(U) 00. HADES_Section M_20260630.pdf

UNCLASSIFIED

i

UNCLASSIFIED

HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

PART V – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

FA8809-26-R-B002

SPACE SYSTEMS COMMAND (SSC)

SYSTEMS DELTA 89 (SYD89)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DELTA (SD)

INNOVATION AND PROTOTYPING DIVISION GROUND (SDG)

KIRTLAND AFB, NM

30 JUNE 2026

Distribution Statement A. Approved for public release. Distribution is unlimited.

Destruction Notice: For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of the contents or reconstruction of the document.

ii

UNCLASSIFIED

Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

6/30/2026

(U) HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

PART V – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

(U) Contents

(U) Contents .................................................................................................................................................................. ii

1. (U) SOURCE SELECTION

1.1 (U) Basis for Award

a. Best Value Determination

b. Evaluation Approach

c. IDIQ Contract and Initial Task Orders

d. Incorporation of Proposal Elements

1.2 (U) Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 (U) Discussions and Award Determination

a. Competitive Range Determination (In the event discussions are held)

1.3.1 (U) Evaluation Notices (In the event discussions are held)

1.4 (U) Source Selection Organization

a. Source Selection Authority (SSA)

b. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB)

c. Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC)

d. Contracting Officer (CO)

e. Advisory and Subject Matter Experts

1.5 (U) Communications During Evaluation

1.6 (U) Debriefings

a. Pre-Award Debriefings

b. Post-Award Debriefings

c. Protest Timeline and Debriefing Impact

1.7 (U) Protests

a. Agency-Level Protests

b. GAO Protests

c. Court of Federal Claims

d. Automatic Stay of Award

1.8 (U) Proposal Withdrawal

1.9 (U) Anticipated Evaluation Timeline

a. Anticipated Milestones

2. (U) SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS

2.1 (U) Compliance Requirement

2.2 (U) Proposal Responsiveness

2.2.1 (U) Material Non-Compliance

2.2.2 (U) Minor Irregularities

2.2.3 (U) Clarifications

2.3 (U) Questions and Interpretation

2.4 (U) Responsibility Determination

2.5 (U) Amendments

3. (U) EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

iii

UNCLASSIFIED

3.1 (U) Overview

3.2 (U) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors

3.2.1 (U) Evaluation Factors

3.3 (U) Factor Descriptions

3.3.1 (U) Factor 1: Technical

3.3.1.1 (U) Subfactor 1.1: Program Management: Administrative Requirements

3.3.1.2 (U) Subfactor 1.2: Program Management: Staffing/Labor Profile

3.3.1.3 (U) Subfactor 1.3: Program Management: Emerging Requirements Response

3.3.1.4 (U) Subfactor 1.4: Systems Engineering: SE Approach and Methodology

3.3.1.5 (U) Subfactor 1.5: Systems Engineering: Configuration Management

3.3.2 (U) Factor 2: Past Performance

3.3.3 (U) Factor 3: Cost/Price

3.4 (U) Relative Importance

3.4.1 (U) Factor-Level Importance

a. TECHNICAL VS. PAST PERFORMANCE:

b. TECHNICAL VS. COST/PRICE:

c. PAST PERFORMANCE VS. COST/PRICE:

d. NON-COST VS. COST (COMBINED):

e. OVERALL BEST VALUE DETERMINATION:

3.4.2 (U) Subfactor-Level Importance

a. WITHIN FACTOR 1 (TECHNICAL):

b. Within Program Management (Subfactors 1.1–1.3)

c. Within Systems Engineering (Subfactors 1.4–1.5)

3.4.3 (U) FAR 15.304(e) Determination

3.5 (U) Evaluation Methodology Overview

3.5.1 (U) Technical Factor Evaluation

a. TECHNICAL CAPABILITY RATING:

b. TECHNICAL RISK RATING:

3.5.2 (U) Past Performance Factor Evaluation

3.5.3 (U) Cost/Price Factor Evaluation

3.6 (U) Integrated Assessment and Trade-Off Approach

3.6.1 (U) Integrated of Technical Capability and Technical Risk

3.6.2 (U) Integration of Technical Subfactors

3.6.3 (U) Integration of Technical and Past Performance

3.6.4 (U) Integration of Non-Cost and Cost Factors

3.6.5 (U) Overall Proposal Risk Assessment

3.6.6 (U) Best Value Trade-Off Decision

3.7 (U) Unawardable Conditions

3.7.1 (U) Technical Factor Unawardable Conditions

3.7.2 (U) Past Performance Unawardable Conditions

3.7.3 (U) Cost/Price Factor Unawardable Conditions

3.7.4 (U) Contract Documentation and Compliance: Unawardable Conditions

3.7.5 (U) Effect of Unawardable Determination

3.8 (U) Cross-References To Detailed Evaluation Criteria

4. (U) TECHNICAL EVALUATION

4.1 (U) Technical Capability Rating Methodology

4.2 (U) Technical Risk Rating Methodology

4.3 (U) Technical Subfactors Criteria

4.3.1 (U) Subfactor 1.1, Program Management: Administrative Requirements (Sec L 4.3.1)

4.3.1.1 (U) Key Personnel (Sec L 4.3.1.1)

4.3.1.2 (U) Personnel Security Requirements (Sec L 4.3.1.2)

4.3.1.3 (U) Transition (Sec L 4.3.1.3)

4.3.1.4 (U) Small Business (Sec L 4.3.1.4)

4.3.2 (U) Subfactor 1.2, Program Management: Staffing/Labor Profile (Sec L 4.3.2)

4.3.3 (U) Subfactor 1.3, Program Management: Emerging Requirements (Sec L 4.3.3) iv

