Attach 5 Section M - 3.10.2026.pdf

Hybrid Architecture and Development for Experimental Systems (HADES) Program

PART IV – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION

Space Systems Command (SSC) System Delta 89

Innovation and Prototyping Delta (SD) Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground (SDG)

Kirtland AFB, New Mexico

REVISION CONTROL

Revision Number Date Remarks

1.0 7 Jan 2026 Initial Draft

Table of Contents

1. Source Selection

1.1. Basis for Award

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3. Discussions

2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

3. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

4. Technical Evaluation

4.1. Technical Capability Rating Methodology

4.2. Technical Risk Rating Methodology

4.3. Technical Subfactors Criteria

4.3.1. Subfactor 1, Program Management Criteria

4.3.2. Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering Criteria

5. Cost/Price

5.1. General Government Cost/Price Volume Instructions

5.2. Total Proposed Price (TPP)

5.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

5.4. Evaluation Area Details

5.4.1. Reasonableness (Applies to all CLINs and Appendix B Rates)

5.4.2. Cost Realism (Applies to Cost-Reimbursable/Cost Plus Award Fee Task Order CLINs)

5.4.3. Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items)

5.5. Data Rights

5.6. Insufficient Details

5.7. Consistency

6. Past Performance

6.1. Ratings

6.2. Evaluation Process

6.3. Recency Assessment

6.4. Relevancy Assessment

6.5. Performance Quality Assessment

6.6. Assigning Ratings

7. Contract Documentation

7.1. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

7.2. Professional Employee Compensation Plan

Section M, Evaluation Factors for Award

1. Source Selection

1.1. Basis for Award

This is a best value FAR 16 Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) acquisition that will be conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) 15.3, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS), and the Department of the Air Force Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DAFFARS). These regulations are available electronically at the ACQUISITION.GOV, https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government will select the best overall offer, based upon an integrated assessment of Technical/Technical Risk, Past Performance and Cost/Price. A contract may be awarded to the Offeror who is deemed responsible in accordance with the FAR, as supplemented, whose proposal conforms to the solicitation’s requirements (to include all stated terms, conditions, representations, certifications, and all other information requested by Section L of this solicitation) and is judged, based on the evaluation factors and subfactors to represent the best value to the Government. The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the Space Force 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 and/or overall business approach of the higher price offeror outweighs the cost difference. The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of proposals against all source selection criteria in the solicitation (described below). While the Government source selection 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.

This solicitation requests a single proposal for the IDIQ contract, and for 3 Task Orders (TO). The proposed efforts for all 3 TOs included in the proposal will be evaluated by the Government. The contract award decision will be made based on the consideration of the proposed effort for the IDIQ contract and for all 3 TOs collectively. The effort spanned in the 3 TOs is considered to be representative of the types of work for future TOs; and will provide a basis for establishing competitively influenced contractual rates for fair and reasonable pricing of future TOs under the anticipated contract.

1.2. Number of Contracts to be Awarded

The Government intends to award one contract for the HADES acquisition; however, the Government reserves the right to make no award at all.

1.3. Discussions

The Government intends to make award upon evaluation of initial proposals without discussions.

Therefore, offerors are highly encouraged to use their best efforts in proposal preparation and to include their very best terms in their offer.

If it is determined to be in the Government’s best interests, a competitive range may be established, and discussions may be held. In that case, to promote effectiveness in the competition and efficiency http://farsite.hill.af.mil/ in the evaluation, the Government will initially set, and may potentially make any later adjustments to, the competitive range of only the most highly rated proposals considering: (1) whether the number of proposals received exceeds the amount at which the competition can be effectively managed to warrant a reduction in the number of proposals selected for further evaluation or discussion, (2) a proposal’s potential to achieve complete correction through efficient, equitable use of discussions, or

(3) any particular advantage or benefit that a proposal presents which is worthy, in the Government’s judgment, to pursue through discussions, based on the evaluation criteria described in Section 3 of this document.

If included in the competitive range, the Offeror shall provide Evaluation Notices (EN) responses and submit change pages that update all affected volumes of the Offeror’s proposal. Additional instructions will be provided with ENs.

