(U) 00. HADES_Section M_20260901_v4.4.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

31 JULY 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

9/1/2026

(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

1.2 (U) Number of Contracts to be Awarded

1.3 (U) Negotiations and Award Determination

1.4 (U) Communications During Evaluation

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

3. (U) EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS

4. (U) TECHNICAL EVALUATION

4.1 (U) Technical Capability Rating Methodology

4.2 (U) Technical Risk Rating Methodology

4.3 (U) Technical Subfactors Criteria (Sec. L 4.3)

4.3.1 (U) Subfactor 1, Program Management Criteria (Sec. L 4.3.1)

4.3.1.1 (U) Staffing/Labor Profile (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) Small Business (Sec. L 4.3.1.3)

4.3.2 (U) Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering Criteria (Sec. L 4.3.2)

4.3.2.1 (U) Systems Engineering Approach and Methodology (Sec. L 4.3.2.1)

4.3.2.2 (U) Hybrid Environment Expertise (Sec. L 4.3.2.2)

4.3.2.3 (U) Cybersecurity and Configuration Management (Sec. L 4.3.2.3)

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)

5.4 (U) Evaluation Areas

5.4.1 (U) Reasonableness

5.4.2 (U) Cost Realism

5.4.3 (U) Unbalanced Pricing

5.5 (U) Reserved

5.6 (U) Insufficient Details

5.7 (U) Consistency

6. (U) PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION

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) Relevancy Assessment Summary iii

UNCLASSIFIED

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) Pre-Award Survey

7.1.3 (U) Information Requests

7.1.4 (U) Non-Responsibility Determination

7.2 (U) Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI)

7.3 (U) Representations and Certifications

7.4 (U) Small Business Subcontracting

7.5 (U) Model Contract

Tables

Table 1. (U) Technical Capability Rating Method Table 2. (U) Technical Risk Ratings Table 3. (U) Cost/Price Evaluation Table 4. (U) Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method Table 5. (U) Summary of Key Elements by Question Table 6. (U) Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings Method

UNCLASSIFIED

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

SSC/SYD89/SDG

Kirtland AFB, NM

9/1/2026

(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 the Revolutionary Federal Acquisition Regulation (RFO) Part 15.2, Source Selection, as supplemented by the Revolutionary Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (R-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 (RFO 2.101). The Government seeks to award this contract to the Offeror that provides the greatest confidence of successfully meeting or exceeding the 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.

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.

1.3 (U) Negotiations and Award Determination The Government intends to make award based on initial proposals without conducting negotiations, in accordance with RFO 15.203. Offerors are highly encouraged to use their best efforts in proposal preparation and to include their very best terms in their offer.

If the Government determines that negotiations are in the Government's best interest, a competitive range will be established in accordance with RFO 15.204. The competitive range will include the group of evaluated proposals that the contracting officer determines are best suited for further negotiation. To promote effectiveness and efficiency the contracting officers may determine that the number of most highly rated proposals that might otherwise be included in the competitive range exceeds the number at which an efficient competition can be conducted. The contracting officer may limit the number of proposals in the competitive range to the greatest number that will permit an efficient competition among the most highly evaluated proposals.

https://www.acquisition.gov/

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 negotiations. Offerors excluded from the competitive range will be notified in writing and may request a debriefing in accordance with RFO 15.206-(1)(a).

1.4 (U) Communications During Evaluation From proposal submission until contract award, all communications regarding this solicitation or evaluation must be directed to the Contracting Officer. All communications must be in writing (email acceptable) unless otherwise specified by the Contracting Officer. Violation of these communication restrictions may result in removal of the proposal from award consideration

2. (U) 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. (U) EVALUATION FACTORS AND SUBFACTORS.

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

• Factor 1: Technical o Subfactor 1: Program Management o 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, Factor 2 (Past Performance) is second most important, and Factor 3 (Cost/Price) is least important. Within the Technical Factor, Subfactor 1 (Program Management) is more important than Subfactor 2 (Systems Engineering). In accordance with RFO 15.104(d), 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 render the proposal unawardable.