UNCLASSIFIED

4.3.3.1 (U) Evaluation Approach

4.3.3.2 (U) Evaluation Elements

a. (U) Evaluation Element 1: Staffing Approach

b. (U) Evaluation Element 2: Baseline Performance Protection

c. (U) Evaluation Element 3: Flexibility and Adaptability

d. (U) Evaluation Element 4: Execution Strategy, Schedule, and Risk Management

4.3.3.3 (U) Overall Evaluation Philosophy and Intent

a. (U) Strengths and Weaknesses

b. (U) Overall Technical Risk Assessment

c. (U) Overall Technical Capability Assessment

4.3.4 (U) Subfactor 1.4, Systems Engineer: SE Approach and Methodology (Sec L 4.3.4)

a. (U) SE Approach and Methodology

b. (U) Evaluation Criteria and Standards

4.3.5 (U) Subfactor 1.5, Systems Engineering: Configuration Management (Sec L 4.3.5)

5. (U) COST/PRICE EVALUATION

5.1 (U) General Government Cost/Price Evaluation Approach

5.2 (U) Total Proposed Price (TPP)

5.3 (U) Total Evaluated Price (TEP)

5.3.1 (U) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) Computation Table

a. Relationship of Table 25 and Table 27:

b. What TEP is NOT:

5.3.2 (U) Treatment of Cost-Reimbursable and CPAF CLINs

5.3.3 (U) Treatment of Firm-Fixed-Price CLINs

5.4 (U) Evaluation Areas

5.4.1 (U) Reasonableness

5.4.2 (U) Cost Realism

5.4.3 (U) Unbalanced Pricing

5.5 (U) Data Rights

5.6 (U) Insufficient Details

5.7 (U) Consistency

6. (U) PAST PERFORMANCE

6.1 (U) Performance Confidence Ratings

6.2 (U) Evaluation Process and Information Sources

6.3 (U) Recency Assessment

6.4 (U) Relevancy Assessment

6.4.1 (U) Definition of “Magnitude of Effort”

6.4.2 (U) Relevancy Roll-Up Methodology

6.4.3 (U) Detailed Relevancy Criteria Tables (PM, SE, Cost/Schedule)

6.4.3.1 (U) Summary of Key Dimensions by Question

6.4.3.2 (U) Part A: Program Management Relevancy Criteria (PM-1 to PM-4)

6.4.3.3 (U) Part B: Systems Engineering Relevancy Criteria

6.4.3.4 (U) Part C: Cost/Schedule/Performance Relevancy Criteria

6.4.4 (U) Simplified Overall Relevancy Determination

6.4.4.1 (U) Scoring Instructions: Simplified Overall Relevancy Determination

6.4.4.2 (U) Example: Relevancy Determination Matrix Utilization

6.4.5 (U) Relevancy Assessment Summary

6.5 (U) Performance Quality Assessment

6.6 (U) Performance Confidence: Assignment of Ratings

7. (U) CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION

7.1 (U) Contractor Responsibility Determination

7.1.1 (U) Overview

7.1.2 (U) Responsibility Standards (FAR 9.104-1)

7.1.3 (U) Pre-Award Survey

7.1.4 (U) Information Requests v

UNCLASSIFIED

7.1.5 (U) Non-Responsibility Determination

7.1.6 (U) Responsibility After Award

7.2 (U) Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

7.2.1 (U) Overview and Purpose

7.2.2 (U) Types of Organizational Conflicts of Interest

7.2.2.1 (U) Biased Ground Rules (FAR 9.505-1)

7.2.2.2 (U) Impaired Objectivity (FAR 9.505-2)

7.2.2.3 (U) Unequal Access to Information (FAR 9.505-4)

7.2.3 (U) HADES-Specific OCI Scenarios

7.2.3.1 (U) Associate Contractor Agreement (ACA) Scenario

7.2.3.2 (U) Incumbent Contractor Scenario

7.2.3.3 (U) Other Potential OCI Scenarios

7.2.4 (U) Disclosure Requirements

7.2.4.1 (U) Affirmative Disclosure Obligation

7.2.4.2 (U) What to Disclose

a. Identification of Actual or Potential OCIs

b. HADES-Specific Scenarios

c. Mitigation Plan (if applicable)

d. No OCI Statement

7.2.4.3 (U) Disclosure Format

7.2.4.4 (U) Subcontractor and Team Member OCIs

7.2.4.5 (U) Continuing Disclosure Obligation

7.2.5 (U) Mitigation Plans

7.2.5.1 (U) When Mitigation is Required

7.2.5.2 (U) Mitigation Plan Requirements

a. Specific Mitigation Measures

b. Implementation Timeline

c. Monitoring and Compliance

d. Reporting to the Government

e. Enforcement

f. Effectiveness Assessment

7.2.5.3 (U) Mitigation Plan Examples

a. Example 1: ACA Scenario Mitigation

7.2.5.4 (U) Unacceptable Mitigation Plans

7.2.6 (U) Government Evaluation of OCIs

7.2.6.1 (U) Contracting Officer Responsibilities

7.2.6.2 (U) Evaluation Criteria

7.2.6.3 (U) Possible OCI Determinations

7.2.6.4 (U) Requests for Additional Information

7.2.6.5 (U) OCI Determinations Are Not Protestable

7.2.7 (U) Consequences of OCI Determinations

7.2.7.1 (U) Unmitigable OCI

7.2.7.2 (U) Mitigated OCI

7.2.7.3 (U) Failure to Disclose OCI

7.2.8 (U) Post-Award OCI Management

7.2.8.1 (U) Continuing Obligation

7.2.8.2 (U) Annual OCI Certification

7.2.8.3 (U) Government Monitoring

7.3 (U) Representations and Certifications

7.3.1 (U) Overview

7.3.2 (U) SAM.gov Registration

7.3.3 (U) Proposal Submission Requirements

7.3.4 (U) Accuracy and Currency

7.4 (U) Small Business Subcontracting

7.4.1 (U) Overview and Applicability

7.4.2 (U) Large Business Offerors - Small Business Subcontracting Plan vi

UNCLASSIFIED

7.4.3 (U) Small Business Offerors - Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD)