2. Solicitation Requirements, Terms and Conditions

Offerors are required to meet all solicitation requirements, such as terms and conditions, small business subcontracting plan, OCI analysis results, other information required, 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.

3. Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal:

• Factor 1: Technical Subfactor 1: Program Management Subfactor 2: Systems Engineering

• Factor 2: Past Performance

• Factor 3: Cost/Price

The relative importance of each factor and subfactor is as follows: Factor 1 (Technical) is most important, and Factor 2 Past Performance is second most important, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is least important. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering, is less important than Subfactor 1, Program Management. In accordance with FAR 15.304(e), the Government has determined that all evaluation factors and subfactors other than Cost/Price, when combined, are significantly more important than cost or price.

An “unacceptable” as defined in paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 will deem the proposal unawardable.

4. Technical Evaluation

The Technical Evaluation provides for two distinct but related assessments: The Technical Capability Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. Technical Capability and Technical Risk ratings are applied at the subfactor level and will not be rolled up to any overall factor ratings.

4.1. Technical Capability Rating Methodology

The Technical Capability rating provides an assessment of the quality of the Offeror’s approach and the extent to which it demonstrates an understanding of the Government’s requirements.

Each technical subfactor will receive one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4.1, Technical Rating Method, excerpted below:

Table 4.1, Technical Rating Method

The color rating is based on the strengths of the Offeror's proposal, as well as the extent to which the proposal approach meets or does not meet the evaluation criteria and associated requirements of the RFP. The color rating depicts how well the Offeror’s proposal meets the technical subfactor requirements.

In arriving at a best value decision, the Government reserves the right to give positive consideration, i.e., assign a “strength,” for performance exceeding criteria in a way that is advantageous, or provides a valued benefit, to the Government. The DoD Source Selection Procedures define a “strength” as stated in the text box below. Note, the benefits of the proposed aspect or feature must be expected to be realized during actual contract execution. Offerors may consult the HADES Award Fee Plan and relevant Performance Work Statements to determine the types of qualities and features the Government values, including cost-effectiveness, mission success, and support of overarching organizational goals for ground system evolution.

IAW DAFFARS MP5315.3.3.12, the awarded contract document will reflect all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above threshold (minimum) attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process (e.g., purple or blue technical rating).

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

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

4.2. Technical Risk Rating Methodology

Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight, or the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 4.2, Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below.

Table 4.2, Technical Risk Ratings

The risk rating considers the risk associated with the Offeror’s overall proposed approach in meeting the requirement.

4.3. Technical Subfactors Criteria

The technical subfactor criteria were chosen as illustrative examples of the key challenges associated with executing the HADES basic IDIQ PWS (Section J Attachment 1) and TO PWSs within the HADES environment. The HADES environment is characterized in Section J Attachment 1.

The Government will evaluate the extent to which the Offeror’s proposal meets, does not meet, or exceeds the criteria under each subfactor below. The criteria may be considered to be exceeded when the proposal meets the definition of a strength as described in paragraph 4.1 above. Failure to meet any one of the individual criteria in paragraphs 4.3.1 and 4.3.2 below will result in an “unawardable” rating at the subfactor level.

4.3.1. Subfactor 1, Program Management Criteria

In order for this subfactor to be considered technically acceptable all criteria must be acceptable.

4.3.1.1. Staffing/Labor Profile. The Offeror proposes sufficient and appropriately time-phased labor and expertise to perform the workload as defined by the attached 3 TO PWSs.

4.3.1.2. Personnel Security Requirements – The Offeror provides a viable plan to recruit and retain employees that can obtain and maintain applicable clearances.

4.3.1.3. Emerging Requirements. The Offeror demonstrates the ability to apply their management processes and labor/skill mix to respond to emerging requirements. The Offeror demonstrates experience and expertise applying their management process to address emerging requirements.

4.3.1.4. Transition. The Offeror demonstrates an effective approach to assume contract responsibilities at the end of the transition period. This criterion is either met or not met.

