Attachment_6_-_DIB_Development_5th_Edition_-_Section_M_-_Final.pdf

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 1

RFP ATTACHMENT 6 – SECTION M

EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FOR

DISTRIBUTED COMMON GROUND/SURFACE SYSTEM

(DCGS) INTEGRATION BACKBONE (DIB) DEVELOPMENT

5th EDITION

20 September 2017

Version: Original

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 2

REVISION HISTORY

Revision

Number

Date Description Sections Affected

Original 20SEPT17 Initial Publication N/A

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 3

1. Solicitation Provisions Incorporated by Reference

Notice: Pursuant to FAR 52.252-1, “SOLICITATION PROVISIONS INCORPORATED BY

REFERENCE,” the following solicitation provisions pertinent to this section are hereby incorporated by reference:

A. FAR 52.215-1 INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS - COMPETITIVE ACQUISITION (JAN

2017)

52.215-1 ALTERNATE I (OCT 1997)

2. SOURCE SELECTION

2.1. Basis for Contract Award

This is a best value Tradeoff source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition

Regulation (FAR) 15.3 Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS) 215.3, Department of Defense Source Selection Procedures

(dated 31 March 2016), Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFFARS)

5315.3 Source Selection, and AFFARS Mandatory Procedures (MP) 5315.3. These regulations are available electronically at the Air Force FAR Site, http://farsite.hill.af.mil.

The Government will select the best overall offer based upon an integrated assessment of the

Technical Factor and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is 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 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 requirement. The Government seeks to award to the offeror who gives the Air Force the greatest confidence that they will best meet or exceed the requirements. This may result in award to 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 overall proposed approach outweighs the cost/price difference. To arrive at a best value decision, the SSA will integrate the source selection team’s evaluations of the offerors’ proposals against the evaluation factors in Section

3.2.4(4).

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.

It is the Government’s intent to award without discussions. Therefore, each initial offer should contain the offeror’s best terms from a price and technical standpoint. However, the Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer determines that discussions are necessary and would be in the best interest of the

Government.

http://farsite.hill.af.mil/

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 4

2.2 Number of Contracts to be awarded

The Government anticipates awarding one (1) Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity contract for DIB Development 5th Edition, however, the Government reserves the right to make no awards at all dependent on the quality of the proposal(s) submitted and the availability of funds.

2.3 Use of Government Furnished Information

The Government plans to provide the items listed in Attachment 1, Statement of Work, paragraph 7.0, of the solicitation as GFI. All GFI required to perform the contract will be provided at time of contract award. The offeror cannot propose additional GFI.

2.4 Discussions

If, during the evaluation period, it is determined to be in the best interest of the Government to hold discussions, offeror responses to Evaluation Notices (ENs) and the Final Proposal Revision

(FPR) will be considered in making the source selection decision. If the offeror’s proposal has been evaluated as acceptable at the time discussions are closed, any changes or exceptions in the

Final Proposal Revision are subject to evaluation and may introduce risk that the offeror’s proposal be determined unacceptable and ineligible for award.

3.0 EVALUATION FACTORS

3.1 Evaluation Factors and their Relative Order of Importance

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

Factor 1: Technical

Subfactor 1: Technical Approach

Subfactor 2: Management Approach

Factor 2: Cost/Price

The relative order of importance for each Factor and Subfactor is as follows: Technical is significantly more important than Cost/Price. Within the Technical Factor, the Subfactors are each of equal importance. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), Technical is significantly more important than cost or price. However, Cost/Price will contribute substantially to the selection decision.

3.2. Technical Factors Ratings

a. Factor 1: Technical

(1) The Technical evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: the Technical

Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. These two ratings have equal impact for the rating of each Technical subfactor. For this solicitation, the Government has specifically broken down the technical evaluation factor into two sub factors: Technical and Management approaches. The

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 5 offeror’s technical proposal detailing these approaches while adhering to guidance provided in the Instructions for Proposal Preparation (RFP Attachment 5 – Section L) will be the basis of this technical evaluation. In RFP Attachment 5 – Section L, offerors are asked to propose a

Technical and a Management approach in preparation for and execution of development of the

Sample Epic (Section L, Attachment L-2) and integration plan to full operational capability

(FOC). These approaches shall address all the evaluation criteria as specified below in paragraph (4). The Technical approach shall focus on development tasks as they relate to the

Sample Epic and contractor software assurance plans/processes. The Management approach shall identify the proposed plan that encompasses integration starting at contract award, through transition, completing with their team at FOC, and beyond in the role as outlined in the DIB

Development 5th Edition Statement-Of-Work. Additionally the management approach will also include resource mapping for the Sample Epic product backlog and integration plan tasks. The offeror’s approaches shall meet the Government’s requirements as defined in the DIB

Development 5th Edition Statement-Of-Work.

(2) Technical Rating. The Technical rating provides an assessment of the quality of the offeror’s solution for meeting the Government’s requirement. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A –

Technical Ratings (excerpted below). They focus on the strengths and deficiencies of the offeror’s proposal. The color rating depicts how well the offeror’s proposal meets the Technical subfactor requirements. Subfactor ratings shall not be rolled up into an overall color rating for the Technical factor.

TABLE 2A – TECHNICAL RATING METHOD

Color Adjectival

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.

