

1.2 Rejection of Unrealistic Offers

The Government may reject any proposal that is evaluated to be unrealistic in terms of program commitments, including contract terms and conditions, or unrealistically low in cost when compared to Government estimates, such that the proposal is deemed to reflect an inherent lack of competence or failure to comprehend the complexity and risks of the program.

1.3 Correction Potential of Proposals

The Government will consider, throughout the evaluation, the correction potential of any deficiencies or weaknesses in an Offeror’s proposal. The judgment of such correction potential is within the sole discretion of the Government.

1.4 Discussions

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines them to be necessary. If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, Offeror’s responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision (FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision.

Exchanges with Offerors after receipt of a proposal do not constitute a rejection or counteroffer by the Government.

1.5 Award Without Discussions

The Government may evaluate proposals and reserves the right to award contract(s) without discussions with Offeror(s) (except clarifications as described in FAR 15.306(a)). Therefore, the Offeror‘s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a technical and cost or price standpoint.

1.6 Competitive Advantage from Use of Government Furnished Property In accordance with FAR 45.2, Solicitation and Evaluation Procedures, the Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of Government Furnished Property (GFP).

M002. EVALUATION FACTORS

2.0 Evaluation Factors and Their Relative Order of Importance The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. Award will be made to the Offeror(s) 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 – System Architecture and Design Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering and Program Management Subfactor 3 – Small Business Factor 2: Past Performance Factor 3: Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Technical and Past Performance are listed in descending order of importance with Factor 1 being more important than Factor 2. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), all evaluation factors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than Factor 3; however, Cost/Price will contribute to the selection decision. Within the Technical Factor, the subfactors are listed in descending order of importance with Subfactor 3 evaluated on an acceptable/unacceptable basis.

Proposals will be evaluated for the presence or absence of descriptive material which demonstrates an Offeror’s understanding of all system requirements, the adequacy of the proposed approach, and compliance with the requirements of the solicitation. Narrative information that simply restates the solicitation, thus providing no value, will be considered unacceptable.

The evaluation approach will utilize DoD Source Selection Procedures, Methodology 1, Paragraph 3.1.2.1, providing for separate technical and risk ratings assessed at the subfactor level for Subfactor(s) 1&2. The technical rating evaluates the quality of the Offeror’s technical solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. The risk rating considers the risk associated with the technical approach in meeting the requirement. An acceptable/unacceptable rating will be assigned for Subfactor 3.

2.1 Factor 1: Technical

Evaluation of the technical subfactor(s) provides an assessment of the Offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s technical requirements. The technical subfactor(s) will receive one (1) of the technical color ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A- Technical Rating Method, excerpted below. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the technical requirements in accordance with the stated evaluation criteria and solicitation requirements. The technical subfactor(s) focuses on the technical approach, strengths, weaknesses, and deficiencies in the Offeror’s proposal. Definitions of strengths, weaknesses and deficiencies are described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Chapter 5, Definitions and FAR 15.001, Table 2C- Definitions, excerpted below.

Table 2A. Technical Rating Method

Assessment of technical risk considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance.

Offeror(s) should address technical risk by providing a risk matrix that identifies those significant programmatic risks or aspects of the proposal that may impact the above areas. The matrix should classify risks as low, moderate, high or unacceptable in accordance with the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B- Technical Risk Rating Method, excerpted below; identify the probability and impact of occurrence; propose a risk mitigation strategy for each identified risk; and identify and classify any new risks introduced by such risk mitigation.

Table 2B. Technical Risk Rating Method

Table 2C. Definitions

Within the Technical factor, the Government will evaluate the Offeror‘s proposal for the ID/IQ contract concurrently with the Offeror’s proposal for FA8726-17-F-0009. The Offeror(s) may submit each proposal as stand-alone documents or consolidate them into one (1) document. However, the Offeror(s) is only required to address each subfactor and its associated criteria once, in either the ID/IQ technical proposal or in the FA8726-17-F-0009 technical proposal.

Irrespective of approach, the Offeror(s) shall provide a matrix tracking the Offeror(s) technical proposal(s) to the subfactor(s)/criteria listed in Section M002 EVALUATION FACTORS Paragraph 2.2 Factor 1: Technical. Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design and paragraph 2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM).