4.3.1.5. Small Business. The Offeror demonstrates the use of small business participation. Small business offerors will meet the 25% requirement for small business participation. For other than small business offerors their Small Business Participation Commitment Document will comply with the small business percentage requirement of 25% and the Small Business Participation Commitment Document ensures small businesses will be afforded opportunities for meaningful work with complexity and variety during contract execution. The percentage requirement will be assessed at the overall contract level. Small business participation will be calculated at the first-tier subcontract level. No strengths will be awarded for this criterion. This criterion is either met or not met.

4.3.2. Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering Criteria

4.3.2.1. The Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and feasible approach to achieve HADES goals in the HADES environment as described in the Section J Attachment 1, section 1.3.1. during execution of the attached 3 TO PWSs as identified in Section L.

4.3.2.2. The Offeror demonstrates experience and expertise applying their systems engineering approach to enterprise software intensive systems and low-cost Research and Development systems in both cloud and local implementations. The identified experience and expertise illustrate cost/schedule/performance trade-offs, a focus on system up-time, cost reduction, and rapid response to requirements.

4.3.2.3. The Offeror demonstrates their ability to perform Configuration Management across the ground system infrastructure, operational floors, and missions.

5. Cost/Price

5.1. General Government Cost/Price Volume Instructions

The Offeror’s cost/price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, cost realism, and unbalanced pricing. In the evaluation, the Government may use data that is external to the Offeror’s proposal, such as, but not limited to, field pricing reports, industry information, Government estimates, same or similar DoD contracts, and commercial data. For all TOs, the evaluation of TOs and TO options will not obligate the Government to award and/or exercise such options. The Government-calculated TEP, in Table 5.1, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority only for the purpose of making the best value trade-off decision.

Table 5.1, Cost/Price Evaluation

Proposed Total Price – Cost CLINS (CR and CPAF) $

Proposed Total Price – Firm Fixed Price $ Most Probable Cost Adjustment (Total of Column G in Table 5.2, below) $

Data Rights Total (Sum of Data Rights Total) Values from Table 1a and Table 3 in Section J, Attachment 9, Data Rights

Total Evaluated Price $

Reasonable (All CLINs and Appendix B Rates) Yes / No / TBD /

NA

Realism (Applies only to Cost-Reimbursement and Cost Plus Award Fee CLINs)

Presence of Unbalanced Pricing (All CLINs)

TBD = To Be Determined NA = Not Applicable = Not Assessed = No Final Determination

5.2. Total Proposed Price (TPP)

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for accuracy in calculating the TPP and for compliance with the instructions for calculating the TPP.

5.3. Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

The Government will adjust the TPP to incorporate the Government’s Most Probable Cost (MPC).

The Table 5.2 below shows the breakdown by CLIN for the values that will be used in Table 5.1:

Note: “(Basic CLIN 00XX)” in the CLIN Title Column refers to the basic CLIN structure in Section B of the overall Basic HADES IDIQ contract

Table 5.2, TEP Computation Table

Task Order (A)

Title (B)

CLIN

(C)

CLIN Title

(D) Contract Type (E)

Contractor Proposed Cost $ (F)

Government MPC (Upward)

Adjustments $ (G)

Total CLIN Amount

(I (Sum of F+G))

01 Transition 0008 Transition (Basic CLIN 0008) FFP N/A N/A Offeror’s FFP

Ground Control 0001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 0001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0002 Materials (Basic CLIN 0003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0003 Travel (Basic CLIN 0004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 0006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Control 1001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 1001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 1) 1002 Travel (Basic CLIN 1004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

1003 Materials (Basic CLIN 1003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

1004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 1006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Control 2001 Mission Support (Basic CLIN2001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 2) 2002 Travel (Basic CLIN 2004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

2003 Materials (Basic CLIN 2003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

2004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 2006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Control 3001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 3001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 3) 3002 Travel (Basic CLIN 3004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

3003 Materials (Basic CLIN 3003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

3004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 3006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Control 4001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 4001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 4) 4002 Travel (Basic CLIN 4004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

4003 Materials (Basic CLIN 4003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

4004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 4006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