4. (U) TECHNICAL EVALUATION.

The Technical evaluation ratings consists of two distinct, but related assessments: the Technical Capability Rating and the Technical Risk Rating. Both 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 (U) Technical Capability Rating Methodology The Technical Capability rating assesses the quality of the Offeror’s proposed approach and the extent to which it demonstrates an understanding of the Government’s requirements for each Technical subfactor. Each technical subfactor will be assigned one of the color ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2A, excerpted below.

Table 1. (U) Technical Capability Rating Method

Color Rating Adjectival Rating Description

Blue Outstanding Proposal demonstrates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements, contains multiple strengths and/or at least one significant strength.

Purple Good Proposal demonstrates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength or significant strength.

Green Acceptable Proposal demonstrates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

UNCLASSIFIED

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

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” and a “deficiency” as stated in the terms below. 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. In accordance with DAFFARS MP5315.3.3.12, the awarded contract document will reflect all beneficial aspects of the awardee’s proposal and all above-minimum attributes, performance levels, or capabilities for which evaluation credit was given in the source selection process (e.g., Purple or Blue Technical rating).

Relevant Definitions (RFO 15.001):

• 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.

4.2 (U) Technical Risk Rating Methodology Assessment of Technical Risk, which is manifested by the identification of weakness(es), considers the potential for disruption of schedule, increased costs, or degradation of performance, the need for increased Government oversight and the likelihood of unsuccessful contract performance. Each Technical subfactor will receive one of the Technical Risk ratings described in DoD Source Selection Procedures, Table 2B, Technical Risk Ratings, excerpted below.

Table 2. (U) Technical Risk Ratings

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

Yellow Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements.

Red Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation and, thus, contains one or more deficiencies and is un-awardable

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness/weaknesses which have low potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Normal contractor emphasis and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may have a moderate potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to have high potential to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost, or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will unlikely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a deficiency or a combination of significant weaknesses that causes an unacceptable level of risk of unsuccessful performance.

UNCLASSIFIED

Relevant Definitions (RFO 15.001):

• Weakness means a flaw in the proposal that increases the risk of unsuccessful contract performance.

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

4.3 (U) Technical Subfactors Criteria (Sec. L 4.3) The Technical subfactor criteria were chosen as illustrative examples of the key challenges associated with executing the HADES Basic IDIQ Performance Work Statement (PWS )(Section J, Attachment 1) and Task Order (TO) PWSs within the HADES environment.

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 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, et seq., below will result in an “unawardable” rating at the subfactor level. Individual criteria in paragraph 4.3.1, et seq., will serve as discriminators among competitive proposals.

4.3.1 (U) Subfactor 1, Program Management Criteria (Sec. L 4.3.1) This subfactor will be evaluated using the Technical Capability ratings (Table 1) and Technical Risk ratings (Table

2) described in Section M 4.1 and 4.2. A Program Management approach that is generic, insufficiently tailored, or inadequately defined for the HADES environment may result in lower Technical Capability ratings and higher Technical Risk ratings for this subfactor.

4.3.1.1 (U) Staffing/Labor Profile (Sec. L 4.3.1.1) The Offeror proposes sufficient and appropriately time-phased labor and expertise to perform the workload as defined by Section L, Attachments (D, E, and F) TO PWSs. The Offeror identifies qualified key personnel and explains how the Offeror intends to efficiently leverage key personnel to execute concurrent requirements across the HADES contract. The Offeror illustrates planned management structures and explains how the structure aligns to staffing/labor profiles.

The Offeror demonstrates a cost effective, agile and comprehensive staffing approach that can be adapted to accommodate an additional Ground System effort.