The Government evaluation of the portion of the Offeror’s technical proposal for the ID/IQ contract will focus on the Offeror’s description of the organization and resources available to accomplish the scope and range of tasks identified in the ID/IQ SOW.

The Government evaluation of the Offeror’s technical proposal for FA8726-17-F-0009 will focus on the Offeror’s technical solution and inherent risk to satisfy the Government’s technical requirements and inherent risk.

2.1.1 General

The Technical factor is comprised of three subfactors. The Government will evaluate the Technical Volume for specificity and completeness. The Government will evaluate legibility, clarity, and coherence. The proposal will be evaluated against the Technical subfactors defined in Section 2.2 Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design & Section 2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM). The Government will evaluate the actual methodology the Offeror applies for accomplishing/satisfying these subfactors. All the requirements specified in the solicitation are mandatory and will be evaluated. The Government will evaluate that the vendor does not reiterate the objectives or reformulate the requirements specified in the solicitation.

2.1.2 Format and Specific Content

The Government will evaluate the technical and management approach to DLE.

The Government will evaluate that the Technical Volume is organized according to the following general outline:

(1) List of Table and Drawings

(2) Glossary

(3) MCRM

(4) Factor 1: Technical

a. Subfactor 1

i. Risk Matrix

b. Subfactor 2

i. Risk Matrix

c. Subfactor 3

2.1.3 Technical

The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s technical approach, technical processes and solution, for meeting the Governments requirements for each technical subfactor for both the ID/IQ SOW and FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW. The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s performance analysis and how it supports the discussion of how the Offeror’s proposed solution satisfies the FA8726-17-F-0009 requirements. The Government will evaluate how well the Offeror tracks the proposal paragraphs to each SOW through use of the MCRM (Attachment 5).

The Government will evaluate the proposal for the ID/IQ contract concurrently with the Offeror’s proposal for FA8726-17-F-0009. The Government will evaluate that the proposal addresses each subfactor and its associated criteria once.

The Government will evaluate the matrix tracking the Offeror(s) technical proposal(s) to the subfactors/criteria listed in Section M002 EVALUATION FACTORS paragraph 2.2 Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design and paragraph 2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM).

2.2 Technical Subfactor 1 – System Architecture and Design

2.2.1 Technical Approach

The Government will evaluate the technical approach for completeness that demonstrates understanding and satisfies the requirements of both the ID/IQ SOW and FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW. The Government will evaluate any performance analysis that supports the discussion of how the Offeror’s proposed solution satisfies the FA8726-17-F-0009 requirements.

2.2.2 Hardware and Software (HW and SW) Development

The Government will evaluate for adequacy and completeness:

· The proposed processor types, algorithms, firmware, and buses

· The security attributes of the proposed design

· The incorporation of modularity and open systems design

· The proposed HW and SW development environment to include ensuring all relevant personnel are properly cleared and trained in hardware and/or software information assurance

· The proposed HW and SW vulnerability analyses (including tools and training)

· Reuse, changed or modified software and firmware

2.2.3 Component or Design Risks

The Government will evaluate the risks associated with the proposed design with a focus on:

· Proposed BE-CDL Rev B terminal solution and the risks associated with implementing the proposed waveform mode(s) on that terminal

· Antenna pointing design for air to air communication, to include maintaining a link in a dynamic environment

· Offeror’s ability to execute a flight demonstration of the proposed system

· Reuse, changed or modified software and firmware to include a description of where the code was previously used, if applicable

2.2.4 Critical Technology Elements (CTE)

The Government will evaluate whether the Offeror’s proposed Critical Technology Elements (CTEs) have been demonstrated in a relevant environment. The Government will use the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) as defined in the “Department of Defense (DoD) Technology Readiness Assessment (TRA) Guidance”, dated April 2011.

