PF2_-_DRFP_-_Attachment_6_-_Addenda_to_52.212-2.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

Attachment 6

COMMERCIAL SATELLITE

COMMUNICATIONS (COMSATCOM)

Pathfinder #2

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2

EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

FA8808-17-R-0004

5 JANUARY 2017

THIS PAGE INTERNTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

UNCLASSFIED

ADDENDA TO 52.212-2 EVALUATION--COMMERCIAL ITEMS

THIS SECTION IS FOR SOLICITATION PURPOSES ONLY. THIS SECTION WILL BE

PHYSICALLY REMOVED FROM ANY RESULTANT AWARD.

THIS ADDENDA SUPPLEMENTS FAR 52.212-2.

EVALUATION

I. SOURCE SELECTION

Basis for Contract Award

1. This is a Lowest Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) source selection conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items, and FAR 15, Contracting by Negotiation, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement (DFARS), the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(AFFARS), DoD Source Selection Procedures, 31 March 2016, and Air Force Mandatory

Procedures 5315.3, 17 May 2016. The Government will select the proposal with the lowest evaluated price from among those that meet the acceptability standards for non-price factors.

A contract may be awarded to the offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with FAR

9.1, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation's requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information required by addenda to provision 52.212-1 of this solicitation and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors, to represent the lowest price technically acceptable proposal. The following factors shall be used to evaluate offers: Technical and Price.

2. The Government intends to award a single contract as a result of this solicitation. However, the Government reserves the right to not award a contract depending on the quality of the proposals submitted, changing Government requirements, and the availability of funds.

3. As set forth in FAR 52.215-1(f)(4), the Government intends to evaluate proposals and award a contract without discussions with Offerors. Therefore, the Offeror’s initial proposal should contain the Offeror’s best terms from a cost or price and technical standpoint.

The Government reserves the right to conduct discussions if the Contracting Officer later determines them to be in the Government’s best interest in accordance with FAR Part 15.306.

In the event discussions are held, a competitive range determination will be made. The

Contracting Officer will promptly notify Offerors of any decision to exclude them from the competitive range, whereupon, they may request and receive a debriefing IAW FAR 15.505.

The Contracting Officer will notify Offerors who were in the competitive range, but were not selected for award IAW FAR 15.503(b). Upon such notification, unsuccessful Offerors may request and receive a debriefing IAW the requirements of FAR 15.506. If the Contracting

Officer determines the number of proposals that would otherwise be in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted, the Contracting

Officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition.

4. 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. While the Government Source Selection

Evaluation Board (SSEB) and the Source Selection Authority (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.

5. Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, terms and conditions, representations and certifications, and technical requirements, in addition to those identified as

Factors or Subfactors. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the offeror being ineligible for award. The Government will not accept exceptions to the solicitation terms and conditions.

6. Any proposal that exceeds the Government affordability cap will be deemed un-awardable and rejected (see addenda to 52.212-1, Table 3).

II. EVALUATION FACTORS

Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

1. The following evaluation Factors and Subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. The

Government will evaluate proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis. In order to be considered for award, there must be an “acceptable” rating in every non-price factor/sub-factor.

Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors are not permitted. The Government will evaluate proposals for acceptability, but will not rank the proposals by the non-price factors or subfactors. The proposals will be evaluated based on the following two (2) evaluation factors and four (4) subfactors:

Factor 1: Technical Capability

Subfactor 1: USG Pre-Launch Transponder(s) Specification

Subfactor 2: Spectrum Policy Compliance

Subfactor 3: Cybersecurity Compliance

Subfactor 4: USG Pre-Launch Transponder(s) Protection

Factor 2: Cost / Price

2. The relative importance of each factor and subfactor as listed above is in descending order of importance; Factor 1 (Technical) being of more importance, followed by Factor 2 (Cost/Price) being less importance. The subfactors within Factor 1 (Technical) are of equal importance.

3. The Government’s technical evaluation team will evaluate the technical proposals on an acceptable or unacceptable basis, assigning one of the ratings described below for each subfactor. Any subfactor evaluated as “unacceptable” will render the entire factor and subsequently the proposal unacceptable, making the proposal un-awardable. Only those proposals determined to be technically acceptable, either initially or as a result of discussions, will be considered for award. However, the Offeror is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this effort based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

Factor 1 - Technical Capability: The Technical Capability evaluation provides an assessment of the offeror’s capability to satisfy the Government’s requirements. The technical approach will be evaluated for evidence of the degree to which the Offeror’s technical approach demonstrates an understanding of the Pathfinder 2 requirement, as defined within the

Statement of Work (SOW) and the Technical Requirements Document (TRD). Proposals should demonstrate the Offeror's technical approach and methodology for accomplishing the tasks under any resultant award to meet the applicable requirements of the SOW and TRD.

The proposals will be evaluated for technical acceptability/unacceptability against the following sub-factors:

Technical Sub-Factors

i. Subfactor 1: USG Pre-Launch Transponder(s) Specification. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the Offeror's ability to supply pre-launched commercial Ku-Band transponder(s) to the Government for ownership. This subfactor is technically acceptable when:

a) The Offeror fills in all sections of TAB T1 and the responses meet the corresponding requirements within the TRD and/or SOW, as applicable.

b) The planned launch date of the USG Pre-Launch Transponder(s) is prior to the end of calendar year 2021.

c) The planned in-orbit test completion date is prior to the end of calendar year 2022.

ii. Subfactor 2: Spectrum Policy Compliance. The criteria in this subfactor will be evaluated to determine the Offeror’s compliance with the following spectrum requirements.