4.3.1.2 (U) Personnel Security Requirements (Sec. L 4.3.1.2) The Offeror provides a viable plan to recruit and retain employees that can obtain and maintain applicable clearances, to include any relevant clearance processing timelines, cleared staff retention strategies, and contingency planning for clearance-related issues.

4.3.1.3 (U) Small Business (Sec. L 4.3.1.3) The Offeror demonstrates the use of small business participation. Small business Offerors will meet the 25% requirement for small business participation to include the congressionally mandated 5% SDB goal. The 5% SDB goal is included within the 25% requirement, not in addition to. For other than small business Offerors their Small Business Participation Commitment Document will comply with the small business percentage requirement of 25% to include the congressionally mandated 5% SDB goal. The 5% SDB goal is included within the 25% requirement, not in addition to and the Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) 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 total subcontracted value IAW RFO 52.219-9. Small business participation will be calculated at the first-tier subcontract level. The offeror will be evaluated on their planned approach to subcontracting meaningful work to small businesses. The offerors plan for managing small business participation throughout the life of the contract to include their intended remedies for shortfalls in meeting the 25% requirement. No strengths will be awarded for this criterion. All Small Businesses listed in the SBPCD are listed in the Small Business Plan (if applicable) submitted in accordance with R-DFARS 215.104-70(a)(3).

4.3.2 (U) Subfactor 2, Systems Engineering Criteria (Sec. L 4.3.2) This subfactor will be evaluated using the Technical Capability ratings (Table 1) and Technical Risk ratings (Table

2) described in Section M 4.1 and 4.2. A Systems Engineering approach that is generic, insufficiently tailored, or inadequately defined for the HADES environment may result in lower Technical Capability ratings and higher Technical Risk ratings for this subfactor.

UNCLASSIFIED

For this subfactor, the Future Ground System Development PWS evaluation scenario (Bidder’s Library) will be used to assess the scalability, flexibility, and tailoring of the Offeror’s SE processes for a future multi-mission, multi-classification ground system. The Future Ground scenario is not an actual Task Order to be awarded under this solicitation.

4.3.2.1 (U) Systems Engineering Approach and Methodology (Sec. L 4.3.2.1) The Offeror demonstrates a comprehensive and logical approach and methodology to execute the HADES Basic IDIQ PWS (Section J Attachment 1), the initial TO PWSs (Appendices D, E, and F), and the Future Ground System PWS. The approach does not rely on proprietary systems, and if the systems are proprietary, the Government will have Unlimited, or at minimum Government Purpose Rights. The Government will evaluate the Offeror's approach to executing the build up of the future ground system while maintaining baseline performance on all ongoing Task Orders. This evaluation assesses the Offeror's Systems Engineering capability, strategic thinking, flexibility, and realistic approach to developing a ground system. The evaluation will focus on the quality of the Offeror's decision-making process, the reasonableness and feasibility of the proposed approach, and the Offeror's ability to adapt to evolving requirements.

4.3.2.2 (U) Hybrid Environment Expertise (Sec. 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, to include integration of new and replacement hardware/software components into existing environments across multiple Task Orders, systems and mission partners. The identified experience and expertise illustrate logical cost/schedule/performance trade-offs, a focus on system up-time, cost reduction, and rapid response to requirements. The Offeror identifies Ground Systems standards, methods, and tools expected to be used to execute the HADES IDIQ and all TOs.

4.3.2.3 (U) Cybersecurity and Configuration Management (Sec. L 4.3.2.3) The Offeror provides processes that demonstrate their ability to effectively integrate Cybersecurity and Configuration Management across the ground system infrastructure, operational floors, and missions. The Offeror provides sound processes for management of changes to the artifacts, documents, and technical baseline that supports the ground system infrastructure, operational floors, and missions.

UNCLASSIFIED

5. (U) COST/PRICE EVALUATION.