2.2.5 System Architecture and Interface

The Government will evaluate the capability of proposed system architecture and interfaces to:

· Allow data sharing among networked components

· Implement industry standards with non-proprietary solutions

The Government will evaluate the maturity of the technical solution/ approach and how the technical solution/ approach meets the DLE requirements. Positive consideration will be awarded to proposals that meet or exceed the following Objective requirements in FA8726-17-F-0009:

· SOW paragraph 3.3.4 for availability measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold value for range and data rate as specified in FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW paragraph 3.3.5

· SOW paragraph 3.3.5 for data rates measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold and Objective range as specified in FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW paragraph 3.3.5

· SOW paragraph 3.3.5 for ranges measured or calculated, given a fixed Threshold and Objective data rate as specified in FA8726-17-F-0009 SOW paragraph 3.3.5

2.3 Technical Subfactor 2 – Systems Engineering (SE) and Program Management (PM)

2.3.1 Overall Technical and Management Approach

The Government will evaluate the proposed technical capabilities and management structure and its demonstrated capacity to meet the range and scope of the DLE ID/IQ SOW.

The Government will evaluate the proposed approach to conduct FA8726-17-F-0009 and ability to meet all capabilities, functions, integration, performance and environmental requirements.

The Government will evaluate engineering process for SE and PM. The Government will evaluate:

· The proposed program management organization including dedicated program resources, teaming arrangements and subcontract management approach

· The Reasonableness, adequacy, and completeness of the Integrated Master Schedule (IMS) and Integrated Master Plan (IMP) to reflect an adequate understanding of the program requirements and demonstrate a sound approach to meeting those requirements: identify program tasks, major events, identify appropriate criteria (including technical review entry and exit criteria) to achieve those accomplishments, and identify the critical path; reflect an integrated system engineering and program management approach for developing and delivering products; and, provide an efficient path leading to readiness for production

· The proposed Integrated Master Schedule (IMS), to be in accordance with the “DoD Integrated Master Plan and Integrated Master Schedule Preparation and Use Guide”, Version 0.9, dated 21 Oct 2005 for the proposed contract effort and the Integrated Program Management Report Data Item Description DI-MGMT-81861. IMS tasks are directly traceable to the Contract Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS), SOW(s), Contract Data Requirements List (CDRL), and IMP. The IMS includes a critical path analysis and a near-critical path analysis. The IMS includes subcontracted activities and address dependencies with other external organizations. It includes technical reviews in accordance with the requirements of the Government SOW. The IMS information is a separate section of the Technical Capability Volume

· The proposed Risk Management approach to include analysis of the top technical, schedule, and cost risks associated with the proposed design solutions as well as the mitigation strategies for the top risks

The Government will evaluate the proposed system engineering processes and technical approach to execute the development, production and system-platform integration efforts to specifically include the following:

· The proposed method in which the Offeror’s HSI and safety approach will result in an intuitive, simple (HMI) design that ensures easy user accessibility, assures access for remove and replace maintenance actions, and minimizes the need for training

· The proposed processes to address CDL design standardization, logistics efficiencies and minimal impact on the support infrastructure

· The proposed cybersecurity risk management approach to identify changing threats and the system’s threat exposure, integrate cybersecurity risk management, appropriately mitigate threats and obtain cybersecurity certification

· The proposed security procedures/processes for establishing and maintaining a secure environment and personnel for development effort(s), including storing and transmitting classified information up to appropriate security levels

· The proposed Data Management approach

· The proposed Configuration Management approach

· The proposed Quality Assessment approach

· The proposed Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) procedures and processes approach

· The proposed software to be outsourced as well as the specific organization to which it will be outsourced

2.3.2 Technology Readiness Levels (TRL) Documentation

The Government will evaluate the proposed empirical, lab demonstration, flight test or operational data to support values for all proposed TRLs of the system.

The Government will evaluate the suitability, soundness and efficiency of the Offeror’s approach to conduct and support testing, to ensure the system is mature (meets TRL 4), stable, and will pass Government testing, including information assurance, software assurance, and interoperability.

2.3.3 Certification and Accreditation

The Government will evaluate the process for identifying and attaining any required certifications, assessment, and authorization. The Government will evaluate the discussion on the events, technical reviews, milestone activities, planned risk reduction activities, dependencies, planned deliverables, and any other associated relevant items associated with certification activities identified in the proposal. Certification activities that the Government will evaluate include, but are not limited to:

· Cryptographic Type 1 certification

· Cybersecurity including vulnerability assessments/test, Interim Authority to Test (IATT), Interim Authority to Operate (IATO) for 90 days and Authority to Operate (ATO)

· Joint Interoperability Test Command (JITC) certification to verify compliance with the CDL family of specifications to include BE-CDL Rev. B.