Definitions

Deficiency is a material failure of a proposal to meet a Government requirement or a combination of significant weaknesses in a proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance to an unacceptable level. See FAR 15.001.

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 6

Significant Weakness in the proposal is a flaw that appreciably increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

Strength is an aspect of an offeror’s proposal that has merits or exceeds specified performance or capability requirements in a way that will be advantageous to the Government during contract performance.

Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance. See FAR 15.001.

(3) The Technical Risk Rating - Assessment of technical risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased cost, degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, and/or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Technical risk shall be rated using the ratings described in

DoD Source Selection Procedures listed in Table 2B.

TABLE 2B – TECHNICAL RISK RATING METHOD

Adjectival 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.

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 7

(4) Technical Subfactors. Below are the evaluation criteria for Technical subfactors 1 & 2.

Technical: Subfactor 1

Technical Rating

TABLE 2A

Technical Risk

Rating

TABLE 2B

Technical Approach

(1) Demonstrates comprehensive knowledge of the Agile/Scrum process through Sample Epic approach

(2) Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of Sample Epic architecture, requirement and its sub components.

(3) Demonstrates ability to identify complex/risky/unknown/independent tasks and incorporation of those critical path tasks, as shown in Sample Epic roadmap

(4) Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of Open Source Gateway initiative (OSGi) based architectures through Sample Epic approach.

(5) Demonstrates implementable secure software development practices to be used during the software design, development, integration and testing to include:

a. Minimizing unsafe function use, using static and/or dynamic analysis tools, and performing manual code reviews.

b. Security testing methodologies to be implemented, including fuzz testing, vulnerability testing, penetration testing, and misuse and abuse testing.

c. Security measures to develop, maintain, and manage software securely (including unclassified and classified software).

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 8

Technical: Subfactor 2

Technical Rating

TABLE 2A

Technical Risk

Rating

TABLE 2B

Management Approach

(1) Demonstrates efficient resource mapping of appropriate personnel and skillset (labor category/hours) to product backlog (user story level) and integration plan tasks.

(2) Demonstrates thoroughness in the integration plan, specifically transition, as required by the SOW.

b. Factor 2: Cost/Price

The Offerors’ Cost/Price 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.

(1) Price Reasonableness – IAW FAR 31.201-3, a cost 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.

(2) Unbalanced Pricing – Offerors are cautioned against submitting a materially unbalanced offer. Unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable TEP, the Labor Hour Wrap Rates of one or more labor categories is significantly over or under-stated as demonstrated 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)).

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 9

(3) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will calculate the TEP as the sum of the following:

a. Delivery Order 01 – Initial TRN will be evaluated as the sum of the proposed price of

Labor Hour CLIN 0001 and the two CR CLINs at the following government established values:

CLIN Govt Est

Value

0003 $5,000

0004 $5,000

b. The CR CLINs will be evaluated at the following government established values:

CLIN Govt Est

Value

0003 $100,000

0004 $100,000

0006 $100,000

0007 $100,000

0009 $100,000

0010 $100,000

0012 $100,000

0013 $100,000

0015 $100,000

0016 $100,000

0018 $100,000

0019 $100,000

0021 $100,000

0022 $100,000

0024 $100,000

0025 $100,000

c. Labor Hour CLINs 0005, 0008, 0011, 0014, 0017, 0020 and 0023 will be evaluated in accordance with the following instructions:

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 10

The LH Wrap Rates for Contract Years 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be evaluated to include a predetermined BEQ being applied to each labor category for each CLIN to establish the “BEQ

Extension” price. For each labor category, the “BEQ Extension” price will be totaled for the prime contractor and all subcontractors and IDTs. The totals for each category will be added together, and then divided by the total number of provided rates within that labor category. A more detailed example of the calculation is below:

Prime Contractor – B-Table Rate

CY2

Engineering Level 6 – E6 $ 100.00

Technician Level 5 – T5 $ 120.00

Subcontractor A – B-Table Rate

Engineering Level 6 – E6 $ 110.00

Technician Level 5 – T5 $ 130.00

IDT A – B-Table Rate

Engineering Level 6 – E6 N/A

Technician Level 5 – T5 $ 115.00

A BEQ of 1008 for Engineering Level 6 – E6 and a BEQ of 20 for Technician Level 5 – T5 is then applied to these two proposed labor categories for each CLIN

(below is an example of 2 labor categories for CY2 only)

Prime Contractor

CY2-

BEQ Extension

Engineering Level 6 – E6 $ 100,800

Technician Level 5 – T5 $ 2,400

Subcontractor A

CY2 –

Engineering Level 6 – E6 $ 110,880

Technician Level 5 – T5 $ 2,600

FA8730-15-R-0024, Attachment 6, Page 11

IDT A

CY2 –

Engineering Level 6 – E6 N/A

Technician Level 5 – T5 $ 2,300

CY2 – TEP Calculation

Engineering Level 6 – E6 (100,800+110,880)/2 = 105,840

*E6 is only divided by 2 since IDT A did not propose to this labor category

Technician Level 5 – T5 (2,400+2,600+2,300)/3 =2,433

*T5 is divided by 3 since the Prime, Subcontract A, and IDT A proposed labor rates

Engineering Level 6 – E6 $ 105,840

Technician Level 5 – T5 $ 2,433

Total* $ 108,273

This will be done for each labor category.

*The Total is then used to determine the overall value of CY2 for the TEP.