The Cost/Price evaluation will assess each Offeror's proposal for price reasonableness, cost realism, and unbalanced pricing, and will compute a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) for use in the best value trade-off decision. While the TEP will be utilized for evaluation, award will be made using the FFP and the CPAF proposed prices. The Government will evaluate the Cost/Price proposal (Volume III) in accordance with the instructions in Section L, paragraph

5.0 and related appendices (Appendix A – TPP Calculation; Appendix B and C – Labor Rates and Cost Element Summaries). The burden of proof for the credibility and supportability of proposed amounts rests with the Offeror.

In conducting the Cost/Price 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 Total Evaluated Price (TEP), in Table 3, will be presented to the Source Selection Authority only for the purpose of making the best value trade-off decision.

5.1 (U) General Government Cost/Price Evaluation Approach The Offeror’s Cost/Price proposal will be evaluated for reasonableness, cost realism, and unbalanced pricing.

The Future Ground System Development PWS is a technical evaluation scenario only and is excluded from the Cost/Price evaluation. No costs or prices associated with the Future Ground scenario will be included in the Total Proposed Price (TPP) or Total Evaluated Price (TEP), nor will they be considered in the assessment of price reasonableness, cost realism, or unbalanced pricing.

The Government will:

1. Verify that the Offeror’s Total Proposed Price (TPP) is correctly calculated in accordance with Section L

5.3 and Appendix A (TPP Calculation).

2. Develop a Most Probable Cost (MPC) for Cost-Reimbursable (CR) and Cost-Plus-Award-Fee (CPAF) CLINs, based on a cost realism analysis of the Offeror’s proposed costs (Section L 5.4).

3. Compute a Total Evaluated Price (TEP) by combining the Offeror’s TPP, any upward MPC adjustments to CR/CPAF CLINs.

A determination that a proposal is unreasonable in price, not realistic in cost, or presents an unacceptable risk due to unbalanced pricing may render that proposal unawardable. The overall Cost/Price evaluation results will be summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. (U) Cost/Price Evaluation

Item Amount / Assessment

Proposed Total Price: FFP (from Section L, Appendix A, TPP/TEP Computation Table) $

Proposed Total Price: Cost CLINS (CR and CPAF) (from Section L, Appendix A, TPP/TEP Computation Table)

Most Probable Cost Adjustment (Total of Column G from Section L, Appendix A) $

Total Evaluated Price $

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

Realism (Applies only to CR and CPAF CLINs) Narrative / Determination

Presence of Unbalanced Pricing (All CLINs) Narrative / Determination

Note: TBD = To Be Determined | NA = Not Applicable = Not Assessed = No Final Determination.

UNCLASSIFIED

5.2 (U) Total Proposed Price (TPP) The Total Proposed Price (TPP) is the Offeror’s total proposed price for the HADES Basic IDIQ and the initial Task Orders calculated in accordance with Section L 5.3 and Appendix A (TPP Calculation).

5.3 (U) Total Evaluated Price (TEP) The Government will adjust the TPP to incorporate the MPC.

5.4 (U) Evaluation Areas The proposal must contain sufficient details for the Government to evaluate the following Cost/Price areas:

5.4.1 (U) Reasonableness Reasonableness applies to all CLINs and Appendix B labor rates. The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for price reasonableness, which is an assessment of whether the evaluated price is too high. A price is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be paid by a prudent person in the conduct of competitive business (RFO 31.3).

In conducting the reasonableness analysis, the Government may use one or more price analysis techniques, including, but not limited to, those described in RFO 15.404-1. A determination that an Offeror’s Total Evaluated Price or any material portion thereof is unreasonable will render the proposal unawardable. In addition, proposals that have been assessed to be Unacceptable in Technical Capability or Technical Risk (Section M 4.0) are ineligible for award; for such proposals, the Government may elect not to complete a reasonableness determination.

5.4.2 (U) Cost Realism Cost Realism applies to CR and CPAF CLINs only. The Offeror’s proposal will be assessed for cost realism, which 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 (RFO 15.404-2(b)).