7.4.4 (U) Meaningful Work Requirement

7.4.5 (U) Calculation Method

a. Calculation Formula

b. Example Calculation

7.4.6 (U) Small Business Types

7.4.7 (U) Evaluation

a. For Large Business Offerors

b. For Small Business Offerors

7.4.8 (U) Post-Award Compliance

7.5 (U) Model Contract

7.5.1 (U) Overview and Purpose

7.5.2 (U) Model Contract Requirements

7.5.3 (U) Pricing in the Model Contract

7.5.4 (U) Instructions for Completing the Model Contract

a. General Instructions

b. Specific Instructions for Key Sections

7.5.5 (U) Review and Quality Control

7.5.6 (U) Evaluation of the Model Contract

7.5.7 (U) Use of the Model Contract in Contract Award

7.6 (U) Other Required Documentation

7.6.1 (U) Organizational Structure

7.6.2 (U) Points of Contact

7.6.3 (U) Subcontractor Information

7.6.4 (U) Facilities and Security Clearances

7.6.5 (U) Financial Information

7.6.6 (U) Insurance

7.7 (U) Relationship To Other Sections of Section M

7.7.1 (U) Impact of Contract Documentation on Award Eligibility

7.8 (U) Evaluation Sequence vii

UNCLASSIFIED

Tables

Table 1. (U) Integrated Assessment Framework Table 2. (U) Overall Proposal Risk Assessment Table 3. (U) Technical Capability Rating Method Table 4. (U) Technical Risk Ratings Table 5. (U) Technical Subfactor Evaluation Basis Table 6. (U) Subfactor 1.1 Administrative Criteria Table 7. (U) Evaluation Standards (Subfactor 1.1, Key Personnel) Table 8. (U) Evaluation Standards (Subfactor 1.1, Personnel Security Requirements) Table 9. (U) Evaluation Standards (Subfactor 1.1, Transition) Table 10. (U) Evaluation Standards (Subfactor 1.1, Small Business) Table 11. (U) Subfactor 1.2 Definitions Table 12. (U) Evaluation Element 1: Key Evaluation Considerations Table 13. (U) Evaluation Element 1: Ratings Definitions Table 14. (U) Evaluation Element 2: Key Evaluation Considerations Table 15. (U) Evaluation Element 2: Ratings Definitions Table 16. (U) Evaluation Element 3: Key Evaluation Considerations Table 17. (U) Evaluation Element 3: Ratings Definitions Table 18. (U) Evaluation Element 4: Key Evaluation Considerations Table 19. (U) Evaluation Element 4: Ratings Definitions Table 20. (U) Strengths and Weaknesses (Overall) Table 21. (U) Technical Risk Assessment Scale (Subfactor 1.3) Table 22. (U) Overall Technical Capability Assessment Scale (Subfactor 1.3) Table 23. (U) Evaluation Standards (Subfactor 1.4, SE Approach and Methodology) Table 24. (U) Evaluation Standards (Subfactor 1.5) Table 25. (U) Cost/Price Evaluation Table 26. (U) TEP Computation Table Reference Table 27. (U) TEP Computation Table Table 28. (U) DoD Source Selection Procedures: Performance Confidence Ratings Table 29. (U) “Magnitude of Effort” Defined Table 30. (U) Relevancy Roll-up Principles Table 31. (U) Summary of Key Dimensions by Question Table 32. (U) PM-1: Workforce & Resource Management Table 33. (U) PM-2: Stakeholder Coordination & Communication Table 34. (U) PM-3: Transition Management Table 35. (U) PM-4: Maintenance & Sustainment Table 36. (U) SE-1: Requirements Analysis & Solution Development Table 37. (U) SE-2: Design, Implementation & Integration Table 38. (U) SE-3: Testing, Verification & Problem Resolution Table 39. (U) SE-4: Transition to Operations Table 40. (U) CP-1: Cost Performance Table 41. (U) CP-2: Schedule Performance Table 42. (U) Relevancy Determination Matrix Table 43. (U) Relevancy Determination Matrix Table 44. (U) Quality Assessment Rating/Color and Description Table Table 45. (U) Limited vs. No Confidence Ratings Table 46. (U) Relationship to Evaluation Factors

Figures

Figure 1. (U) Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Hierarchy Figure 2. (U) Technical Subfactor Importance Figure 3. (U) Evaluation Factor Hierarchy Figure 4. (U) Technical Subfactor Hierarchy

Copy no. ____ of ____ copies Innovation and Prototyping Division Ground

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

6/30/2026

(U) HYBRID ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT FOR

EXPERIMENTAL SYSTEMS (HADES) SERVICES

PART V – REPRESENTATIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS

SECTION M – EVALUATION FACTORS FOR AWARD

1. (U) SOURCE SELECTION.

1.1 (U) Basis for Award This is a best value Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) acquisition conducted in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Part 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 https://www.acquisition.gov/.

The Government will award a contract to the responsible offeror whose proposal conforms to solicitation requirements and represents best value based on an integrated assessment of the evaluation factors in Section 3.0:

Technical (including Program Management and Systems Engineering subfactors), Past Performance, and Cost/Price.

a. Best Value Determination “Best value" means the expected outcome that provides the greatest overall benefit in response to the requirement (FAR 2.101). The Government seeks to award to the Offeror providing the greatest confidence of successfully meeting or exceeding HADES requirements.

This may result in award to a higher rated, higher priced offeror if the Source Selection Authority (SSA) determines that Technical Superiority and/or Past Performance confidence outweigh the cost difference and represent best overall value.

The SSA will base the source selection decision on an integrated assessment of all proposals against Section 3 evaluation factors and subfactors, considering their relative importance. The rationale will be documented in the Source Selection Decision Document (SSDD).

b. Evaluation Approach The evaluation is comparative and qualitative, not based on numerical scores. While the Government strives for maximum objectivity, source selection inherently involves professional judgment in assessing which proposal best meets Government needs. All judgments will be based on stated evaluation criteria and documented in the evaluation record.

c. IDIQ Contract and Initial Task Orders This solicitation requests a single proposal covering:

• The HADES IDIQ contract (Basic IDIQ PWS, Section J, Attachment 1).