2.3.4 Asset Protection

The Government will evaluate the proposed Supply Chain Risk Management (SCRM) and Anti Tamper (AT) processes. The Offeror shall identify Critical Program Information (CPI) and Critical Technologies (CTs) and describe how CPI and CTs will be protected.

2.3.5 Data Rights

The Government will evaluate the data rights to be delivered under this contract that is considered “Unlimited” by the contractor and any asserted restrictions on these rights. The proposal will list the technical data, software and firmware deliverables, including required development tools, for which the Offeror asserts less than “Unlimited Rights”, in a Data Rights Assertions List IAW DFARS 252.227-7013 and 252.227-7014.

The Government will consider both the number and type of proposed restrictions on the data rights (including evaluation of data rights in key components and interfaces) to be delivered under this contract and the risks imposed to future sustainment and modification of systems/end items to be delivered under this contract. Offeror(s) will receive favorable consideration for proposing data rights that will facilitate the future sustainment and modification of DLE by the Government or a third party.

2.3.6 Licenses

The Government will evaluate the licenses pertaining to technical data for commercial items or noncommercial items; or commercial and non-commercial computer software; and firmware shall be identified and mapped to associated CDRLs, CLINs, SOW paragraphs and system architecture components.

2.4 Technical Subfactor 3 – Small Business

The Government will evaluate this subfactor at the overall ID/IQ contract level only and will assess it as “Acceptable”/“Unacceptable”.

2.4.1 Small Business Plan

The extent of participation of Small Disadvantaged Business (SDB) concerns. The targets submitted in accordance with FAR 52.219-24, and Section L paragraph 7.4.4 will be incorporated into and become part of the contract.

The Contracting Office (CO) will evaluate 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.

2.4.2 Small Business Participation

The Government will evaluate the Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with paragraph 7.4.4. Small business participation is applicable to and will be evaluated for “other than small business” proposals only.

The Government will evaluate and rate the Offeror’s small business participation based on the rating the Offeror received on the 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 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. For any Offeror that does not have a DCMA Form 640 or equivalent, the Government will assign a rating of “Acceptable” for this subfactor.

The Government will evaluate that a Defense Contract Management Agency (DMCA) has reviewed the Contractor’s Comprehensive Subcontracting Program (DCMA Form 640), and that the contractor submits the cognizant DCMA Office point of contact, email, phone number, and address.

The Government will evaluate proposals for other than small businesses, that do not have a DCMA Form 640 Review, submit a Small Business Subcontracting Plan in accordance with FAR 52.219-9, addressing the extent to which the Offeror identifies and commits to the participation of Small Businesses (SB), Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), and Minority Institutions (MI) whether as joint venture members, teaming arrangement, or subcontractor. The Government will determine that a failure to submit such a plan will render the proposal ineligible for award.

2.5 Factor 2: Past Performance

2.5.1 Past Performance Volume:

1. Summary

2. Business Relationships

3. Past Performance Information Sheets

4. Consent Letters

5. Organization Structure Change History

6. Client Authorization Letter

2.5.2 General

The Government shall evaluate the Past Performance Information (PPI) submitted by each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partners (as defined in Attachment 6 paragraph 2 (a)) in accordance with Attachment 6 L-1, L-2, L-3 and the page count(s) specified in Section L Attachment 6 Table 1 - Proposal Organization for each relevant contract. Each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partner is requested to complete the Past Performance Information (PPI) for Offerors IAW Attachment L-1. Each Offeror and major subcontractor and joint venture partner is also requested to forward a copy of the Past Performance Information Questionnaire for the DLE ID/IQ Contract (Attachment L-2) to the relevant program (first priority), contracting (second priority), or administrative contracting (third priority) office for the efforts identified, with requests for the completed forms to be returned to the Government at the address identified.

The Government shall evaluate the PPI on no more than ten (10) recent (within five (5) years) contracts considered most relevant in demonstrating ability to perform the proposed effort. Individual orders under the same ID/IQ contract may be cited separately if they are relevant.

The Government shall evaluate all data submitted in accordance with an executed Consent Letter (Attachment L-3) by each subcontractor, teaming partner, and/or joint venture partner, authorizing release of adverse past performance data.

The Government shall evaluate all data submitted in accordance with an executed Client Authorization Letter (Attachment L-4) for each identified effort by a commercial customer, authorizing release to the Government of requested data on the Offeror’s performance.