The Government will not adjust proposed costs downward for realism; any concern that proposed costs are overstated will be addressed under Price Reasonableness or through negotiations, if held. If the Government determines that an Offeror’s proposed costs are not realistic for the work to be performed, this may result in significant upward MPC adjustments, and/or reduce the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s understanding of the requirements and ability to perform, which may affect the overall best value assessment.

5.4.3 (U) Unbalanced Pricing Unbalanced price applies to all CLINs (FFP, CR, and CPAF). The Government will assess each Offeror’s proposal for the presence of unbalanced pricing in accordance with RFO 15.404. The Government will review CLIN-level prices, including base and option periods, to identify any significant over- or under-statement and will consider the potential impact of such unbalancing on cost risk to the Government, performance risk, and the Government’s ability to exercise options or place orders under the IDIQ. If unbalanced pricing is present, the Government will determine whether it presents an unacceptable risk.

An Offeror’s proposal may be rejected if the SSA determines that the presence of unbalanced pricing presents an unacceptable risk to the Government. As with price reasonableness, the Government may elect not to perform an unbalanced pricing determination for proposals that have already been assessed as Unacceptable in Technical Capability or Technical Risk and are therefore ineligible for award.

5.5 (U) Reserved

5.6 (U) Insufficient Details Insufficient detail to support the determination of price reasonableness, cost realism, or the absence 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 (U) 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 (Volume III) to ensure the information in the former is identical to that in

UNCLASSIFIED

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 TPP and TEP calculation.

Material inconsistencies between the Model Contract and the Cost/Price Volume may increase evaluation risk, require clarification or correction, or contribute to a determination that the proposal is unreasonable or otherwise not in line for award.

UNCLASSIFIED

6. (U) PAST PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

The Past Performance evaluation will result in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s probability of successfully performing the HADES requirements.

6.1 (U) Performance Confidence Ratings The Past Performance factor will receive one of the Performance Confidence Assessment ratings described in the DoD Source Selection Procedures. These ratings reflect the Government’s overall confidence, based on the Offeror’s recent and relevant performance record, that the Offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

6.2 (U) Evaluation Process and Information Sources The Past Performance evaluation will consider each Offeror’s demonstrated recent and relevant record of performance in supplying products and services that meet contract requirements similar to those of HADES. The Government will assess performance confidence at the overall Past Performance factor level after evaluating aspects of the Offeror’s recent past performance that are relevant to the Technical and the Cost/Price Factor, considering their relative importance.

The Government may consider past performance on both an individual contract basis and in the aggregate across multiple contracts. The evaluation will focus on the recency, relevancy, quality, and magnitude of the Offeror’s performance record and will consider performance by the Prime, joint venture partners, and major subcontractors, as appropriate for the work they are proposed to perform on HADES.

In conducting the Past Performance evaluation, the Government reserves the right to use both:

• The information provided in the Offeror’s Past Performance Volume (Volume IV), and

• Information obtained from other sources available to the Government, including, but not limited to:

o Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS).

o Sam.Gov and associated modules o Other Government past performance databases.

o Interviews with Program Managers, Contracting Officers, Fee Determining Officials, and other cognizant officials.

o Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA).

o Commercial or customer references and other credible sources.

The Government is not limited to the contracts or references identified by the Offeror and may consider information on other contracts or efforts known to the Government that are recent and relevant to this acquisition.

6.3 (U) Recency Assessment The Government will assess whether each past performance reference is recent. To be considered “recent”, the performance must be ongoing or have a performance period completion not earlier than five (5) years from the date of issuance of this solicitation.

6.4 (U) Relevancy Assessment The Government will evaluate how closely each recent contract relates to the requirements of this solicitation.

Relevancy considers scope, magnitude of effort, and complexity as they relate to the Technical and Cost/Price factors. The Government will use the Past Performance Questionnaire (Section L, Attachment 1) to assess the relevancy of each contract.