• Seven (7) initial Task Orders:

o Task Order 01: Transition (No Separate PWS) o Task Order 02: Ground Control (Section L, Attachment X) o Task Order 03: JAGUAR (Section L, Attachment X) o Task Order 04: Ground Support (Section L, Attachment X) o Task Order 05: ACME (Section L, Attachment X) o Task Order 06: Ground Systems (Section L, Attachment X) o Task Order 07: Special Studies (Section L, Attachment X) https://www.acquisition.gov/

The Government will evaluate the offeror's proposed approach for the IDIQ contract and all three initial Task Orders as an integrated whole. Award will be based on demonstrated ability to successfully execute IDIQ requirements and all initial Task Orders collectively.

Initial Task Orders represent the types and complexity of work anticipated under future Task Orders. Competitively established labor rates, pricing structure, and demonstrated Technical approach provide the basis for fair and reasonable pricing and technical evaluation of future Task Orders.

Future Task Orders will be issued per FAR 16.505 and IDIQ contract ordering procedures (Section F). Future Task Orders may be issued without further competition to the IDIQ contract holder.

d. Incorporation of Proposal Elements In In accordance with DAFFARS MP5315.3.3.12, the contract awarded under this solicitation will incorporate all beneficial aspects of the awardee's proposal for which evaluation credit was given during the source selection process. This includes the following:

• All above-minimum attributes, performance levels, or capabilities that resulted in higher Technical Ratings (e.g., Good or Outstanding).

• All strengths identified during evaluation that contributed to the source selection decision.

• All commitments made within the proposal considered advantageous to the Government.

Offerors should clearly identify which proposal elements are minimum requirements (will be met exactly as stated in the PWS) versus exceeds/beneficial offerings (will become contractual requirements if credited in evaluation).

The Government will work with the selected Offeror during contract finalization to ensure all credited proposal elements are properly incorporated into contract documents.

1.2 (U) Number of Contracts to be Awarded The Government intends to award one (1) IDIQ contract. However, the Government reserves the right to make no award if in the Government's best interest, award the IDIQ with fewer than four initial Task Orders if appropriate, or cancel this solicitation at any time before award.

The Government determined a single IDIQ award is appropriate based on the integrated nature of the ground system support mission and the need for continuity across multiple missions and operational floors.

1.3 (U) Discussions and Award Determination The Government intends to make award based on initial proposals without conducting discussions, in accordance with FAR 15.306(a)(3).

Therefore, Offerors are strongly encouraged to submit their most competitive proposal initially, including best terms and pricing. Ensure proposals are complete, compliant, clearly address all evaluation criteria, and provide sufficient detail for full evaluation. Offerors should not assume the Government will request clarifications or conduct discussions to cure proposal deficiencies or improve competitiveness.

a. Competitive Range Determination (In the event discussions are held) If the Government determines that discussions are in the Government's best interest, a competitive range will be established in accordance with FAR 15.306(c). The competitive range will include all proposals that have a reasonable chance of being selected for award. To promote effectiveness and efficiency in the evaluation, the Government may limit the competitive range to the most highly rated proposals.

In determining whether to limit the competitive range, the Government will consider, for example:

• Whether the number of proposals received exceeds the number that can be effectively managed in discussions.

• Whether proposals not included in the competitive range have a realistic potential to become competitive through discussions (considering the magnitude of deficiencies, weaknesses, and cost/price differences).

• Whether proposals not included in the competitive range present significant advantages or benefits that warrant pursuit through discussions based on the evaluation criteria in Section 3.

The Government may adjust the competitive range after initial establishment if proposals are determined to no longer have a reasonable chance of being selected for award.

Only Offerors included in the competitive range will receive Evaluation Notices (ENs) and participate in discussions. Offerors excluded from the competitive range will be notified in writing and may request a debriefing in accordance with FAR 15.505 (see Section 1.6).

1.3.1 (U) Evaluation Notices (In the event discussions are held) If the Government establishes a competitive range and conducts discussions, Evaluation Notices (ENs) may be issued to offerors in the competitive range in accordance with FAR 15.306.

Following discussions, the Government will establish a common cutoff date for receipt of Final Proposal Revisions (FPRs) from all offerors in the competitive range. FPRs must respond to ENs and may revise any part of the proposal. The Government will evaluate FPRs and make the source selection decision based on the final proposals.

1.4 (U) Source Selection Organization The source selection will be conducted by a Source Selection Team consisting of the following elements:

a. Source Selection Authority (SSA) The SSA is the senior Government official responsible for making the source selection decision. The SSA will review all evaluation materials (including evaluation team findings, SSAC analysis, and comparative assessments), conduct an integrated assessment of all proposals considering evaluation factors and their relative importance, make the best value tradeoff decision, and document the rationale in the SSDD. The SSA's decision is final and not subject to review by other Government officials.

b. Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) The SSEB consists of multiple evaluation teams, each responsible for evaluating specific factors.

• Technical Evaluation Team: Evaluates Technical factor and all five subfactors (Program Management:

Administrative Requirements, Staffing/Labor Profile, Emerging Requirements Response; Systems Engineering: SE Approach and Methodology, Configuration Management). Assigns Technical Capability and Technical Risk ratings and documents strengths, weaknesses, significant weaknesses, deficiencies, and risks.

• Past Performance Evaluation Team: Evaluates Past Performance factor. Assesses recency, relevancy, and quality of cited contracts and assigns Performance Confidence Assessment rating per Section M 6.0.

• Cost/Price Evaluation Team: Evaluates Cost/Price factor. Assesses price reasonableness, conducts cost realism analysis, evaluates unbalanced pricing, and calculates Total Evaluated Price (TEP).