*Note: Consent Letters (Attachment L-3) executed by each subcontractor, teaming partner, or joint venture partner authorizing release of adverse past performance data shall not be included in the page count for the Past Performance Volume.

Evaluation of past performance will assess the probability of the Offeror’s proposal meeting the solicitation requirements, including cost and schedule. 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 for FA8726-17-F-0009. In accordance with FAR 15.305(a) (2), the currency and relevance of the information, source of the information, context of the data, and general trends in contractor’s performance shall be considered. These are combined to establish one (1) performance confidence assessment rating for each Offeror. Each Offeror will receive a performance confidence assessment rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4- Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method.

Offerors must demonstrate positive control over business units that performed on such submitted contracts. 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, such as the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS) or similar systems, DCMA, and commercial sources.

There are three aspects to the Past Performance Evaluation: recency, relevancy (including context of data), and quality (including general trends in contractor performance and source of information).

2.5.3 Recency Assessment

The Government will evaluate the recency of the Offeror’s past performance. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated.

2.5.4 Relevancy Assessment

The Government will determine how relevant a recent effort accomplished by the Offeror is to FA8726-17-F-0009. Common aspects of relevancy include, but are not limited to, the following: similarity of product/service/support, complexity, contract type, use of key personnel (for services), and extent of subcontracting/teaming. For past performance to be considered relevant, it must have been performed by the same division proposing to perform on FA8726-17-F-0009. Past performance relevancy will be assessed as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4- Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 4. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

The Government will use the following list of Past Performance Evaluation Criteria in determining relevancy. Past Performance must be relevant to communication systems. The Government generally will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract without a performance history. The Offeror shall explain what aspects of the contracts are deemed relevant to the proposed effort, and to what aspects of the proposed effort they relate. This explanation may include a discussion of risk management activities on past programs. Merely having problems does not automatically equate to a limited or no confidence rating. The Offeror is required to clearly demonstrate management actions to manage risk. The Offeror shall provide a matrix tracking the narrative for the following relevant Research Development Test & Evaluation (RDT&E) experience.

Past Performance- Relevant RDT&E Experience:

2.5.5 Quality of Products or Services

The Government shall evaluate the overall quality of the Offeror’s past performance (see FAR 15.304(c) (2)). The Past Performance Evaluation conducted in support of a current source selection does not establish, create, or change the existing record and history of the Offeror’s past performance on past contracts; rather, the past performance evaluation process gathers information from customers on how well the Offeror performed those past contracts. Requirements for considering history of small business utilization are outlined at FAR 15.304(c) (3) (ii) and DFARS 215.305(a) (2). The Past Performance Evaluation Team will review all past performance information collected and determine the quality of the Offeror’s performance, general trends, and usefulness of the information and incorporate these into the Performance Confidence Assessment (see Paragraph 2.5.4 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating). A separate quality assessment rating is not required; rather, the Past Performance Confidence Assessment Rating is based on the Offeror’s overall record of recency, relevancy, and quality of performance.

2.5.6 Performance Confidence Assessment Rating

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment Rating as described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 5- Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method, excerpted below.

Table 5. Performance Confidence Assessments Rating Method

The Offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past 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 a “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor. More recent performance will 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 a “Neutral Confidence” rating. Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorable than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

2.5.7 Sources of Past Performance Information for Evaluation

The Government will gather information from the following potential sources in order to determine how well the Offeror performed:

· Past performance information provided by the Offeror

· Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS)

· Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)

· Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS)

· Defense Contract Management Agency

· Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, or Fee-Determining Officials

· Customer Questionnaires tailored to the circumstances of the acquisition

· Any other sources or electronic databases available to the Government

2.5.8 Organizational Structure Change History

Many companies have acquired, been acquired by, or otherwise merged with other companies, and/or reorganized divisions, business groups, subsidiary companies, etc. In many cases, these changes have taken place during the time of performance of relevant past efforts or between conclusion of recent past efforts and this source selection. As a result, it is sometimes difficult to determine what past performance is relevant to this acquisition. To facilitate this relevancy determination, the Government will review your description located in Volume III, of recent changes in the specific business unit(s) responding to the DLE (RFP) (limit to past five (5) years). A pamphlet or other commercial document describing such reorganizations may suffice. As part of this explanation, show how these changes impact the relevance of any efforts the Offeror identifies for past performance evaluation/performance confidence assessment. Since the Government intends to consider past performance information provided by other sources as well as that provided by the Offeror(s), the description should be both specifically applicable to the efforts the Offeror identifies and general enough to apply to efforts on which the Government receives information from other sources.