03 Jaguar 0001 Mission Support (Basic CLIN 0001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0002 Materials (Basic CLIN 0003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0003 Travel (Basic CLIN 0004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 0006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

03 Jaguar 1001 Mission Support (Basic CLIN 1001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 1) 1002 Travel (Basic CLIN 1004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

1003 Materials (Basic CLIN 1003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

1004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 1006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

03 Jaguar 2001 Mission Support (Basic CLIN2001) CPAF Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 2) 2002 Travel (Basic CLIN 2004) CR Proposed Cost

2003 Materials (Basic CLIN 2003) CR Proposed Cost

Adjustment (F+G)

2004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 2006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

03 Jaguar 3001 Mission Support (Basic CLIN 3001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 3) 3002 Travel (Basic CLIN 3004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

3003 Materials (Basic CLIN 3003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

3004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 3006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

03 Jaguar 4001 Mission Support (Basic CLIN 4001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 4) 4002 Travel (Basic CLIN 4004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

4003 Materials (Basic CLIN 4003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

4004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 4006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Support 0001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 0001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0002 Materials (Basic CLIN 0003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0003 Travel (Basic CLIN 0004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

0004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 0006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Support 1001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 1001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 1) 1002 Travel (Basic CLIN 1004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

1003 Materials (Basic CLIN 1003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

1004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 1006) CR Proposed Cost

Ground Support 2001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 2001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 2) 2002 Travel (Basic CLIN 2004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

2003 Materials (Basic CLIN 2003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

2004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 2006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Support 3001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 3001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 3) 3002 Travel (Basic CLIN 3004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

3003 Materials (Basic CLIN 3003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

3004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 3006) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

Ground Support 4001

Mission Support (Basic CLIN 4001) CPAF Proposed Cost

Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

(Option 4) 4002 Travel (Basic CLIN 4004) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

4003 Materials (Basic CLIN 4003) CR Proposed Cost Government MPC Adjustment (F+G)

4004 ODCs (Basic CLIN 4006) CR Proposed Cost

5.4. Evaluation Area Details

The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government Evaluation of the following areas:

5.4.1. Reasonableness (Applies to all CLINs and Appendix B Rates)

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for price reasonableness, which is an assessment of whether the evaluated price is too high. The price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that amount which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (FAR 31.201-3).In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government will use one or more price analysis techniques including, but not limited to, those described in FAR 15.404-1.

A determination of an “unreasonable” price will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be “unacceptable” in Technical Capability or Technical Risk are ineligible for award, and as a result, a reasonableness determination will not be made.

5.4.2. Cost Realism (Applies to Cost-Reimbursable/Cost Plus Award Fee Task Order CLINs)

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism; the assessment will analyze whether the proposed price is too low. Cost realism analysis is the process of independently reviewing and evaluating specific elements of each offeror’s proposed cost estimate to determine whether the estimated proposed cost elements are realistic for the work to be performed; reflect a clear understanding of the requirements; and are consistent with the unique methods of performance and materials described in the Offeror’s technical proposal.

(FAR 15.404-1(d)(1)

The Offeror’s proposed costs as provided in the Cost/Price Volume will be evaluated using a cost analysis approach, which involves the Government’s review and evaluation of specific cost elements of the Offeror’s cost/price. The cost analysis will consider the Offeror’s proposed approach. Any proposed cost element may be adjusted upward, based upon the Governments analysis of each proposed cost element. The upward cost adjustments will result in the Government’s Most Probable Cost that will become part of the TEP calculation for best value consideration. Cost adjustments will consider instances such as, but not limited to:

o Weaknesses in the technical proposal that impact the costs.

o Missing costs that will likely be incurred for the contract with the proposed solution.

o Offeror-initiated unsubstantiated decrements to historical hours/costs.

It is the intent that all Most Probably Cost (MPC) adjustments will be upward; there will not be any downward adjustments. Excessive proposing of unwanted tasks and associated costs will NOT result in a probable cost adjustment, but may result in an unreasonableness determination.

A cost realism determination will not be made for proposals that have been assessed to be “unacceptable” in Technical Capability or Technical Risk.