• Contract Documentation Review Team: Reviews proposal compliance with solicitation requirements, including representations, certifications, OCI disclosures, and other required documentation.

c. Source Selection Advisory Council (SSAC) The SSAC will review all evaluation team findings and ratings, ensure consistency and quality across all evaluations, conduct comparative analysis of proposals, integrate findings across all factors and subfactors, and provide recommendations and analysis to the SSA. The SSAC does not assign ratings or make the source selection decision. The SSAC's role is advisory to the SSA.

d. Contracting Officer (CO) The Contracting Officer is responsible for solicitation development, coordination, and issuance, all communications with Offerors, Responsibility Determination in accordance with FAR 9.1, Organizational Conflict of Interest determination in accordance with FAR 9.5, contract award and post-award administration, and ensuring compliance with FAR, DFARS, and DAFFARS requirements.

e. Advisory and Subject Matter Experts The Government may use advisors and subject matter experts to support evaluation in specific technical areas.

Advisors provide expertise but do not make evaluation decisions or assign ratings.

1.5 (U) Communications During Evaluation From proposal submission until contract award, all communications regarding this solicitation or evaluation must be directed to the Contracting Officer.

From proposal submission until award, Offerors and their representatives shall not:

• Contact evaluation team members, SSAC members, or the SSA directly regarding this solicitation or evaluation.

• Contact Government program office personnel regarding this solicitation, evaluation, or the offeror's proposal.

• Contact other Government personnel attempting to influence the source selection process.

• Engage in lobbying activities directed at source selection through Congressional or other external contacts.

• Engage in conduct that could be perceived as attempting to influence source selection outside the established evaluation process.

Violation of these communication restrictions may result in proposal removal from award consideration.

Permitted communications (directed to the Contracting Officer):

• Questions or requests for clarification regarding the solicitation (before proposal submission).

• Responses to Government requests for information.

• Responses to Evaluation Notices (if discussions are held).

• Requests for pre-award or post-award debriefings.

• Protest filings.

• Requests to withdraw proposals.

All communications must be in writing (email acceptable) unless otherwise specified by the Contracting Officer.

1.6 (U) Debriefings Unless otherwise stated, all ‘days’ in this section are calendar days.

a. Pre-Award Debriefings Per FAR 15.505, Offerors excluded from the competitive range or otherwise excluded from competition before award may request a pre-award debriefing. Requests must be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer within three (3) days after receipt of notice of exclusion. The Government will provide a pre-award debriefing within five

(5) days after receipt of the request. Debriefings may be conducted orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable to the Contracting Officer.

Pre-award debriefings will include the Government's evaluation of significant elements in the Offeror's proposal, a summary of the rationale for eliminating the offeror from competition, and reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures were followed.

Pre-award debriefings will NOT include the number of offerors, identity of other Offerors, content of other Offerors' proposals, ranking of other Offerors, information about other Offerors' prices, or other information exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552)

b. Post-Award Debriefings Per FAR 15.506, Offerors whose proposals were in the competitive range (or would have been, if a competitive range had been established) may request a post-award debriefing. Requests must be submitted in writing to the Contracting Officer within three (3) days following receipt of notification of contract award. The Government will provide a post-award debriefing within five (5) days after receipt of the request. Debriefings may be conducted orally, in writing, or by any other method acceptable to the Contracting Officer.

Post-award debriefings will include:

• Government's evaluation of significant weaknesses or deficiencies in the Offeror's proposal, if applicable

• Overall evaluated cost or price (TEP) and technical rating of the successful Offeror and the debriefed offeror, stated in general terms.

• Overall ranking of all Offerors, when any ranking was developed by the Government during source selection.

• Summary of the rationale for award.

• Reasonable responses to relevant questions about whether source selection procedures were followed.

Post-award debriefings will NOT include point-by-point comparisons of the debriefed Offeror's proposal with other proposals, information about other Offerors' proposals (except as provided above), or information exempt from release under the Freedom of Information Act.

c. Protest Timeline and Debriefing Impact Offerors receiving a post-award debriefing and wishing to protest the award must file their protest with GAO within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the debriefing (FAR 33.104(a)(3)). Offerors should carefully consider protest timeliness when requesting debriefings.

1.7 (U) Protests Offerors may protest this solicitation or the award decision in accordance with FAR Subpart 33.1, Protests, Disputes, and Appeals.

a. Agency-Level Protests Protests may be filed with the Contracting Officer in accordance with FAR 33.103. Agency-level protests must be filed within the timeframes specified in FAR 33.103. Additionally, protests based on alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed before proposal submission and protests based on alleged improprieties that do not appear in the solicitation must be filed within ten (10) calendar days after the basis of protest is known or should have been known.

The Contracting Officer will provide a written decision on agency-level protests within 35 calendar days after the protest is filed, to the extent practicable, in accordance with FAR 33.103(g).

b. GAO Protests Protests may be filed with the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in accordance with FAR 33.104 and 4 CFR Part 21. GAO protest procedures and forms are available at www.gao.gov.

GAO protests must be filed within the timeframes specified in 4 CFR 21.2 and enumerated as follows:

• Protests based on alleged solicitation improprieties must be filed before proposal submission.

• Protests of proposal evaluation or source selection must be filed within ten (10) calendar days after the protester knew or should have known the basis of protest.

• Protests after post-award debriefing must be filed within ten (10) calendar days after the debriefing.

c. Court of Federal Claims Protests may be filed with the United States Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(b).

Court procedures and timeliness requirements are established by the Court.

d. Automatic Stay of Award In In accordance with FAR 33.104(b) and (c), if a GAO protest is filed within the applicable timeframes, the Contracting Officer shall not make award or shall suspend contract performance if award has already been made, unless an override determination is made in accordance with FAR 33.104(b) and (c).

Questions regarding protest procedures should be directed to the Contracting Officer.

1.8 (U) Proposal Withdrawal Offerors may withdraw their proposals at any time before award by submitting a written withdrawal request to the Contracting Officer. Withdrawal requests must be in writing (email preferred), be signed by an authorized representative of the Offeror and clearly identify the solicitation number and Offeror name.