2.6 Factor 3: Cost/Price

The Offerors’ Cost/Price Volume(s) 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. For the CPFF & CR CLINs, the Offerors’ Cost/Price Volume(s) will be evaluated using one or more of the techniques defined in FAR 15.404-1 in order to determine if it is realistic.

2.6.1 Price Reasonableness

For a price to be reasonable, it must represent a price to the Government that a prudent person would pay in the conduct of competitive business. Normally, price reasonableness is established through cost and price analysis techniques as described in FAR 15.404-1. For additional information on determining reasonableness see FAR 31.201-3. The Government’s concern in making a price reasonableness determination focuses primarily on whether the offered prices are higher than warranted. IAW FAR 15.403-1(b) the Government may require submission of Data Other Than Certified Cost or Pricing Data to the extent necessary to support a determination of a fair and reasonable price.

A price analysis will be conducted IAW FAR 15.404-1 in order to ensure a fair and reasonable price has been proposed. The Government may determine that an offer is unacceptable, and therefore unawardable, if prices are found to not be fair and reasonable.

2.6.2 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 despite an acceptable Total Evaluated Price (TEP). Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the price of one or more items is significantly overstated or understated as indicated by the application of 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)).

2.6.3 Cost Realism

A Cost Realism analysis will be performed IAW FAR 15.404-1(d). The Government will perform a Cost Realism analysis on the Cost Type CLINs only. A Government Estimate of Most Probable Cost (GEMPC) analysis, as determined by the Cost Realism Assessment (CRA), will be performed in the realism evaluation. The Government evaluation of cost realism will consider the extent to which proposed costs under the Cost Type CLINs indicate a clear understanding of solicitation requirements, and determine whether they reflect a sound approach to satisfying those requirements and whether the proposed labor escalation and indirect factors are realistic.

A significant difference between the Offeror’s proposed Cost and the GEMPC will be considered an indicator that the Offeror does not understand the requirement and will be reflected in the Government’s realism analysis.

The GEMPC for the Cost Type CLINs, not the Contractor’s proposed cost, will be used for the purpose of evaluation to determine the best value proposal. The Government will not reduce the Offeror’s proposal below the Offeror’s proposed prices in making its GEMPC adjustment.

2.6.4 Government Furnished Property/Information/Supplies/Services (GFP/I/S/S) The Government will eliminate any competitive advantage resulting from an Offeror’s proposed use of GFP. This will be 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 GFP will be captured in the TEP.

The Government may reject any Offeror’s proposed GFP that is evaluated as unavailable. If Offeror’s proposal relies on GFP beyond Government provided GFP that is unavailable, the proposal may be evaluated as deficient.

2.6.5 Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The TEP will be calculated as the sum of the Offeror’s proposed prices. TEP will be used for evaluation purposes only. The evaluation will include all CLINs, as applicable.

2.6.5.1 Delivery Order FA8726-17-F-0009 TEP

The total evaluated Cost/Price to the Government for the individual Data Link Enterprise (DLE) DO award will be derived by the sum of the following:

a. CPFF CLIN 0005 will be evaluated at GEMPC plus the proposed fixed fee amount

b. CR Travel CLIN 0009 will be evaluated at the Government established value of $83,400.

c. CR ODC CLIN 0010 will be evaluated at the Government established value of $24,000.

d. FFP Sample Problem will be evaluated at a Best Estimated Quantity (BEQ) of the labor hours applied to all proposed fully burden rates for each labor category.

2.6.5.2 ID/IQ TEP

The total evaluated Cost/Price to the Government for the ID/IQ award will be derived by the sum of the following:

a. The DO TEP above

b. Post Award Conference DO at the Government assigned value of $5,000

2.7 Pre-Award Survey (PAS)

The Contracting Officer may have DCMA conduct a Pre-Award Survey (PAS) of all identified Offerors. The PAS may assess the Offeror’s financial capability, accounting system, and quality assurance program.