5.4.3. Unbalanced Pricing (Applies to all contract line items)

The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for the presence of unbalanced pricing. Per FAR 15.404-1(g), unbalanced pricing exists when, despite an acceptable total evaluated price, the price of one or more contract line items is significantly over or understated as indicated by the application of cost or price analysis techniques.

In addition, an unbalanced pricing determination will not be made for proposal that have been assessed to be “unacceptable” in Technical Capability or Technical Risk.

An offeror may be rejected if the SSA determines that the lack of balance presents an unacceptable risk to the Government.

5.5. Data Rights

The Government will verify the calculations as instructed in Section L and the verified total amount for data rights will be inserted into Table 5.2 for the Cost/Price Evaluation.

5.6. Insufficient Details

Insufficient details to support the determination of reasonableness, cost realism, or non-presence of unbalanced pricing, initially or subsequently, may be a consideration for excluding the Offeror’s proposal from the competitive range and further consideration for award. The burden of proof rests with the Offeror.

5.7. Consistency

The Government will compare the information the Offeror provides in the Model Contract to the information the Offeror provides in the Cost/Price volume to ensure the information in the former is identical to that in the latter. The Government reserves the right to determine that, if any inconsistency exists between the Model Contract and the Cost/Price volume, the Model Contract will take precedence. In the event there is inconsistency, the value in the Model Contract will be used in the TEP calculation.

6. Past Performance

The Past Performance evaluation results in an assessment of the offeror’s probability of meeting the solicitation requirements.

6.1. Ratings

The Past Performance factor will receive one of the performance confidence assessments described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 6.1 – Performance Confidence Assessments, excerpted below.

Table 6.1, DOD Source Selection Procedures

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

LIMITED CONFIDENCE

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

NO

CONFIDENCE

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

UNKNOWN CONFIDENCE No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s file://Periwinkle/SAF_AQC_ORG/AQCP/5640%20-%20AFFARS/AFAC%20Working%20Folders%20--%20PM/1.%20%20Published%20Baseline/MP5315.3.doc#p5522

6.2. Evaluation Process.

The past performance evaluation considers each offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet the contract’s requirements. Performance confidence is assessed at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the offeror’s recent past performance, focusing on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors (Program Management, Systems Engineering) and Cost/Price factor, taking into consideration their relative order of importance stated in M 1.1. The Government may consider past performance in the aggregate in addition to on an individual contract basis.

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 available to the Government, to include, but not limited to, the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), or other databases; interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers and Fee Determining Officials; the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA), and commercial sources.

6.3. Recency Assessment

An assessment of the past performance information will be made to determine if it is recent. To be recent, the effort must be ongoing or must have been performed during the past 5 years from the date of issuance of this solicitation. Past performance information that fails this condition will not be evaluated. Note that the Government generally will not consider performance on a newly awarded contract without a performance history or on an effort that concluded more than 5 years prior to this source selection.

Programs with less than a year of performance will be considered relevant for Program Management (Subfactor 1).

6.4. Relevancy Assessment

The Government will conduct an in-depth evaluation of all recent performance information obtained to determine how closely the products provided/services performed under those contracts relate to the Technical

(NEUTRAL) performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

subfactors and Cost/Price factor.

The following relevancy tables outline the criteria to be used for evaluating contract relevance and provide performance assessment guidelines. Unless otherwise specified in Table 6.2, all elements listed apply to both prime Offeror and all subcontractor team members.

Table 6.2, RELEVANCY CRITERIA TABLE Subfactor 1: Program Management Very Relevant For a contract to be considered Very Relevant for this subfactor, the contract must have included more than 75% of the following requirements:

Workforce Management Sustainment/maintenance actions did not result in system issues.

Nominal maintenance/sustainment actions executed with minimal (<1 hour) downtime.

External Coordination Contractor demonstrated effective response to problems and changes to mission requirements.

Personnel Hiring/Staffing/Retention Contractor recruited and staffed effectively meeting clearance and certification requirements.

Skills Mix Contractor provides facilities staff, system administrators, network engineers, hardware engineers, and software engineers as required.