Once withdrawn, proposals will not be considered for award. Withdrawn proposals may be resubmitted before the Solicitation closing date if the solicitation remains open. Proposals cannot be resubmitted after the closing date unless the solicitation is reopened.

Following award, the contract may only be terminated by mutual agreement of the parties or in accordance with the termination clauses in the contract.

1.9 (U) Anticipated Evaluation Timeline The Government anticipates the following timeline for evaluation and award. This timeline is provided for planning purposes only and may change based on the number and complexity of proposals received, the need for discussions, or other factors.

a. Anticipated Milestones

• Proposal Submission Deadline: [DATE] (See Section A, Block 8).

• Evaluation Period: Approximately [X] weeks from proposal submission.

• Competitive Range Determination (if discussions): Approximately [X] weeks after proposal submission.

• Evaluation Notices Issued (if discussions): Approximately [X] weeks after competitive range determination.

• Final Proposal Revisions (FPR) Due (if discussions): Approximately [X] weeks after ENs issued.

• Source Selection Decision: Approximately [X] weeks after FPR submission (or initial proposal submission if no discussions).

• Contract Award: Approximately [X] weeks after source selection decision.

The Government reserves the right to adjust this timeline at any time. Offerors will be notified of significant changes to the anticipated timeline that affect proposal submission or response deadlines. Offerors should not plan critical business activities or make commitments to key personnel based on this anticipated timeline, as actual dates may vary significantly.

2. (U) SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS, TERMS, AND CONDITIONS.

2.1 (U) Compliance Requirement Offerors must comply with all solicitation requirements, including but not limited to:

1. Section C – Description/Specifications/Work Statement o All Performance Work Statement (PWS) requirements (IDIQ and Task Orders) and technical specifications/standards

2. Section H – Special Contract Requirements o Contract Data Requirements Lists (CDRLs), security requirements, facility and personnel clearance requirements.

3. Section I – Contract Clauses o All incorporated FAR, DFARS, and DAFFARS clauses.

4. Section J – Attachments o All referenced attachments and exhibits, including the HADES IDIQ PWS, and Data Rights attachments.

5. Section K – Representations, Certifications, and Other Statements of Offerors o SAM.gov registration and representations, all required certifications, OCI disclosures and mitigation plan (if required).

6. Section L – Instructions, Conditions, and Notices to Offerors o Proposal format and content requirements, page limitations, submission procedures and deadlines, Small Business Subcontracting Plan (if applicable), Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD).

o Includes attachments such as Task Order PWSs and applicable Past Performance documents.

7. Section M – Evaluation Factors for Award o All evaluation factors and subfactors and the associated evaluation criteria.

2.2 (U) Proposal Responsiveness The Government will review each proposal for compliance with solicitation requirements. Proposals must be complete, compliant, and responsive to be considered for award.

2.2.1 (U) Material Non-Compliance Failure to comply with mandatory solicitation requirements constitutes material non-compliance and may render the proposal ineligible for award. Material non-compliance includes, but is not limited to:

• Failure to meet mandatory technical requirements (e.g., PWS requirements, Section L instructions expressly mandatory).

• Failure to submit required volumes or documentation.

• Failure to comply with page limitations as specified in Section L 2.2 (e.g., submission of volumes that materially exceed limits such that required content cannot be evaluated).

• Failure to provide required certifications or representations.

• Unresolved Organizational Conflicts of Interest.

• Failure to acknowledge solicitation amendments.

• Failure to meet small business participation requirements (if applicable).

• Submission of a non-compliant Model Contract (e.g., taking exceptions where none are permitted or failing to complete required fill-ins).

The determination of whether a particular non-compliance is material will be made by the Contracting Officer, in consultation with the SSA as appropriate.

2.2.2 (U) Minor Irregularities The Government may waive minor informalities or irregularities in proposals that are merely a matter of form and not substance, have negligible effect on price, quality, or delivery, can be corrected or waived without prejudice to other Offerors and/or do not provide a competitive advantage.

Examples of minor irregularities may include typographical errors that do not affect meaning, missing page numbers, non-material formatting deviations, and/or administrative omissions that can be corrected.

The Contracting Officer has sole discretion to determine whether a deficiency constitutes a minor irregularity or material non-compliance.

2.2.3 (U) Clarifications The Government reserves the right to request clarifications at any time during evaluation. Clarifications are limited exchanges between the Government and offerors for clarifying certain aspects of proposals or eliminating minor irregularities, informalities, or apparent clerical mistakes.

Clarifications may NOT be used to cure proposal deficiencies or material omissions, materially alter technical or cost elements of the proposal, or otherwise revise the proposal.

2.3 (U) Questions and Interpretation Offerors requiring clarification of solicitation requirements must submit questions per Section L, paragraph 1.5. The Government will not be bound by oral explanations or instructions. Only written amendments to the solicitation will modify its requirements.

2.4 (U) Responsibility Determination In addition to proposal evaluation, the Contracting Officer will make a contractor responsibility determination per FAR 9.1, considering whether the apparent successful Offeror:

• Has adequate financial resources or the ability to obtain them.

• Is able to comply with the required delivery or performance schedule.

• Has a satisfactory performance record.

• Has a satisfactory record of integrity and business ethics.

• Has the necessary organization, experience, accounting, and operational controls.

• Has the necessary production, construction, technical skills, and facilities.

• Is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.

The responsibility determination is separate from and in addition to the proposal evaluation and is not subject to the evaluation factors in Section M.

2.5 (U) Amendments The Government may amend this solicitation at any time before award. Offerors must acknowledge receipt of all amendments in accordance with the instructions provided in each amendment. Failure to acknowledge amendments may result in rejection of the proposal.

3. (U) EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS.

3.1 (U) Overview The Government will evaluate proposals using a Best Value trade-off approach in accordance with FAR 15.3, Source Selection. Award will be made to the responsible Offeror whose proposal conforms to the solicitation and represents the best value to the Government, considering the evaluation factors described in this section and their relative importance.