Table 1. Technical Acceptable/Unacceptable Rating Method

Adjectival Rating Description

Acceptable Proposal meets the requirements of the solicitation.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet the requirements of the solicitation.

Requirement 2.1.: Licensing USG Pre-Launch Transponder(s) - this requirement is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides a satellite solution:

a) That is licensed by, or has a reasonable expectation of being granted a license by, a national administration prior to IOT; and

b) That the applicable frequency assignments have been entered into the

Master International Frequency Register (“ITU registration”), or that frequency assignments have a reasonable expectation of being entered into the Master International Frequency Register, or that the coordination procedure has been initiated at the International Telecommunication

Union (ITU) through a cognizant national spectrum regulator which complies with the TRD; and

c) That the license and/or ITU registration has not been obtained through any of the countries listed in the National Defense Authorization Act

(NDAA) States-of-Concern list.

Requirement 2.2.: ITU Notification Process Competence - this requirement is technically acceptable when the Offeror provides documentation:

That shows familiarity and competence in ITU satellite affairs, including experience in operating a satellite in FSS spectrum at a geostationary longitude, for which frequency assignments were entered into the ITU

Master International Frequency Register and brought into use.

iii. Subfactor 3: Cybersecurity Compliance. This subfactor is technically acceptable when the Offeror’s solution meets all of the standards below:

a) Cybersecurity approach:

1) The Offeror describes the steps and time line in which they will establish a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the National

Security Agency (NSA) for the embedment of NSA certified cryptography into the spacecraft on which the transponder(s) reside and receipt of a CNSSP-12 compliance letter.

2) The Solution shall embed the cryptography according to the requirements established by the NSA MOA; ensuring that all commands to the spacecraft or transponder(s) are authenticated and encrypted, as well as ensuring that all telemetry streams from the spacecraft/transponder(s) are encrypted.

b) The Offeror delivers a single Cybersecurity Compliance Matrix (CCM), TAB T3, with information completed for each identified security control.

The quote is acceptable when it demonstrates the ability to meet applicable controls or provide acceptable mitigation to support system assessment and authorization by the government. Mitigations are acceptable if the Government determines that normal or special contractor emphasis and normal or close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any schedule, cost/price, and/or performance issues.

c) The approach is acceptable when the Offeror provides a description of practices to provide authentic materials if the Government determines that normal or special contractor emphasis and normal or close Government monitoring will likely be able to mitigate counterfeit parts.

d) The approach includes a description of the personnel security process and adequate access control measures are utilized at the development and operations locations and is acceptable if the Government determines that normal or special contractor emphasis and normal or close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any schedule, cost/price, and/or performance issues.

iv. Subfactor 4: USG Pre-Launch Transponder(s) Protection. This subfactor will be evaluated to determine the Offeror's ability to meet the required transponder uplink overdrive protection. This subfactor is technically acceptable when the Offeror:

Identifies a solution describing how the overdrive protection requirement will be satisfied, including the methodology to be used to verify how this performance will be met (i.e. by analysis and/or test).

Factor 2 – Cost/Price Evaluation Criteria: The Government will evaluate the Offeror’s proposal using the Total Evaluated Price (TEP). The proposed price will be evaluated on a

Firm-Fixed-Price (FFP) basis in accordance with FAR 15.404-1. Offerors whose price is determined to be unreasonable or unaffordable may not be considered for award. The selected

Offeror will be based on the lowest evaluated price of proposals, relative to the size of the bandwidth of the USG Pre-Launch Transponder(s) in MHz that meets or exceeds the acceptability standards for non-cost factors. The TEP is calculated by taking the value of CLIN

0001 and dividing by the total bandwidth offered - see examples for Offeror A and B below:

Offeror A: CLIN 0001: One (1) Transponder - $20M @ 125MHz

$20M/125MHz = $160,000.00/MHz

Offeror B: CLIN 0001: Two (2) Transponders - $9M each (total of $18M) @

@ 54MHz/each (total of 108MHz)

$18M/108MHz = $166,666.67/MHz

In the example above, Offeror A would be the successful Offeror.

1) Trade-offs between cost/price and non-cost/price factors is not permitted.

Inaccurate or incomplete price proposals may be grounds for eliminating a proposal from competition.

2) The Offeror’s Price proposal will be evaluated for Reasonableness and

Affordability - see below:

a. Reasonableness: The existence of adequate price competition is expected to support a determination of reasonableness. Price analysis techniques may be used to further validate price reasonableness. If adequate price competition is not obtained or if price reasonableness cannot be determined using price analysis of

Government obtained information, additional information in accordance with FAR 15.4 may be required to support the proposed price.

b. Affordability: The Government will evaluate whether each offeror’s Cost/Price proposal is affordable by comparing the total proposed price to the budgetary information included in the solicitation under addenda to 52.212-1, Table 3 – Affordability and shall not exceed the amounts available.

(End of Provision)