Security Clearances Contract required TOP SECRET and higher cleared personnel (TS-SSBI eligible) at the DoD level.

Transition Contract required maintaining mission support continuity while transitioning/phasing in resource and personnel to support other activities.

Performed as a Prime contractor with multiple subcontractors. (Applicable to Prime Offeror only) Relevant Workforce Management Contractor staffing met all requirements.

Nominal maintenance/sustainment actions executed with nominal (<2 hour) downtime Contract required an ability to increase or decrease the workforce within 6 months notification of need.

Contract required contract modifications to be submitted with 3 months of notification.

External Coordination Contractor consistently provided viable mission alternatives to new requirements within the customer specified time.

Personnel Hiring/Staffing/Retention Contractor turnover under 30% per year.

Skills Mix Contract required experienced personnel in the following areas: configuration management, quality assurance, and testing.

Security Clearances Contract required DoD TOP SECRET clearances.

Transition Contract required rapid (<1 hour) response during nominal business hours and on-call support within 2 hours for non-business hours. Resolution in one hour or less after response.

Performed as a Prime contractor with one subcontractor. (Applicable to Prime Offeror only)

Somewhat Relevant Workforce Management Contractor recruited and staffed effectively supporting timelines and task accomplishment.

Contract required contract modifications to be submitted within 6 months or more of notification.

External Coordination Contract required participation in a collaborative, team environment. Team members included mission stakeholders (e.g. payloaders, spacecraft manufacturers), or other contractors or government organizations.

Personnel Hiring/Staffing/Retention Contract staffing is less than or equal to 80 FTEs (Overall Contract).

Skills Mix Contract required experienced personnel to work in a mixed classification environment with data containing a mix of classifications/caveats.

Security Clearances Contract required SECRET clearances.

Transition Contract did not require a transition.

Performed as a Prime contractor on an effort. (Applicable to Prime Offeror only)

Subfactor 2: System Engineering (including development) Very Relevant

Concept Exploration Short timelines for generating concepts and associated ROMs.

Small (<20%) deviation between estimated and actual cost/schedule/performance.

Requirements Definition Identification of an infeasible requirement set and proposed adjustments.

MUS

Successfully executed MUS development tasks requiring tradeoffs between cost/schedule/performance.

Troubleshooting Executed rapid identification and resolution (return-to-service) of operational issues.

Executed root cause analysis/design/implementation/test/deployment of approved fixes.

Testing Developed both developmental and integration test plans and procedures.

Training and Certification Developed, maintained, and executed a training or certification program.

Architecture Analysis Derived an architecture optimizing against customer specified criteria.

Design Created design(s) meeting customer requirements, consistent with the existing/proposed architecture Implementation Successfully implemented the approved design within estimated cost/schedule.

Testing Developed test plans and procedures, accounting for external schedule constraints.

Identified risks and potential mitigations associated with a slimmed down test process Transition to Operations Successfully transitioned completed implementation to operations with minimal operational impact.

Relevant

Concept Exploration In response to tasking, development of alternate concepts with associated costs/schedule/risks.

Requirements Definition Derivation of requirements from customer delivered requirements.

MUS

Deployed/integrated externally developed MUS.

Implement repair actions for hardware/software issues.

Troubleshooting Maintained problem report/resolution database.

Create/manage fault tree analysis for problems.

Testing Successful execution of testing programs.

Training and Certification Maintained and executed a training or certification program.

Architecture Analysis Analyze existing architecture for weaknesses.

Proposed architectural modifications to remove existing architectural weaknesses.

Design Reviewed existing designs for weaknesses.

Proposed design modifications to remove existing design weaknesses.

Implementation Implemented a continuous product improvement process for existing implementation.

Successfully modified existing implementation to improve cost/performance.

Testing Develop test plans and procedures for contractor developed products.

Transition to Operations Successful execution of testing programs (no unexpected post-deployment issues).

Somewhat Relevant Concept Exploration Provide assessment of proposed concepts – effort, risk, schedule.