Key elements considered for each question in the Past Performance Questionnaire are summarized in Table 5 below.

These dimensions reflect the aspects of past performance that the Government will emphasize when determining how closely each contract relates to the HADES requirements.

Unless otherwise specified, all elements listed apply to both prime Offeror and all subcontractor team members.

6.4.1 (U) Relevancy Assessment Summary For each recent past performance citation reviewed, the Government will determine the relevance of the work performed for the Technical subfactors and the Cost/Price factor. When assessing relevancy, the Government will use the following relevancy rating method, as excerpted from the DoD Source Selection Procedures.

UNCLASSIFIED

Table 4. (U) Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method

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.

Table 5. (U) Summary of Key Elements by Question

Question ID Area Short Name Key Dimensions Assessed

PM-1 Program Management

Workforce & Resource

Management

Workforce scale and composition; staffing levels and continuity; personnel retention rates;

security clearance requirements; breadth and depth of technical skills; number and complexity of subcontractor relationships managed; capacity to support surge work levels.

PM-2 Program Management

Stakeholder Coordination & Communication

Complexity and diversity of external stakeholder coordination (e.g., Government agencies, other contractors, mission users); responsiveness to emerging requirements; ability to maintain operational continuity during changes; workforce flexibility and agility in reallocating resources.

PM-3 Program Management

Transition Management

Experience with transition-in and/or transition-out activities; ability to maintain mission continuity during transition; transition duration and schedule discipline; level of customer involvement required; quality of documentation and knowledge transfer.

APPLIES TO PRIME OFFEROR ONLY

PM-4 Program Management

Maintenance & Sustainment

System availability and uptime; planned maintenance downtime and its impact; frequency and duration of unplanned outages; effect of sustainment activities on operations; balance of proactive (preventive) versus reactive maintenance.

SE-1 Systems Engineering

Requirements Analysis &

Solution Development

Depth and rigor of requirements analysis; experience with concept exploration and alternative solution development; estimating accuracy for cost, schedule, and performance; feasibility assessment; complexity of systems for which requirements were developed (e.g., multi-mission, software-intensive ground systems).

SE-2 Systems Engineering

Design, Implementation & Integration

Degree of responsibility for creating new designs versus modifying or documenting existing designs; success in implementing designs within cost and schedule objectives; mission-unique software (MUS) development experience; alignment with system architecture; integration complexity, including cloud and/or on-premises environments and external interfaces.

SE-3 Systems Engineering

Test & Problem Resolution

Responsibility for developing versus executing test plans and procedures (unit, integration, system); thoroughness of verification activities; troubleshooting depth (root cause analysis versus symptom treatment); speed and effectiveness of problem resolution; sophistication of problem tracking and analysis (e.g., use of fault trees or structured defect databases).

SE-4 Systems Engineering

Transition to Operations

Quality of transition planning and execution for moving capabilities into operations;

operational impact during and immediately after deployment; completeness and usability of operator documentation; quality and effectiveness of training; post-deployment stability and support.

CP-1 Cost / Schedule

Cost Performance

Contract type (CR versus FFP); contract value and scale; cost variance relative to estimates or baselines; forecasting accuracy; proactive cost management and communication with the customer; extent to which cost issues were identified and addressed early.

CP-2 Cost / Schedule

Schedule Performance

On-time delivery percentage for milestones and deliverables; schedule risk identification and mitigation; effectiveness of recovery actions when delays occurred; sophistication of schedule management (e.g., use of an Integrated Master Schedule, critical path management); degree of customer intervention required to maintain or recover schedule.

UNCLASSIFIED

6.5 (U) Performance Quality Assessment The Government will consider the quality of performance on recent and relevant efforts. The quality assessments provided in the Past Performance Questionnaires will be considered by the Government in determining expectation for successful performance and will be used in arriving at an overall Confidence Assessment rating

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. For this evaluation adverse information 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.