The evaluation is comparative and qualitative. Offerors will not receive numerical scores. The Source Selection Authority (SSA) will conduct an integrated assessment of all factors to determine which proposal provides the greatest overall benefit to the Government in meeting HADES requirements.

The Government seeks to award to the Offeror who gives the United States Space Force the greatest confidence that it will best meet, or exceed, the requirements. This may result in award to a higher-rated, higher-priced Offeror, where the decision is consistent with the evaluation factors and the SSA reasonably determines that the technical and/or past performance advantages outweigh the cost difference.

3.2 (U) Evaluation Factors and Subfactors The following evaluation factors and subfactors will be used to evaluate each proposal. They are listed in descending order of importance at the factor level (Technical, then Past Performance, then Cost/Price).

3.2.1 (U) Evaluation Factors

FACTOR 1: TECHNICAL (MOST IMPORTANT)

The Technical factor consists of five subfactors that correspond directly to the Volume II Technical structure in Section L 4.3:

• Subfactor 1.1 – Program Management: Administrative Requirements (Pass/Fail)

• Key Personnel

• Personnel Security Requirements

• Transition Plan

• Small Business Participation

• Subfactor 1.2 – Program Management: Staffing/Labor Profile (Adjectival)

• Subfactor 1.3 – Program Management: Emerging Requirements Response (Adjectival – Most Significant

PM Subfactor)

• Subfactor 1.4 – Systems Engineering: SE Approach and Methodology (Adjectival)

• Subfactor 1.5 – Systems Engineering: Configuration Management (Pass/Fail)

FACTOR 2: PAST PERFORMANCE (SECOND MOST IMPORTANT)

The Past Performance factor will be evaluated based on:

• Recency Assessment (past 5 years)

• Relevancy Assessment (Program Management, Systems Engineering, Cost/Schedule), using the

10-question model (PM-1–PM-4, SE-1–SE-4, CP-1–CP-2) and Tables 32 through 41.

• Quality Assessment (performance quality on relevant contracts)

• Integrated Performance Confidence Assessment (Substantial, Satisfactory, Limited, No, Unknown)

FACTOR 3: COST/PRICE (LEAST IMPORTANT)

The Cost/Price factor will be evaluated based on:

• Price Reasonableness (all CLINs & Appendix B rates)

• Cost Realism (Cost-Reimbursable and CPAF CLINs only)

• Unbalanced Pricing (all CLINs)

• Total Evaluated Price (TEP) calculation (TPP + MPC adjustments + Data Rights costs)

Figure 1 below illustrates the evaluation factor and subfactor hierarchy, and Figure 2 below illustrates the Technical Subfactor importance.

Figure 1. (U) Evaluation Factor and Subfactor Hierarchy Best Value Decision ├─ Factor 1 – TECHNICAL (Most Important) │ ├─ Subfactor 1.1 – Program Management: Administrative Requirements (Pass/Fail) │ │ ├─ Key Personnel │ │ ├─ Personnel Security Requirements │ │ ├─ Transition Plan │ │ └─ Small Business Participation │ ├─ Subfactor 1.2 – Program Management: Staffing/Labor Profile (Adjectival) │ │ ├─ Staffing Matrices │ │ ├─ Labor Profile Matrices │ │ └─ Narrative Explanation and Alignment │ ├─ Subfactor 1.3 – Program Management: Emerging Requirements Response │ │ (Adjectival – Most Significant PM Subfactor) │ │ ├─ Staffing Approach │ │ ├─ Baseline Performance Protection │ │ ├─ Flexibility and Adaptability │ │ └─ Execution Strategy and Risk Management │ ├─ Subfactor 1.4 – Systems Engineering: SE Approach and Methodology (Adjectival) │ │ ├─ SE Lifecycle Coverage │ │ ├─ Multi-Mission, Multi–Task Order Execution │ │ ├─ Tailoring to HADES-Specific Challenges │ │ ├─ SE Methods, Tools, and Standards │ │ └─ Integration of Cybersecurity and Configuration Management │ └─ Subfactor 1.5 – Systems Engineering: Configuration Management (Pass/Fail) │ ├─ CM Processes, Tools, and Procedures │ ├─ Integration of CM into SE Lifecycle and Operations │ ├─ Support for Multiple Missions and Classification Levels │ └─ CM Roles, Responsibilities, and Interfaces ├─ Factor 2 – PAST PERFORMANCE (Second Most Important) │ ├─ Recency (5-year window) │ ├─ Relevancy (Program Management, Systems Engineering, Cost/Schedule) │ ├─ Quality (Exceptional / Very Good / Satisfactory / Marginal / Unsatisfactory / Not Applicable) │ └─ Performance Confidence Rating │ (Substantial / Satisfactory / Limited / No / Unknown) └─ Factor 3 – COST/PRICE (Least Important) ├─ Price Reasonableness (All CLINs and Appendix B Rates) ├─ Cost Realism (Cost-Reimbursable and CPAF CLINs Only) ├─ Unbalanced Pricing (All CLINs) └─ Total Evaluated Price (TEP) ├─ Total Proposed Price (TPP) ├─ Most Probable Cost (MPC) Adjustments (CR/CPAF CLINs) └─ Data Rights Costs Note: Factor 1 – Technical is the most important factor. Factor 2 – Past Performance is second in importance. Factor 3 – Cost/Price is the least important factor. Technical and Past Performance, when combined, are significantly more important than Cost/Price.

Figure 2. (U) Technical Subfactor Importance Factor 1 – TECHNICAL ├─ Program Management (Subfactors 1.1–1.3) – More Important │ ├─ Subfactor 1.1 – PM: Administrative Requirements (Pass/Fail) │ │ ├─ Key Personnel │ │ ├─ Personnel Security Requirements │ │ ├─ Transition Plan │ │ └─ Small Business Participation │ ├─ Subfactor 1.2 – PM: Staffing/Labor Profile (Adjectival) │ └─ Subfactor 1.3 – PM: Emerging Requirements Response │ (Adjectival – Most Significant PM Subfactor) └─ Systems Engineering (Subfactors 1.4–1.5) – Less Important ├─ Subfactor 1.4 – SE: Approach and Methodology (Adjectival) └─ Subfactor 1.5 – SE: Configuration Management (Pass/Fail)

Note for Figure 2: Within Factor 1 – Technical, the Program Management subfactors (1.1–1.3), when considered together, are more important than the Systems Engineering subfactors (1.4–1.5). Subfactor 1.3 – Emerging Requirements Response is the most significant Program Management subfactor and a primary discriminator within the Technical Factor.