Requirements Definition Developed requirements verification test matrices for assigned tasks.

MUS

Deploy externally developed MUS.

Troubleshooting Performed basic troubleshooting of operational issues.

Testing Executed successful development test plan.

Training and Certification Executed an existing training and certification program.

Architecture Analysis Document existing architecture.

Design Document existing design.

Implementation Upgrade existing implementation.

Testing Performed basic troubleshooting of operational issues.

Transition to Operations Executed development test plan.

For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the relevance of the work performed will generally be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered).A relevancy determination of the offeror’s past performance will be made based upon the aforementioned considerations, including joint venture partner(s) and major and critical subcontractor(s). In determining relevancy for individual contracts, consideration will be given to the effort, or portion of the effort, being proposed by the offeror, teaming partner, or subcontractor whose contract is being reviewed and evaluated. The past performance information forms (PIFs) and information obtained from other sources will be used to establish the degree of relevancy of past performance.

The Government will use the following relevancy definitions when assessing recent, relevant contracts (DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 6.1):

Rating Definition

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.

6.5. Performance Quality Assessment

The Government will consider the performance quality of recent, relevant efforts (how well the contractor performed on the contracts). For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the performance quality of the work performed will be assessed for the Technical subfactors and Cost/Price Factor (however, all aspects of performance that relate to this acquisition may be considered). The quality assessment consists of an in-depth evaluation of all past performance information available, regardless of its source. The quality assessment may result in positive or adverse findings. Adverse is defined as past performance information that supports a less than satisfactory rating on any evaluation element or any unfavorable comment received from sources without a formal rating system. For adverse information identified, the evaluation will consider the number and severity of the problem(s), mitigating circumstances, and the effectiveness of corrective actions that have resulted in sustained improvements. Process changes will only be considered when objectively measurable improvements in performance have been demonstrated. The Government will use the following quality levels when assessing recent, relevant efforts:

Table 6.3, Quality Assessment Rating/Color and Description Table

Quality Assessment

Rating/Color Description

EXCEPTIONAL (E)/BLUE During the contract period, contractor performance is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) many. Very few, if any, minor problems encountered.

Contractor took immediate and effective corrective action.

VERY GOOD (VG)/PURPLE During the contract period, contractor is meeting (or met) all contract requirements and consistently exceeding (or exceeded) some. Some minor problems encountered. Contractor took timely corrective action.

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

MARGINAL (M)/YELLOW During the contract period, contractor performance is not meeting (or did not meet) some contract requirements. For problems encountered, corrective action appeared only marginally effective, not effective, or not fully implemented.

Customer involvement was required.

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

NOT APPLICABLE (N)/WHITE Unable to provide a rating. Contract did not include performance for this aspect. Do not know.

6.6. Assigning Ratings

As a result of the relevancy and quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, offerors will receive an integrated performance confidence assessment rating. Although the past performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and cost/price factor, the resulting performance confidence assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents a confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. 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 an "Unknown Confidence" rating for the Past Performance factor.

More recent and relevant 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 an "Unknown Confidence" rating.

Likewise, a more relevant past performance record may receive a higher confidence rating and be considered more favorably than a less relevant record of favorable performance.

7. Contract Documentation

The proposal documentation contained in Volume IV of Section L will be reviewed to ensure all required documentation was provided in response to the solicitation, and the provided documentation will be relied upon to facilitate the CO’s determination of contractor responsibility, and to determine eligibility for award. This will include the review of actual or potential OCIs and other information required in Section L.

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 or whether there is little or no likelihood that such conflict exists. In making this determination, the Contracting Officer will consider the representations 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 and mitigated.

7.1. 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 or subfactors.

Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the solicitation may result in the Offeror being ineligible for award.

7.2. Professional Employee Compensation Plan

The Professional Employee Compensation Plan submitted in response to the solicitation will be evaluated in accordance with FAR clause 52.222-46. The Compensation Plan will be relied upon as one of the elements in determining if an offeror is responsible (IAW FAR 9.1) and will subsequently factor into the Contracting Officer’s determination of the apparent successful offeror’s eligibility for award.