6.6 (U) Performance Confidence: Assignment of Ratings As a result of the Recency, Relevancy, and Quality assessments of the recent contracts evaluated, each Offeror will receive an integrated Performance Confidence Assessment rating in accordance with DoD Source Selection Procedures, excerpted as follows:

Table 6. (U) Performance Confidence Assessments Ratings Method

RATING DEFINITION

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.

NEUTRAL

CONFIDENCE

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

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.

Although the Past Performance evaluation focuses on performance that is relevant to the Technical subfactors and the Cost/Price factor, the resulting Performance Confidence Assessment rating is made at the factor level and represents the Government’s confidence in the Offeror’s ability to meet all solicitation requirements.

More recent and more relevant performance will have a greater impact on the Performance Confidence Assessment than less recent or less relevant performance. A strong record of very relevant, high-quality past performance may be considered more advantageous to the Government than an Neutral 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.

Unknown Confidence (Neutral): 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 “Neutral Confidence” rating for the Past Performance factor.

UNCLASSIFIED

7. (U) CONTRACT DOCUMENTATION.

Volume V proposal documentation will be reviewed to ensure all required information was provided. The documentation supports the Contracting Officer's responsibility determination per RFO 9.1 and eligibility for award.

This review includes contractor responsibility determination criteria, Organizational Conflicts of Interest (OCI) disclosures and other information required by Section L.

7.1 (U) Contractor Responsibility Determination

7.1.1 (U) Overview Per RFO 9.104, the Contracting Officer will make an affirmative responsibility determination before award. This determination is separate from and independent of the Section M proposal evaluation. The assessment evaluates whether the apparent successful offeror has the capability, capacity, and integrity to successfully perform contract requirements. An Offeror must be determined responsible to be eligible for award, regardless of technical or past performance ratings.

7.1.2 (U) Pre-Award Survey If the Contracting Officer has concerns about an offeror's responsibility, a pre-award survey may be by DCMA, DCAA, or other Government personnel (RFO Companion Guide FC 9.105-1 Preaward surveys). Offerors must cooperate fully with pre-award survey activities and provide requested information promptly. Failure to cooperate may result in a non-responsibility determination.

7.1.3 (U) Information Requests The Contracting Officer may request additional information to support the responsibility determination. Such requests are not negotiations and do not indicate establishment of a competitive range. Offerors must respond within the specified timeframe. Failure to respond or submission of inadequate information may result in a non-responsibility determination.

7.1.4 (U) Non-Responsibility Determination If the Contracting Officer determines an offeror is non-responsible, the offeror will be notified in writing. For small business offerors, the matter will be referred to the SBA for a Certificate of Competency (COC) determination per RFO 19.204, if applicable.

7.2 (U) Organization Conflicts of Interest (OCI) The offerors must submit a OCI mitigation plan, if they have identified an OCI. The plan will need to be in compliance with the OCI checklist and provide a feasible approach to mitigate identified OCI.

7.3 (U) Representations and Certifications Offerors must complete all required representations and certifications in accordance with RFO 52.204-8, Annual Representations and Certifications. Most representations and certifications are completed annually in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) and are incorporated into proposals by reference. Offerors must ensure their SAM.gov registration is current and that all representations and certifications are complete and accurate as of the proposal submission date.

7.4 (U) Small Business Subcontracting The Small Business Participation Commitment Document (SBPCD) will be evaluated under M 4.3.1.3. A separate submission of the SBPCD under this section is not required. The Small Business Subcontracting plan will be incorporated into a subsequent award.

7.5 (U) Model Contract Deficiencies in the Model Contract, see Section L, Section 7.1 et seq., may result in the proposal being determined non-compliant and ineligible for award. Minor deficiencies may be corrected through clarifications or negotiations (if held).

This Page is Intentionally Left Blank