Figure 3. (U) Evaluation Factor Hierarchy

Figure 4. (U) Technical Subfactor Hierarchy

3.3 (U) Factor Descriptions

3.3.1 (U) Factor 1: Technical The Technical factor evaluates the offeror's proposed approach to executing all HADES requirements, including program management strategy, staffing approach, response to emerging requirements, transition planning, and systems engineering methodology. The Technical factor addresses the Offeror's ability to successfully perform the HADES Basic IDIQ PWS (Section J, Attachment 1) and the initial Task Order PWSs.

The Technical factor is divided into five subfactors, consistent with Section L 4.3:

• Subfactor 1.1 – Program Management: Administrative Requirements (Pass/Fail)

• Subfactor 1.2 – Program Management: Staffing/Labor Profile (Adjectival)

• Subfactor 1.3 – Program Management: Emerging Requirements Response (Adjectival – Most Significant

PM Subfactor)

• Subfactor 1.4 – Systems Engineering: SE Approach and Methodology (Adjectival)

• Subfactor 1.5 – Systems Engineering: Configuration Management (Pass/Fail)

3.3.1.1 (U) Subfactor 1.1: Program Management: Administrative Requirements This subfactor assesses whether the Offeror’s proposal addresses four mandatory administrative Program Management requirements:

• Key Personnel: Proposed minimum qualifications, experience, and expertise for the Program Manager, Deputy Program Manager, Chief Engineer, and Cybersecurity Lead.

• Personnel Security Requirements: The Offeror’s approach to recruiting and retaining personnel who can obtain and maintain the required security clearances.

• Transition Plan: The Offeror’s approach to assuming contract responsibilities from the incumbent at the end of the transition period without degradation in mission support.

• Small Business Participation: The Offeror’s Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) and approach to meeting the 25% small business participation requirement with meaningful work of appropriate complexity and variety.

This subfactor describes the Offeror’s ability to meet key administrative prerequisites associated with managing the HADES contract. Detailed evaluation criteria are provided in Section M, paragraph 4.3.1 and Section L 4.3.1.

3.3.1.2 (U) Subfactor 1.2: Program Management: Staffing/Labor Profile This subfactor assesses the adequacy, realism, and alignment of the Offeror's proposed staffing and labor profile with the HADES workload and the proposed technical approach.

The evaluation considers:

• The sufficiency and distribution of labor hours and skill mix across the initial Task Orders.

• The completeness and internal consistency of staffing matrices, labor profile matrices, and narrative explanation (Section L 4.3.2.1–4.3.2.3).

• Consistency and traceability between Volume II (Technical), Volume III (Cost/Price), and the Contractor

Work Breakdown Structure (CWBS).

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s understanding of resource requirements and its ability to staff the baseline effort appropriately across all initial Task Orders. Detailed evaluation criteria are provided in Section M, paragraph

4.3.2 and Section L 4.3.2

3.3.1.3 (U) Subfactor 1.3: Program Management: Emerging Requirements Response This subfactor assesses the Offeror's and the ability to develop and manage a realistic, risk-informed schedule for the Mission X emerging requirement (including baseline and risk-informed dates) while maintaining baseline performance on all ongoing Task Orders.

The Government will use the Mission X MUS Migration scenario (Section L 4.3.3.1–4.3.3.3) to evaluate:

• Staffing Approach: How the Offeror plans to staff up, execute, and staff down the emerging requirement.

• Baseline Performance Protection: Measures, monitoring, and contingencies to all initial Task Orders continue to meet all performance requirements without degradation.

• Execution Strategy, Schedule and Risk Management: The phasing, milestones, schedule realism, risk identification, and mitigation strategies for completing the Mission X migration within the required timeline.

• Flexibility and Adaptability: How the Offeror manages incomplete information, evolving requirements, and technical uncertainty.

3.3.1.4 (U) Subfactor 1.4: Systems Engineering: SE Approach and Methodology This subfactor assesses the Offeror's Systems Engineering (SE) approach and methodology for executing the HADES Basic IDIQ PWS and the initial Task Orders across the full system lifecycle.

The evaluation considers:

• Coverage of the SE lifecycle from concept through sustainment.

• The ability to support multiple simultaneous Task Orders with varying scopes, schedules, and technical complexities.

• Tailoring of SE processes to HADES-specific challenges (multi-mission, multi-level, virtualized infrastructure, partner coordination).

• SE methods, tools, and standards, and how they will be applied.

• Integration of cybersecurity and configuration management into SE activities.

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to apply sound systems engineering principles to support the HADES multi-mission ground system enterprise and achieve HADES goals as defined in the Basic IDIQ PWS. Detailed evaluation criteria are provided in Section M, paragraph 4.3.4 and Section L 4.3.4

3.3.1.5 (U) Subfactor 1.5: Systems Engineering: Configuration Management This subfactor assesses the adequacy of the Offeror's Configuration Management (CM) approach for maintaining configuration control across the HADES ground system infrastructure, operational floors, and missions.

The evaluation considers:

• Processes, tools, and procedures for identifying, baselining, and controlling configuration items;

implementing change control; maintaining configuration status accounting; and conducting configuration audits.

• Integration of CM into the SE lifecycle and operations.

• Support for multiple concurrent missions and Task Orders, including across multiple classification levels.

• CM roles, responsibilities, governance structures, and interfaces with Government and mission partner CM processes.

This subfactor evaluates the Offeror’s ability to maintain effective configuration control in a multi-mission, multi-level environment.